Can you name the Vice President of the United States? What about the controlling party of Congress? It seems that some of the most rudimentary questions on the political process of our country stump a distressing number of voting age Americans. Pew Research Center and the Annenberg Public Policy Center polls show that only 60% of Americans can name the Vice President and only 38% know which party controls Congress (Gaughan 2015). Furthermore, in 2012 the American public's Congressional approval rating was 15%, the lowest in history. One may assume that in response to such an astonishing statistic that the voting public would rise up and re take control of their voice in government. And yet, 90.5% of Congressional Incumbents running for re-election won that November (Shea 461). Despite the yearly ability that we have been given to show our true opinion, we as a generation maintain standing passive. I aim to show a solution to the record low voter participation as well as the understated power of incumbency. Publicly enacting term limits on Congressional incumbent re-election will revitalize the current campaign fundraising driven election process, as well as increase young voter participation.

The magnitude of the voter turnout issue facing America is often understated or completely misrepresented. In 2014 only 42.5% of registered voters cast ballots, the lowest number since 1968 when the government began keeping record (IDEA 2014); and, only 65% of voting age Americans are registered to vote, further decreasing the true turnout. As a frame of reference, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have 96% and 93% of voting age citizens registered to vote (Desilver) and other developed countries expect a yearly voter turnout of 75-80% (Pew Research Center 2015). The House of Representatives and Senate were created as the voice of the American public. Today, voting results are not an equal representation of the public, but a devious sample that gives attention to few key demographics and shuns many others (low socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity). Year after year the American public stands by as their "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Lincoln) serves as a force they have no control over. 

The only way to gather a representative understanding of how this can affect the future of the United States is by looking at the future, the millennial generation (age 18-29). Raised in the age of information and technology millennials are self-expressive, confident, open to change and on pace to be the most educated generation (Pew Research Center 2010). Although millennials are the most liberal and open minded of any generation they have a surprisingly negative view on human nature. Two thirds of those surveyed said "you can not be too careful" when dealing humans. The same Pew Research Center survey found two of the most prevalent character traits within the millennial generation were moral character and skepticism (Pew Research Center 2010). These traits coupled with a general mistrust and dissatisfaction of government due to the abundance of media and information paint a clear picture as to why this generation has the lowest voter turnout within the age group in history. Raised amidst a suffering economy, unpopular wars, and political scandal after political scandal the millennial generation has no reason to believe that their values are being upheld in the seemingly gridlocked governing body.  The Millenial generation epitomizes what America was founded on, free speech, media prevalence, and general distrust in big government. Nearly Four in ten millennials has a tattoo and three of four have a social networking profile. They are by far the least likely to be religious, without harboring persecution of any specific demographic (Pew Research Center). While these statistics do not directly give correlation to voter turnout, they symbolize a changing voting majority. This generation is acting as the catalyst for social movements, social views are finally being taken seriously. 

Ideas of corruption within the government have since evolved from the times of fat businessmen smoking cigars in pinstripe suits. That is not to say however that the implication of money from the past conceptions is not unfounded. 54% of millennial voters stated distrust in government because of corruption linked to money. (Shea 2015 pg. 461) For example, Representatives of the House must run for re-election every two years, and the average cost of a winning campaign is over half a million dollars (Strama 1998 pg. 75). This leads political office holders to focus primarily on raising money to keep their job, as opposed to truly doing what is best for the public. How can we expect the people who make the rules to limit themselves? The political incumbent is now not only focused on raising money but also on avoiding any controversy to not make enemies for the upcoming election. Furthering that politicians dis connection to the public. These issues show a flaw of democracy, even if people agree that it is broken, how will they know when it is fixed? In "The Challenge of Money in a New Vision for American Democracy", Mark Schmitt poses this question, stating "The dilemma of democracy is that you can't evaluate it by its results; you just have to have a fair process that citizens accept as legitimate, even if they don't always get what they want from it" (Schmitt 44). Therefore we should not look at how to beat the money controlling politics, but we should question money's relevance in a democracy. Nowhere in the constitution is it stated that private investments and personal funding should have any effect on the governing body. Originally holding a seat in the law making body was seen as service to your country, not paycheck, and now it has evolved into the prevalence of career politicians. 

Due to these perceptions, the younger generation has opted to help build and foster local community growth through what Shea refers to as 'Service Politics'. Undoubtedly cynical and skeptical of the political process, young Americans are volunteering to make change columnist Jane Eisner states: "[T]he attraction of service for young people is undeniable, and growing. It is propelled by the characteristics of this generation  --  their tendency toward compassion and their nonjudgmental concern for others, and away from what they see as a political system driven by conflict and ego (2004, p. 80)." This reaction to political distrust lends a light on the thought process that your vote does not have any affect in the long run. They seemed to view the political side of these issues as inaccessible and intractable, focusing instead on the satisfaction of serving an immediate need in their community. Past generations have greatly increased their voting participation because of their distrust, but this generation is different, they want results.A clear representation of this is the modern day prevalence of grass-roots organizations. These organizations are small, generally voting-district based groups focused on change in a specific area. The Obama administration was the first to utilize such groups when spreading policy information. This generation is looking for a quick reward or sense of satisfaction, but by doing so are ignorant to larger issues and long term solutions. 

These young voters often say they don't vote because they simply don't feel as if their vote matters, that they are 'lost in the system'.  Prevalence of social media is one of the largest changes when comparing the millennial generation to past generations. Despite an abundance of social media outlets and information spread amongst them, it has not yielded any positive political engagement results. Daniel Shea argues social media gives people a place to speak their mind, but drastically reduces its relevance and validity (Shea 461). This decrease in the actual Therefore this seeming irony within social media is a contradiction to the argument that the millennial generation will foster change through increased prevalence of social networking.  Younger voters are not necessarily unengaged, they have been raised in the time where public opinion is driven by the war on terror, political and media scandals, and one of the worst economic situations the country has faced.  It is an understandable claim when you realize the further implications of how the U.S. election system works. The only solution to the issue is held completely by the issue itself. The younger generation in specific feels betrayed by the institutions that once claimed to represent their interests. From unprecedented student loan interest rates to a poor economy with even poorer job prospects, the new generation has little to believe in. A recent from Harvard's Institute of politics, being reported on by The Washington Post, concluded that the vast majority of 18-29 year olds have little to no confidence that the people of authority within the government will "doing the right thing" . 

As stated previously, the 2012 Congressional approval rating was at 15%, the lowest in history. That same year 90.5% of Congressional incumbents seeking re-election won. Despite the lowest approval ratings in history, America continues to re-elect its incumbents. This statistic illuminates the population within America simply voting for the incumbent to 'keep their way of life', believing in the idea that things could be much worse. This idea only stagnates the political process, allowing no change to occur. Absent minded voters that simply vote in the incumbent are creating a barrier that impedes progression. 

The youth vote has show its ability to take control and command elections. In 2008 the Obama administration relied as heavily on this generation as any past candidate ever had. Preaching change, Obama was carried to the Presidency by the millennial generation. With 2 in 1 ballots cast pro-Obama, Millenials represented approximately 70% of the margin of difference in Obamas win over John McCain (Carpenter 19). It goes without saying that Obama in no means had an easy journey to the presidency. His competitor, John McCain, a several term war veteran with a Medal of Honor, was a seemingly perfect image of the conservative party. Yet by appealing to the youngest voting demographic with ideas of change Obama was able reach the Oval Office.

These questions are not completely discussed without attempting a solution. The best way to solve each aspect of this long run issue is to enact Term limits for members of congress. By setting a limit on how long congressmen can serve, term limits would increase the amount of elections, therefore forcing the public to become aware of the process. This idea begins to trickle down within the younger generation, not only increasing voter engagement, but also inflating the prevalence of young politicians. A continued supply of fresh political candidates and congressman will increase the flow of ideas, as well as publicity surrounding each election. This new way of electing political officials will transform our government, working at speeds far greater than the traffic jam that is our lawmaking body today. The younger voters, whom have always believed they are simply not important enough to affect the voting process, will now have a much higher say in politics.

 Term limits will expose the true motivation current political incumbents are driven by while in office. It is no longer representative of the people if the person elected cares more about their re-election than they do the publics values. However, the countries voting issues don't lie within only the younger generation, every election the majority of adults do not vote. But focusing attention on increasing the adult vote provides only temporary relief, they are not a representative sample. The youngest generation is the best representation of what the country's future voting majority will look like. Limiting the number of years a congressional seat holder can have will act as a catalyst to a inlflux of new ideas. The current system vastly favoring the incumbent will be reconstructed into one favoring the true voice of the American voting public.  

In order to properly show its potential we look at its affects within state legislatures. Of course, there will not likely be an 'experiment' conducted at the federal government level, smaller studies help to show the plans potential in a larger sphere. The experiment "Voter Turnout In State Legislative Elections; The Effects of Term Limits" conducted by Anthony Jesuale shows that term limits do have a lasting effect. Using a comparative analysis design Jesuale studied voter turnout in Illinois and Michigan. The data shown outlines that since the implementation of term limits in 1998, Michigan has seen a 5.61% increase in average voter turnout. While a similar state, Illinois, who enacted no term limits, saw no remarkable average increase (Jesuale 11). Although only two states are measured, the average rate since 1998 has maintained steady. Jesuale clearly states the studies findings when he writes, "Even accounting for political variables (e.g. presidential elections or level of contestation) and demographical controls (e.g. racial minority composition of the district), term limits increased turnout in Michigan state legislative races" (Jesuale 11). This studies meticulous account for demographic variables shows that term limits can be implemented anywhere.

When looking at the negatives many studies claim to find on the implication of term limits one must first understand where they are testing it. Not location as in specific state or sub-region, but the overall system. How can we establish the efficiency of term limits when they are being implemented into systems that give exponential power to the incumbent? Its as if are studying a drop of food colorings affects of the ocean. Articles such as "Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits" fail to mention that results from term limits do not show immediate success. Term limits are centered on an increase of available information when elections are to occur, therefore if the proper length of time is not set the true outcome will be muddled. Term limits are the only solution that appeals most clearly to the youngest generation, focusing on the spread of values the millennials hold dear. 

The unengaged voter epidemic the United States is facing is one of unprecedented scope, and one that requires a real world solution. In the past, when issues arise of voters not being heard, the government changes to accommodate them. Yet today the issue is looked at as failure of a generation, as opposed to a governments failure to progress with its people. I propose we hold the government accountable, the issue will only grow as time passes. As a superpower across the globe the United States can no longer sit dormant on an issue that will eventually cripple itself. Voters, more specifically young voters, are no longer looking to the government as a solution to issues. How can we trust the ones not acting in our favor, to act in our favor? The solution, then, must focus attention on the root of issue. Only by eradicating the current power of incumbency can we begin to see a change in how the government hears our voice. Enacting term limits will revitalize the apathetic voting public by eliminating the favoritism given to political incumbents and increasing the flow of new ideas into the otherwise idle lawmaking body. 

