Although, a day before the election, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the nation will be painted blue or red, we can be assured that almost half of the nation’s eligible voters will fail to dip their brushes into the paint bucket.

Voting in presidential elections has been in a fairly steady decline over the last half-century; from a high of nearly 63% turnout in 1960, the number of Americans who cast a ballot on Election Day has hovered around the 50% mark the past two elections, dropping below half in 1996 for the first time since 1924. Is America in a crisis of apathy, the type of insidious indifference that promotes disenfranchisement, decrepit nationalism, and hints at the degradation of the American human character? Conversely, does the lack of turnout send a powerful message that our system needs fixing, and that legions of informed voters are choosing not to vote? Or does this debate even matter?

Amidst the revelry and spiritual corruption of Orientation Week 2004, the Class of ’08 was treated to what one freshman called a “thoroughly demoralizing” state of the nation address by political science professor Morris Fiorina, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. In arguing the latter interpretation, Fiorina took a pessimistic view of voter turnout in the United States. Eager freshmen with absentee ballots in their back pockets were told that they only one in four of them would vote, and that even if they did, that their vote “doesn’t matter.” Although his predictions on that day were met with a barrage of hisses, Fiorina may not be so far off. If Memorial Auditorium was filled with a random selection of youth aged 18-25, only two in five would have voted in the last presidential election, despite the largest voter mobilization effort for youth, perhaps in history.

There is considerable disagreement as to the causes of voter apathy, even among youth. Freshman Bob Borek said he believes that eligible voters “don’t think their vote’s going to make a difference.” This view was echoed by many students, especially those who do not permanently reside in a so-called “swing state.” Freshman Megan Daniels, for example, felt her vote didn’t matter because she is voting by absentee ballot in New York.

Freshman David Villafranca, a Texas resident, noted simply: “it’s such a Disney view of it to say that we’re voting to make a difference.”

For his part, Professor Fiorina may be one of the most incendiary proponents of the anti-Disney camp, at least at Stanford. In a pre-election dorm visit, he told students that one vote does not, contrary to popular opinion, make a difference in the outcome. He also professed disbelief that the downward trend in voter engagement could be disrupted.

Still, many had high hopes before last Tuesday’s election. In one of the most tightly-fought presidential elections in American history, it seemed impossible to some that masses of potential voters would choose – or neglect to – vote on November 2nd. Freshman Koji Gardiner wondered in such a close race “how anyone could be apathetic.”

Historically, close races have not necessarily led to higher-than-average voter turnout. In 2000, two of the four closest states, including Florida, observed youth turnout below the national average. In New Mexico, which was won by less than four hundred votes, only 28% of youth cast a ballot.

Despite the barrage of campaign ads, policy debates, and news coverage, many students have identified another cause of voter apathy among youth. Freshman Jacob Arias suggests, in a popular view, that “people don’t vote because they have a lack of information – that or they’re lazy.” Arias admitted, though he considered himself relatively uninformed, he still cast a vote in the presidential election.

Very few voters seem to have much sympathy for those who make uninformed choices. Concerned freshman Justin Hirsch believes that “it is your responsibility to get informed and vote.”

Junior Andrew Ardinger had a slightly different view on the situation: “I’m not entirely convinced that uniformed voters should be voting at all,” he said.

Those exercising their voting privilege expressed a similar lack of sympathy for those who choose not to vote. “The only message that not voting sends is that you don’t care which way the country is headed,” said freshman Gardiner.

Although condemnation of non-voters was fairly universal, students expressed disagreement with the way that the low voter turnout problem should be addressed. Some students mentioned reform of the Electoral College or even a shift to a proportional representation system like those used in Sweden, Germany, and Israel.

Another possibility for electoral reform, compulsory voting, has been instituted with varying degrees of success worldwide. In Australia, where voting is mandatory and protest ballots are illegal, an average of 95% of eligible voters have cast ballots in elections since 1990. Very few students saw mandatory voting as positive electoral reform, one junior calling it “anti-democratic” and a freshman noting that it might cause uninformed voters to support candidates in a campaign they really knew nothing about.

In this American system of voluntary voting, however, quite a few students certainly did not vote on Election Day. Second-year graduate student Jennifer Wipf says she is choosing not to vote out of principle. “The two-party system doesn’t offer enough choices,” she said. “We’re always choosing the better of two evils.”

Others had less principled reasons for not voting. “I’m lazy and I just don’t care,” one unmotivated freshman said.