The Disenfranchised Electorate: How Socioeconomic Status and Age Suppress Youth Voter Turnout

Exercising the right to vote is one of the most efficient ways to implement your opinion in local and national government. Even with the freedom to vote and the ability to influence local and national elections, many people are still unaware of the impact and change that comes with voting, particularly young voters. Uncovering this phenomenon illustrates the intersection between socioeconomic status, age, and the political structures that shape the political landscape of the United States.

Socioeconomic status and class structures stand out as one of the most powerful predictors of voter turnout, especially regarding young Americans. Many factors sway people from electoral participation, but one of the most profound systemic factors can be seen in low-income youth. To understand the dynamic, one must consider the intertwined factors of income, education, and broader social inequalities that are experienced daily by many Americans.

According to CBS’s exit poll from the U.S. 2024 presidential election, the 18-24 age group only made up 8% of the poll, despite representing approximately 12% of the population. This gap numerically represents the growing crisis in youth political engagement. While the 18-24-year-old voters, who made up 8% of voters overall for the 2024 election, were not assessed on their socioeconomic status, trends regarding income favor the idea that household income is correlated with voter turnout. Capital One reports the median salary for 18-19 year olds to be $32,552 and $39,104 for 20-24 year olds. Income generally increases with age, reflecting broader access to professional employment and stability. 

Income, however, only represents one side of a very multifaceted coin. With education and occupation being core elements of one's socioeconomic status, these factors play a role in voter participation. Higher education correlates with stronger political and civic engagement. Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to feel a sense of civic duty and responsibility, possessing local means to vote, and having the political knowledge to understand the stakes elections hold. 

These factors influence how people engage with their community, whether or not they express their opinions, and how they are represented. According to statistics from the U.S. 2024 presidential election, 42% of the population making under $50,000 did not vote, compared to the 16% who did. Compared to the population of citizens making $100,000 or more, 27% did not vote, and 58% did. Youth are not only affected by their parents and upbringing, but also their socioeconomic status, on top of that. The link between financial security and political engagement is clear: the more economically stable a person is, the more likely they are to participate. 

When witnessing the large disparity between income and voter turnout, youth are particularly at risk of subjection to a lack of representation and civic engagement. Low-income youth, in particular, encounter these challenges at an amplified level. Many young people are influenced by their parents' or guardians' relationship to voting. This relationship, in turn, leads to a lower trend of youth voting because their parents are not. Many young people are facing major transitional periods – from college to first jobs and financial independence, there is a lot to get wrapped up in, particularly considering the greater economic instability that older generations did not have. With lower-income groups' lack of voter turnout, we see a direct effect in the polls. Higher-income groups with access to more education and civic education tend to perform better at the polls, influencing their children's civic engagement. But why does this matter? With the lack of representation in the polls, an accurate display of citizens' political interests is skewed. 

The consequences of missing the youth vote are profound, especially considering the underrepresentation of low-income youth. With this underrepresented population, democracy itself becomes weak. Elections come to represent the views of the older, wealthier, and often less diverse sector of the population. This, in turn, imbalances the people and policies that are elected and prioritized, often overlooking marginalized communities. 

Addressing this requires a multifaceted approach; first, improving civic education, particularly in underfunded schools, is crucial. Policy changes that make voting more accessible – from same-day registration, automatic registration, to expanded early voting – could remove significant barriers for voting for young and low-income voters.

Cultural shifts are essential in reframing the system to be more democratic as well. Voting must be reframed as a collective, empowering act rather than an individual burden. Community based initiatives fostering political engagement among young voters, peer mentoring programs, and public campaigns that highlight the power of the youth vote can all help shift the attitude and stigma that can often surround voting. 

With the influence that elections bring to their citizens, each citizen should be represented equally. The disparities in voter turnout, specifically in younger generations, are extreme. With such a wide gap in age and socioeconomic status, democracy and representation are at risk. If younger, low-income individuals continue to experience voter disenfranchisement, the future of politics will continue to favor a smaller, more elite group of individuals. Ensuring that voting is equally representative of our country is something that will secure a more representative, vibrant, and resilient political structure that will continue to hold up for generations to come.