Study finds Milennials dislike both parties

[Antigone]

C'mon America, get thyself a third party!

Millennials don’t have much confidence in either of the two major political parties. When asked who they trust most to handle a series of issues, neither Democrats nor Republicans receive a majority of support on any of the 15 issues surveyed. Instead pluralities say they trust “neither” party to handle 12 of the 15 issues.

Source

 

[wondrousgnat]

I have no doubt that both parties will sell out to whoever contributes to them the most. I trust neither one to even attempt to try to keep their words. And I believe that the political commentators are often knowingly distorting lying.

 

[MikeK]

I like the millennials. The kids are alright. In spite of them growing up with easy access to internet inappropriate contentography, an alerted entitlement mindset and more single-parent homes than ever before, they seem less prone to sexual and financial hang-ups than my generation and they are surprisingly diciplined in the workplace.

 

[Genersis]

Unfortunately, I think it more likely voter turn-out will plummet, until a party with anti-establishment/anti-political class/anti-elitism, and populist leaning surfaces with such vague political stances that it revives broad support just for it's rhetoric.
An Angry Party.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I like the millennials. The kids are alright. In spite of them growing up with easy access to internet inappropriate contentography, an alerted entitlement mindset and more single-parent homes than ever before, they seem less prone to sexual and financial hang-ups than my generation and they are surprisingly diciplined in the workplace.

Can you explain what "sexual and financial hang-ups" means?

 

[MikeK]

Can you explain what "sexual and financial hang-ups" means?

Better debt management and reduced credit card use and balances, according to FICO.

They are also slightly more likely to believe in hell and more likely to be certain that God exists than their GenX predecessors, according to PEW Research. The rightwing mainstream media that controls the news doesn't report on things like these very often because they generally prefer to sell fear to stupid people rather than clearly and honestly communicate truth.

I also recently read studies at work indicating that on a per-exposure basis, millenials were less likely to struggle with inappropriate content addiction than their predecessors. While there is more inappropriate content available and there are more inappropriate content addicts, the percent of this generation that moves to addiction from exposure or experimentation is lower, indicating a better preparation and ability to effectively deal with the stuff, which isn't going away any time soon. Another interesting study detailed that millenials are markedly less interested in the pursuit of material goods like fancy cars and homes than previous generations, with a reduced interest in material goods across the board, excepting tech products.

 

[contango]

Unfortunately, I think it more likely voter turn-out will plummet, until a party with anti-establishment/anti-political class/anti-elitism, and populist leaning surfaces with such vague political stances that it revives broad support just for it's rhetoric.
An Angry Party.

It's always alarming when huge numbers of people don't bother to cast a vote at all.

I remember during one of the elections in the UK a number of political commentators noted how the opposition party of the day didn't need to convince a single government supporter to change sides, they just needed to get something like 10% of the no-shows of the previous election to get out and vote for the opposition.

I'd really like to see a "none of the above" or "re-open nominations" option on ballot papers. If you don't like any of the candidates you vote for "none of the above", and if "none of the above" gets a majority then the election is void.

I'd also like to see a simple addition to ballot papers so that after you vote for your candidate you have to select one of their major policies from a list. If you get that wrong your vote is invalidated. That's purely to stop people voting for a candidate because "he has a nice smile" or "she's such a nice person" or "it's about time we had a female President" or "I don't want no stinkin' (racial slur) in the White House" or whatever else isn't based on the policies on offer.

It would also be good if an election was only valid if a certain proportion of those eligible to vote actually cast a validated vote. So if you do a bit of rabble-rousing to get people to vote without knowing who has what policies it does you no good. If more than half of the eligible voters stay home the election is void and has to be restarted. And if enough people say "I don't want any of these people representing me" the election is void and has to be restarted.

Alternatively if more people decided to vote out career politicians things might change. As they saying goes, make your politicians work - don't re-elect them.

 

[wondrousgnat]

Less financial hangups? Is that a good thing? It seems to me the youth are more willing to borrow for anything. It looks to me like excessive materialism. Denying themselves nothing. Today's starter home is better than my generation's dream retirement home.

 

[RDKirk]

Less financial hangups? Is that a good thing? It seems to me the youth are more willing to borrow for anything. It looks to me like excessive materialism. Denying themselves nothing. Today's starter home is better than my generation's dream retirement home.

Millennials are not yet buying starter homes.

I don't see Millennials as being anywhere near as borrow-crazy or as materialistic as we Boomers were in the 80s and 90s. Most aren't able to borrow (otherwise they'd likely not be living with their parents).

The Millennials I see tend to have a couple of areas they excess a bit on--such as info connectivity--and usually have quite modest tastes in most other things: Nice cell phone, yes; car, meh. Starbucks budget, yes; furniture, meh.

In the 80s and 90s, Boomers expected to have it all. Millennials have lower expectations.

 

[RDKirk]

I'd really like to see a "none of the above" or "re-open nominations" option on ballot papers. If you don't like any of the candidates you vote for "none of the above", and if "none of the above" gets a majority then the election is void.

That would be easily done at the primary level, and should be. It's not necessary at the general election level. If the party has accurately picked their best possible candidate, then the general election will be a matter of which party has the most attractive platform.

I'd also like to see a simple addition to ballot papers so that after you vote for your candidate you have to select one of their major policies from a list. If you get that wrong your vote is invalidated. That's purely to stop people voting for a candidate because "he has a nice smile" or "she's such a nice person" or "it's about time we had a female President" or "I don't want no stinkin' (racial slur) in the White House" or whatever else isn't based on the policies on offer.

No, that would be an indirect "test" that doesn't really test what you want it to.

Because it's been popular lately for candidates to downplay their party affiliation, especially below the national level. It would be easy for a voter to be fairly well versed in what the candidate says he stands for and not clear what party he belongs to.

It would also be good if an election was only valid if a certain proportion of those eligible to vote actually cast a validated vote. So if you do a bit of rabble-rousing to get people to vote without knowing who has what policies it does you no good. If more than half of the eligible voters stay home the election is void and has to be restarted. And if enough people say "I don't want any of these people representing me" the election is void and has to be restarted.

That's counter productive from even your own intentions. If all your suggestions here were put into place, it would force a government shutdown because most people in society won't ever be as smart and diligent as you want them to be.

 

[contango]

The Millennials I see tend to have a couple of areas they excess a bit on--such as info connectivity--and usually have quite modest tastes in most other things: Nice cell phone, yes; car, meh. Starbucks budget, yes; furniture, meh.

Is that a matter of not caring about cars and furniture in particular, or figuring they can't afford nice furniture because it's expensive and not thinking that their overpriced coffee every morning is costing them north of $1000 every year?

 

[contango]

That would be easily done at the primary level, and should be. It's not necessary at the general election level. If the party has accurately picked their best possible candidate, then the general election will be a matter of which party has the most attractive platform.

I suppose a lot would depend on exactly how elections are conducted in any particular country.

No, that would be an indirect "test" that doesn't really test what you want it to.

Because it's been popular lately for candidates to downplay their party affiliation, especially below the national level. It would be easy for a voter to be fairly well versed in what the candidate says he stands for and not clear what party he belongs to.

Perhaps, but if a voter is well versed in what the candidate says he stands for they are still streets ahead of the voter who just decides that it's about time some particular group was represented and voted based on that alone.

That's counter productive from even your own intentions. If all your suggestions here were put into place, it would force a government shutdown because most people in society won't ever be as smart and diligent as you want them to be.

I'm not expecting people to have advanced qualifications in politics, just to know a little about what their chosen candidate actually stands for. If, for example, someone thought George W Bush was in favour of increased death taxes or that Barack Obama was in favour of widening the scope of the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to own working artillery weapons, one might ask whether they actually have any idea who they are voting for. Such a vote would then be treated as if it were cast because "George Bush is a good Christian man" or "it's about time we had a black President".

 

[RDKirk]

Is that a matter of not caring about cars and furniture in particular, or figuring they can't afford nice furniture because it's expensive and not thinking that their overpriced coffee every morning is costing them north of $1000 every year?

The outside influences matter.

Take a look at the difference between the War Generation and their parents. The parents of the War Generation was the Roaring Twenties generation.

The US changed dramatically after WWI. Post WWI was a time of rising prosperity, world power, and new-found technology--similar in many ways to the post-WWII social environment of the Boomers.

But Millennials are in a social environment that has more similarities to that of the War Generation: Childhood in an economic collapse, growing into adulthood during a time of war.

 

[contango]

The outside influences matter.

Take a look at the difference between the War Generation and their parents. The parents of the War Generation was the Roaring Twenties generation.

The US changed dramatically after WWI. Post WWI was a time of rising prosperity, world power, and new-found technology--similar in many ways to the post-WWII social environment of the Boomers.

But Millennials are in a social environment that has more similarities to that of the War Generation: Childhood in an economic collapse, growing into adulthood during a time of war.

It's always hard to know whether people don't buy the big ticket items because they don't feel confident to borrow the money they need to buy them, or because their "lifestyle preferences" soak up all their cash and they can't afford them because of a different sense of priorities.

I'm in my 40s and it's surprising how many people have expressed surprise that I drive an old car, given I could easily afford a new one. Then they see the other things I do spend money on, and struggle to comprehend it. I don't use my car much, which is why it's of little concern that it's falling apart. When it packs up completely I'll look for another one.

 

[Wolseley]

C'mon America, get thyself a third party!



Source

Most of us would love having a viable third (fourth---fifth---sixth) party; but as long as the Republicans and the Democrats are in control of the election laws, it'll never happen. They have manipulated the system to protect their own grip on power.

Imagine that.

 

[Antigone]

Most of us would love having a viable third (fourth---fifth---sixth) party; but as long as the Republicans and the Democrats are in control of the election laws, it'll never happen. They have manipulated the system to protect their own grip on power.

Imagine that.

What's to stop you from forming a true Catholic party? If you get a foot in in Congress, you'll start looking at senate races, and once that's done even the presidency is an option. Christian Democrat parties are very common in Europe and they do just fine.