VOTE '08

Change. The word has been sprawled across banners and signs, diluted speeches and debates and invaded our ad space and bumper stickers. According to The New York Times it was used a whopping 119 times between the two conventions in August and September-more than any other single word.

But the question remains whether change is enough to excite voters-particularly young voters-come Nov. 4.

If the nearly record-breaking primary attendance nationally is any indication, there will be a change, even if North Carolina's youth turnout represents only 15 percent of eligible young voters. Why some students are choosing not to vote and what that choice means for the election may just be the question that decides the White House.

Amid the hysterical political atmosphere are the nonvoters, those choosing to abstain from this All-American rite. So just what is the psyche of the nonvoter? Truth be told, there isn't much about this group that is predictable. But one thing seems common across the board-their inability to find something (or someone) in Washington, D.C. to relate to.

Behold senior Hamp Beachum. He likes politics. He reads the right newspapers, keeps track of all the polls. And he doesn't plan to vote. Beachum is not necessarily unique on this campus or on campuses around the country, either for his choice not to vote or for his reasons why. Beachum considers himself a social liberal and fiscal conservative, a libertarian of sorts. When it comes to the issues, he doesn't feel all that comfortable with either candidate for president.

"I'm a pretty political sort of guy, interestingly enough," he says. "I'm not apathetic at all. I am apathetic about the candidates and the parties."

Beachum believes he is fulfilling his duty as a citizen by not voting.

"I disagree with people who say that the decision must be a 'yes' decision," he says. "I am actively making a decision."

A search on Facebook.com of Dukies identifying themselves as politically apathetic returns 368 hits, including undergraduates, graduate students, staff and alumni.

Jason Hsu, a junior, identifies himself as apathetic, though he does plan on voting in November.

"It's not that I don't care about politics or what the government does and how it affects my life," he explains. "It's more like when election time comes around, I'll look into it and find a policy that suits me."

Hsu attributes some of his political disinterest to the relatively stable political atmosphere of his childhood through the '90s.

Because social issues relevant to young voters rarely seemed to cross paths with the major political issues followed in elections, he has never gained an interest in changes in the political scene.

"You should vote because you know what the policies are, because you've done the research," he says. "I don't consider myself politically knowledgeable."

Raw numbers suggest that nonvoters are not as rare as they may seem.

The 2004 presidential election marked an increase in youth voter turnout, yet still represented only about 50 percent of eligible young voters-more than 20 million of 42 million, according to data collected by the Young Democrats of America. North Carolina's presidential primary represented only 15 percent of the state's eligible youth voters, and that was one of the better turnouts, matching Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and Florida, but falling just shy of states like California, Texas and South Carolina.

Duke's story is a bit more nuanced. With about 13,000 undergraduate and graduate student voters enrolled, turnout at the polls has historically been low, says Gunther Peck, an associate professor of history and public policy.

Curious about voter turnout on campuses around the state of North Carolina, Peck organized an informal study of turnout for students registered in North Carolina from four different campuses.

The results of his study showed Duke with the lowest turnout-only 11 percent-as opposed to the 19-, 24- and 17-percent turnouts from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina Central University and North Carolina State University, respectively. And that's not mentioning the turnout in the 2004 presidential election, where 80 percent of NCCU's registered student body turned up to vote compared to Duke's 50-to-55 percent.

The story is the same with donations.

Although Duke follows suit with a number of top universities of the northeast and elsewhere in its almost unanimous support of the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, in the form of campaign donations, the strength of that support pales in comparison.

This year, Duke's 27708 zip code raised $7,500 in political contributions-only one-sixth as much as the average American zip code and pennies in comparison to Stanford University's $505,000 or Yale University's $18,000, according to information gathered by OpenSecrets.org.

Duke's $7,500 does, however, take out a few competitors, including UNC-CH, Dartmouth University and Cornell University.

Although Harvard University cannot be used for comparison because its zip code also includes areas of Cambridge, it's notable that the university as an organization is one of only two universities to be listed by OpenSecrets as a top campaign contributor to Obama, donating a total of $474,000, just behind Goldman Sachs, the University of California system and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Needless to say, Duke did not make the list.

But Professor Peck is quick to note the paradoxes the numbers present. Despite low turnout, Duke students were some of the most active in the Triangle prior to the primary, he says, adding that student leaders worked to organize busing from campus to early voting sites and have been posting on campus since the spring to register fellow students.

"There have been over 1,500 new registrants from Duke alone," he says. "That's huge."

In addition, Peck points out that Duke students have never had a voting site on campus-an advantage each of the other North Carolina schools included in his study have.

As a result, for the first time ever, this year's presidential election will feature an on-campus early voting site and Peck is hoping it's enough to catch Duke up.

"I wish students were as civic-minded as they should be," he says. "The issues on the table are going to affect students the most, so they have every reason to be involved."

Like it or not, political apathy in young voters is no new phenomenon. Remembering the massive demonstrations on Chapel Quad or Allen Building sit-ins of the decades past, we are gifted with nostalgia for a time when young voters were able to shape an entire course of events for our nation.

But in our post-draft world where the issues, to many students, seem distant and uninteresting, apoliticism is not only expected, it's rational, says James Hamilton, a professor of public policy, political science and economics and director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy.

"The probability that you are a decisive voter is very tiny, it's a very small number-even in a very close election," he says. "The net benefits of voting would be negative from an investment perspective."

The effort a voter would have to put in to educate himself and then go through the steps of voting-registering, going to the polls, etc.-in the end are greater than the weight of that person's vote.

This theory, appearing in Hamilton's recent book "All the News That's Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information into News," governs a number of phenomena in the way citizens approach politics and the media. Because the costs of information are too high to make being informed the rational choice, voters theoretically should not vote, Hamilton says.

What motivates some voters to make the trip to the polls, then, is not based on rationality, but on what Hamilton calls "consumption acts." When voters think about voting as an expression of identity, citizenship, duty or fandom, they get more out of voting than casting the make-or-break vote.

"It's like watching Duke basketball," Hamilton explains. "You get utility from expressing yourself."

We may not be the rioting and protesting student body of 1976, but look back and you will see something of ourselves in the Duke student body of early 1991, as the Persian Gulf War began to take full form led by President George H.W. Bush. In the 1988 presidential election, red was the color of choice on campus-and in most of the nation, considering George Sr.'s 40 electoral college votes-but by 1991, doubts about the war seemed to creep onto campus.

Guest and student columns and campus speakers all called for a more peaceful alternative to the war in early decade Chronicle issues, many suggesting that sanctions would work and that the use of force would be unnecessary and divisive for the American people.

But it wasn't until another thing happened that the elder Bush's overwhelming approval ratings began to decline, foreshadowing what was to come in the 1992 election. What was that thing? You guessed it-the economy.

"In response to numerous requests, and in recognition of his desert achievements, George Bush's purse, in both the dress and camouflage models will be retired temporarily. at least until the education, recession, homelessness, health care, energy policy, Neil Bush and other chickens come home to roost," reads one comic from a March 8, 1991 issue of The Chronicle.

There was an overwhelming sense that as the war was waged, issues at home were forgotten, says Dean Gerald Wilson.

And that is not too different from the situation Republicans find themselves in today. If not the war or health care or taxes, economic policy may be the thing that pushes traditionally disinterested voters out the door just as it did in 1992, the year when North Carolina recorded its second-highest voter turnout since 1972.

"[Bush Sr.] absolutely neglected the economy," says Wilson, an adjunct professor of history. "[President Bill] Clinton volunteers had signs on their desks saying, 'It's the economy, stupid.' The war is distant, ever-present-but distant. But now there's a danger of no jobs."

Wilson notes that each election seems to present a trade-off between social and economic issues. When the economy is good, voters have the liberty of voting according to the social issues most important to them.

When the economy is not good, however, voters are more likely to put social issues aside in favor of choosing an economic plan that best seems to address their immediate financial concerns.

Peck adds that many efforts were made to ensure high youth voter turnout throughout the 80s and 90s but that most of them had disappointing returns. This year will be different, he says.

"[I heard from another professor] that once Wall Street crashed a lot of students were suddenly up in arms," Peck notes. "The self-interested part that makes this election more important is kicking in."

Whether the economy is enough to get young voters out is a question many political experts can't help but ask. For Obama supporters, there is hope that young voters may be the only defense against the Bradley effect- that they'll see in the 47-year old candidate something young, fresh and vibrant.

Supporters of Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, may bet on the college students of middle to upper-middle class backgrounds to follow the youth tradition of conservative fiscal values to sway the youth vote back toward the red.

Whatever happens, we can be sure that voters and nonvoters alike will be shaping the future of our country in their decision to act and make a choice.

Or in their decision not to.