Told to ‘Go Get Hung’?
This one is not about religion, I promise.
Among the things that I’ve been reading up on lately are young people’s attitudes to politics, media, and citizenship. Most of the information that I have to date is from the UK, but what I’ve been able to find on Australia so far suggests that many of the same issues are relevant here as well.
For some years now, there has been a concern across Western capitalist democracies that young people are increasingly disinterested in politics, and less likely to become politically or civically engaged. It seems that when this is examined more closely it is not a new phenomenon and it’s really only the political system that they have lost trust in, and party politics that they don’t much care for.
What’s more, it is not just young people. We tend to focus on young people in a form of moral panic about society going to pot (sometimes literally), but when you look more closely at that, whatever we panic about when focusing on young people is usually only a reflection of what is going on in the wider society.
This post is not a dry run for the paper that I’m working on, just some notes from the readings that I’ve been doing because when you take these factors into account and look at trends beyond our shores, the current situation in Australia, where it seems we might end up with a hung parliament, kind of makes sense.
In the UK, where voting is not compulsory, large numbers of people simply do not vote. Voting is compulsory here in Australia, but in yesterday’s election, more than half a million people voted informally. Most commentators take this as voters being too stupid to know how to fill out a voting paper, or having trouble with English if it is in an area of high migration, or any number of explanations that assume people did not understand what they were doing. What they rarely consider is that informal voting in a compulsory system may be a very rational decision.
At least in the UK, the people who don’t vote also tend to avoid political coverage and, particularly among the young, are disillusioned and often cynical. Sometimes a bit hard to avoid political coverage in Australia, but how often have you heard people say that they don’t follow politics. Research suggests that there are a number of reasons for these attitudes.
A major reason is a feeling that politicians and the political system are unresponsive to the interests of voters. This basically boils down to questioning the value of getting involved or taking an interest when nothing the individual can do, and increasingly nothing collective action can do, seems to make any difference to the policies adopted. Voters don’t even always blame governments for this, or at least not directly. They are not stupid and can see that the interests of global capital pull the strings and are the ones that governments serve. In this case, it can seem that it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the result will ultimately be the same and minor parties probably don’t have any more chance of standing up against the forces of the big corporations than do the major parties.
Which comes to another of the reasons people give for their disengagement: the feeling that there is so little to differentiate the parties that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, or indeed if you vote. Both major parties have tried so hard to ‘capture the middle’ in recent years that they’ve abandoned what used to be their core principles and constituencies. There are reasons given in the research for this to do with the way party politics is now run, but I won’t go into that in full here.
They do lead to some of the other reasons given though. Many people feel that politicians are out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. This is certainly not new in Australia and is often cited as the reason that Pauline Hanson initially garnered so much support. Their lifestyles and interests seem to be completely different to those of the people they claim to represent, but sometimes they seem to live in completely different worlds. One of the researchers that I’ve been reading notes that the language of government is all about business and markets and is disconnected from many ordinary people who do not believe that some things, like healthcare for instance, are best handled as markets.1
The media comes in for a share of the blame too. Politics is treated as a horse race, and coverage of campaigns focus on the strategies of the parties rather than on the policies or what the parties stand for. US research has shown that people do not like negative campaigns.2 Some want a good, all in political debate of the issues, but a lot just want a concise, positive, summary of what the candidates stand for so that they don’t have to sift through the detail but have enough information to make a decision. The same research found that those people most likely to be turned off parties by negative campaigns were the ones who were most disaffected. In Australia, this translates to the ‘middle’ that both parties are scrambling to win over.
Another complaint sometimes leveled against media is that all the attention is on the nation’s capital, and local issues are largely ignored. Local news doesn’t seem to be undergoing the same decline as mainstream news.
In view of the above situation, some people just don’t feel that they are well enough informed to make a meaningful decision at the ballot box. The ones who feel like this tend to have lower levels of education and fewer networks and resources to help them to become informed and engaged. Neither our politicians nor our media are doing anything to help address this situation at present.
There is some interesting research out there. I’ve just touched on a few of the common points in what I’ve read so far. Those of us who are interested in politics and live our lives in echo chambers of like-minded people too frequently ignore the reasoning of those who claim not to follow or have an interest in politics. Worse still, we sometimes write them off as being less intelligent than us. Bad move. In many ways people who disengage from the system or decide to vote informally are making a very rational choice and expressing their valid judgment of the state of politics in this country.
So, we might end up with a hung parliament. Is that really such a bad thing if it forces us to take a good hard look at ourselves and start listening to voters rather than trying to scare or seduce them?
1 Wayne, Mike, Julian Petley, Craig Murray and Lesley Henderson. Television News, Politics and Young People: Generation Disconnected? Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
2 Lipsitz, Keena, Christine Trost, Matthew Grossmann, and John Sides (2005), Political Communication, Vol. 22, pp. 337-354.
Your Comments
John writes:
And before people start bleating about the “Latham Effect,” I saw plenty of people advocating a deliberate informal vote long before that idiot arrived on the scene.
Posted: 22 08 2010 - 09:56 | Permanent link to this comment
John Bensley writes:
The informal vote count is a remarkable figure, especially because it appears to be an almost all time high.
However, if 618,435 people voted informally, which is 5.64% (as of Sunday), that means that slightly more than 94% did vote correctly. This high figure seems like a reasonably good indicator of something like political participation.
In contrast, another interesting and related statistic is the percentage of people who are actually registered to vote (in our “compulsory” voting system).
ABS estimates of population released on the 12th of August this year reveal that there are estimated to be 16,887,700 residents between the ages 18 and 70+. The AEC published statistics on the enrolled population on the 18th August which revealed that there were 14,088,260 eligible voters in this election. This means that only 83% of the eligible resident population are actually enrolled to vote. In other words, 17% of residents aren’t even registered to vote.
When you add the 5.64% who didn’t vote to the 17% who couldn’t vote, that means that almost 1 in 4 people who live in the country did not positively contribute to the election process – a staggering figure.
Posted: 23 08 2010 - 14:15 | Permanent link to this comment
Lisa writes:
I imagine it would be slightly lower than that John, because there would be a small percentage of the population excused from voting because of illness, metal disability, dementia, etc.
Still, with those sorts of numbers it is pretty clear that people are either opting out or choosing not to opt in in the first place for one reason or another. I personally know of cases of people who have not voted formally for years. They are intelligent people who have very deliberately decided to do this as a form of political protest, in one case usually writing the reason for the informal vote on the ballot paper.
I actually find the current situation very encouraging. Nor do I think that it is necessarily an indication of greater disengagement (as distinct from disaffection) or a sign that people are not contributing positively in any way to the political process. If handled properly (and there is no guarantee that this will happen), we might see the kind of debate and negotiation and willingness to listen to the needs of the electorate that should be part of our political process. If politicians take a lead and drag the media along with them, we just might eventually get beyond the situation where a significant portion of people indicate fairly clearly that they don’t want any of the current options.
Posted: 23 08 2010 - 20:05 | Permanent link to this comment
Sam writes:
On the role of the media in the election coverage, there is some degree of difficulty for journalists in getting the balance between covering the minor parties and the horse race style coverage of the major parties.
On one hand it is the media’s role to provide the public with information about the minor parties and give them the best, unbiased information about how to vote in the election as possible.
On the other hand, the major parties are ultimately the ones who will for government and opposition, and so really they are the ones from whom most of the information put in the news should come.
On top of that, the news needs to give the people what they want as well as what they need, and traditionally this means the more human interest elements like Tony Abbott racing a cart, Julia Gillard playing football, or how each leader dealt with the haunting Mark Latham.
I’m not trying to defend the media in their pretty pathetic coverage this election, but I suspect that the reason the coverage was so substandard was because they were just following the rulebook and it didn’t work this time. Hopefully journalists and their editors will learn from this experience and we’ll see the media play a more useful role in the next election.
Posted: 30 08 2010 - 12:17 | Permanent link to this comment
Lisa writes:
@Sam. Sometimes a human element is important. Maybe if we had seen more of the human Rudd – the one that said sorry to Australia’s Indigenous people, the one who spoke to the media when deposed – he would still be leader. We need our politicians to be human, not bureaucrats.
What I mean by a horse race is a focus on political strategy, one-uppmanship, and personal competitiveness between the party heads instead of covering the policies and their implications and where elected members stand on various issues and why.
And granted, it is not all media to blame for this. Political parties have found it more convenient to manage spin than to make an effort to really explain their decisions, although there have been times when they have tried and failed because the mainstream news media deals mostly in sound bites and sensationalism.
Mainstream parties are not the only ones guilty of this. I was a member of the Democrats when the party imploded, a process that started with centralising policy processes and manoeuvring for political gain instead of standing firm for their basic principles.
Posted: 2 09 2010 - 12:14 | Permanent link to this comment
Matthew Smith writes:
At least two of my coworkers didn’t vote citing that none of the parties stood for anything they cared about. The debate in our office lunchroom prior to the election was about which party was least idiotic (including the Greens) and a few people said they intended to lodge a blank ballot.
Posted: 6 09 2010 - 21:42 | Permanent link to this comment