CENTER FOR CIVIC JUSTICE PUSHES FOR MORE VOTER ENGAGEMENT AT STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY By Maya Brown
The Center for Civic Justice had a single mission before Nov. 3 — to get students to vote. The center provides services and support for programs and opportunities that develop and empower students to contribute to their community. Voting during elections allows students to do so. “My one true goal with the center is [that] I want students to leave this university better equipped to take on the challenges of the world and be put in a position where they can be a leader to help their communities to overcome those challenges,” Steven Adelson, the coordinator of the Center for Civic Justice, said. However, the coronavirus pandemic has affected the way the center can engage with students. “COVID-19 has completely shifted the way in which we need to think about supporting students and their right to vote,” Adelson said. “As recent as this summer, when we were thinking about how we support new students as they’re arriving to the university and registering to vote because traditionally, we’re at in person orientation with new students and we’re going through that voter registration process with them.” Even with the pandemic, the center has not stopped from pushing for more voter engagement. Instead of having the usual option to go through the voter registration process with students in person, the center would instead conduct the process virtually and then have in person students sign. If the student was completely remote, the center would mail the student an application along with a prestamped and pre-filled envelope. The center helped over 2,400 students register to vote this past summer, according to Adelson. They have also recently partnered with the medical, dental and public health programs to help with voter registration during orientation. Back in 2016 when the center was created, they established a “Commitment to Democracy,” which is an action plan developed to outline the university’s short- and long-term commitment to student democratic engagement. “Our philosophy is that every student, when they come to Stony Brook, should have an opportunity to register to vote before their first day of classes because we see voter registration as the first inherent barrier to being able to cast your ballot,” Adelson said. “If we help you to overcome that barrier, then you are more likely to be able to use your vote as your voice.” The pandemic has also made the center reconsider the different ways that a student can vote: via early voting, in person on campus or absentee ballots. They have been trying to encourage as
many students as possible to request an absentee ballot. “In the event that they can’t vote in person or don’t want to vote in person, they have that plan B, and maybe for some students, voting by mail is their plan A, so we want to make sure that everyone can consider all of their different options this year,” Adelson said. In terms of numbers, the center has seen increases in voter turnout throughout the years. In 2014, before the center was first established, student turnout for the midterm elections was about 12%, according to Adelson. For the 2018 midterm elections, student turnout increased to about 36%, tripling the turnout rate.
In the 2016 presidential election, Stony Brook students voted at a rate of about 53.2%, according to the center’s 2018 “Our Commitment to Democracy” report. About 11,099 students voted in total, which was about a 43% increase from the 2012 presidential election. For the 2020 presidential election, their goal is to increase student voter turnout rate to 70%. Adelson said he thinks that their goal will be met due to the surge of energy he sees in young voters. The Harvard Institute of Politics Youth Poll found that 63% of young Americans say they will “definitely” vote in this election, as compared to the 47% who said the same in 2016. The poll also predicted the highest youth voter turnout in 12 years.
“When it comes to 2020, I can see more and more students asking questions, wanting to make sure that they’re registered to vote in the right location, that they want to know how to do their research and consider all of their options,” Adelson said. “They’re asking a lot of questions, more than ever, and that to me shows a passion and a commitment to making our communities better and leads me to be hopeful that student turnout in this election will be greater than ever.” Just from the statistics, early voting, youth turnout seems to be surging. More than 7 million voters under 30 have already cast early ballots, according to the data from TargetSmart, compared with about 2 million early votes at the same time in 2016. The center has also provided a #SeawolvesChecklist for students, which answers questions pertaining to voter status, polling places, early voting and absentee ballots. The checklist primarily consisted of six questions in 2018 and has now grown to over 40 questions. “It takes into consideration the different types of students that we have,” Adelson said. “So you can make sure that by clicking on your different questions, that you’re getting the answer that’s customized to meet your specific needs.” Other efforts from the center include providing stamps for absentee ballots, on-campus busses to polling locations during early voting and debate watch nights. Team members of the center have also hosted a “Faculty Student Presidential Election Digital Series” on Instagram, which covered various issues including second amendment rights, immigration and health care. The center’s staff also includes undergraduate coordinators that help with events and programs, with managing social media engagement and with increasing voter engagement. Husbaan Sheikh, a junior political science major, began working as a voter generalist intern at the center during his freshman year and is now an undergraduate coordinator. He says that voting is important and that he has enjoyed helping students with the voting process. “I feel as though we’re privileged to be living in a democratic nation and we should utilize that privilege and the power of the people to participate in the process,” he said. “A democracy really only works when people show up, so we should do our part in that case.” Tamara Smith, a senior economics major and undergraduate coordinator at the center, said that one of the center’s main goals is to educate and help people with the voting process. “Students are starting to realize that what is happening in this election affects us,” she said. “Every election counts.”
WSHU HOSTS AN INFORMATIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE By Lajiere Blake On Friday, Oct. 30, WSHU held a virtual discussion titled “Through the Looking Glass: A Campaign Like No Other” with a panel of journalists, professors and media critics. The discussion was streamed live in two forms — on the WSHU Facebook page and on the interactive platform Shindig. The first portion of the event was “What’s Going On? Address and Discussion” moderated by Terry Sheridan, WSHU news director and Stony Brook School of Journalism instructor. The conversation included Laura Lindenfeld, dean of SBU’s School of Journalism and the executive director of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, as well as Eric Deggans, NPR media critic and author of “Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation.” The conversation began with an analysis of media companies. Deggans explained that today, media outlets have to figure out their niche and serve it completely. He said it is not just the media companies pushing this idea — audiences play a big role too. “The audience has less tolerance than ever for any kind of material that they’re not interested in,” Deggans said. Deggans also touched on the difficulty for media companies to present a broad array of content as portions of their audience will find something that they do not agree with — in turn, potentially severing their ties with the media outlet. The discussion then turned to diversity as an integral part of media — in storytelling and in audiences. Lindenfeld took a moment to reflect on the role of teaching journalists the enormous responsibility and privilege that goes into deciding what demographics get coverage in the media. “There’s enormous power in supporting future generations and journalists and communicators to proactively engage in this really dynamic landscape,” Lindenfeld explained. The second discussion, dubbed “What’s at Stake: The Ramifications,” was moderated by Ebong Udoma, a WSHU political correspondent. The segment included remarks from Gary Rose and Dr. Meena Bose. Rose is a professor and the chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University, while Bose is the executive dean of Hofstra University’s Peter Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs. Udoma jump-started the conversation with statistics regarding the number of people who have cast early ballots. In 2016, 8.4 million people cast votes in Texas compared to the 9 million people who have cast early voting ballots in this election. In response to the numbers, Bose claimed, “What we’re seeing is really a reaction since 2016 to the importance of voting and presenting your voice in American democracy.” Not all of the news surrounding ballots have been so positive. President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, establishing a deep concern for the rectitude of the presidential election results. “I believe a lot of that has to do with the potentiality of a legal challenge that’s going to follow the outcome of the election,” Rose said. Trump has said that he's fully prepared for the election outcome to be determined by the Supreme Court. In the final Q&A section of the discussion, a viewer asked how to deal with family members who simply refuse to deal with facts and reality. Lindenfeld noted that there is no easy solution but finds that an emotional understanding is necessary. “The more we could listen beneath and hear and exercise some empathy, we may be able to break through some of this,” Lindenfeld said. The panel provided a space to discuss the current struggles of the United States and each panel member recognized the importance of the current presidential, although there have been others just like it. “I’ve heard many times over the years that this is the most important election,” Rose said. “I would remind people that in 1860 we were on the verge of a civil war, so I think we’ve actually been here before. But I would agree that this is a hugely important election.” “Through the Looking Glass: A Campaign Like No Other” granted audiences access to a discussion that was equal parts engaging and educational. The conversation can be found on WSHU’s Facebook page here.
SATIRICAL ALBUM RUNS DOWN THE UGLY HISTORY OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENTS By Lajiere Blake Artist David W. Jacobsen released a new whimsical album just in time for the upcoming presidential election. The album, titled “POTUS,” is a homage to former United States presidents who are often overlooked. On his website Jacobsen writes, “The album mixes history with storytelling, providing a humanized view of men who have guided America for better or worse (more often worse).” Although the lyrics of each song are relatively clear, the lyric and commentary page Jacobsen created provides even more facts and information for listeners. The amount of research that went into each song is appreciated — it elevates the album completely. Jacobsen makes note of the books that educated him on the topic, including “Andrew Johnson The American Presidents Series: The 17th President, 1865-1869” by Annette Gordon-Reed and “The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Jacobsen is clearly dedicated to the topic, which enables his audience to gain fun and informative knowledge through music. “POTUS” gives listeners the chance to learn and reflect on the impact of these historical figures. Jacobsen discusses “terrible” presidents like Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover. Each man changed the course of the country — from the development of shantytowns to overt racism within the White House, all of the presidents mentioned in “POTUS” have made an impact on the state of the country.
The album starts off with “1799,” a song that explores the often tumultuous relationship between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. The song is from the perspective of Adams after Hamilton published an open letter expressing concern over Adams’ behavior. The song is catchy with a light-hearted rhythm that is bound to get stuck in your head. It is an interesting way to start off an album, but there is no denying the song hooks listeners in an engaging way. The next song, “Old Man Eloquent,” focuses on John Quincy Adams. It is a standout song from the rest of the album. Jacobsen writes, “He is my favorite president and one of the few on my ‘POTUS’ album who I actually like.” The simplicity of the rhythm makes it easy to focus on the lyrics. Perhaps it is Jacobsen’s personal affinity for the former president, but “Old Man Eloquent” seems to have a striking passion within it that can not be ignored. Another standout tune from the album is “Swing Around The Circle,” which highlights Andrew Johnson’s rise to power and his political agenda. “They tried to take me out / I'm still here / You can say what you like / But I'm still standing,” Jacobsen croons over a creepy beat that utilizes the haunting sound of a church organ. The rhythm is fitting; Jacobsen wanted to highlight Johnson’s terrible nature. In the commentary section for the song, Jacobsen writes, “Andrew Johnson was our worst president in many ways. He was monstrously racist in a time when most white people were pretty racist to begin with.” Each song on “POTUS” is meant to teach you something new. If it does not, the album is at the very least a humorous journey through the history of the United States. The album is ripe with hidden facts and gems of information that listeners are sure to enjoy in some capacity. “POTUS” is available on YouTube, Apple Music and Spotify.
WHY I DECIDED TO VOTE FOR THE GREEN PARTY THIS YEAR By Steven Keehner
Steven Keehner is a junior majoring in journalism and history. I’m writing this on Oct. 23 — a day before early voting opens in New York. For the last six months, I have stared down the dreaded dilemma: Who should I vote for in the most important election of my lifetime? Do I support the incumbent President Donald Trump, who has shown time and time again that, along with not being qualified to run this country, he’s just a really hateful person? Or do I look to the former Vice President Joe Biden, the man who is the textbook definition of a career politician and another lousy person? Neither. I’ll pass. For the upcoming presidential election, I will be casting my vote for Howie Hawkins and the Green Party. Hawkins, an environmental activist and trade unionist, is running alongside Angela Walker, and for where I stand politically, it’s where I feel most comfortable placing my vote. The Green Party, with their dedication to a singlepayer healthcare system, free public education and eco-socialism, offers something the Democrats don’t come close to matching. Now, I’m fully aware that many Biden voters will get in their feelings with my decision to “waste” my vote. To those people: I don’t care. I can quickly explain my decision to vote Green for two reasons. First off, I don’t support capitalism, so I’m not going to cast my vote for a capitalist. Secondly, being a New Yorker, my vote doesn’t matter anyway, so I’d rather invest it into something that could benefit later elections. To clarify, I do not want nor believe that Trump will be winning reelection. As I’m writing this, it appears that Biden will be running away with the race come Nov. 3. Between you and me, I am positive that Hawkins will not win. He won’t even come close; Hawkins has lost every single political race he’s been involved in. I’d be willing to bet that aliens would invade Earth before he would become president of the United States. Why am I voting for him then? It’s fair to ask. I believe in socialism. Capitalism exists to exploit others and is destroying our planet. Healthcare, education, food and housing are all rights humans
should have. I don’t care what the markets have to say about what’s a working economy and what isn’t, especially as many tinker on the edge of financial disaster. As neo-fascism makes its way back into the American mainstream, it’s more vital to fight it now than ever before. To see things like school-aged children in lunch debt, the absurd gap in wealth inequality or the destruction of the planet, I know that the world will be a better place if capitalism were to collapse. Biden and Trump, for all of their differences, aren’t really that different. To hear the term “radical” and “left-wing” associated with the Democratic Party, who have continually gone on the record stating that they’re a capitalist party, is hilarious to hear. If this election was happening in France, Biden would be considered a center to center-right candidate — the man believes in fracking, he isn’t a leftist! Before I get too radical here, let me reel my line back to the point: I would’ve happily voted for Bernie Sanders if he got the bid, but he didn’t. I still believe he would have beat Trump in 2016 and now, but he isn’t the nominee. I can accept that. But because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has failed to meet my interests, I will not be spineless and take to supporting Joe Biden. Call it stubbornness if you want to, but I know where my interests and beliefs lie. My second (and more important) reason for voting Green simply comes down to where I live. New York is a Democratic given at this point. Whether I choose to vote for Biden, Trump, or myself, it won’t change the state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1984. The only reason I’d vote for Biden is if I lived in a swing state. But I don’t. The Electoral College is an awful and outdated political system that doesn’t only explain why we’ve been left between Trump and Biden, but why my vote means nothing on the national front. In 2016, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, had nearly 3 million more votes than Trump, but she still lost. I refuse to believe that in a country that boasts about being the
beacon of democracy, that you should still win the highest position despite being outvoted by 3 million people. Within the second half of that reason, there’s actually a tremendous incentive in voting for a third party; you’ve just never been told about it. If a party receives between five and 25% of the popular vote, they become eligible for public funding. That’s pretty huge. If you’ve missed the memo, money is one of the driving factors in American politics. To give the Greens access to money for advertising and other campaign-related funds is how you open up the two-party binary without completely overhauling the Electoral College. I don’t believe it’s that far-fetched either. In 2016, the Libertarian Party led by Gary Johnson, received 3.28% of the popular vote, which was the third most behind Clinton and Trump (Green only received 1.07%). The last time a third party candidate met the mark was the Reform Party’s Ross Perot in 1996. So a victory for Green may not end up with Hawkins in the White House, but it could be one that gives the party a shot at competing with the big two in future elections. The legitimacy that would be earned makes it a worthwhile cause to place my vote in. It is vital that you stand true to your beliefs and vote in a way that reflects that. To conclude, I’ll leave you with a question: If every election is the “most important one to date,” what does that say about the system itself?
SBU PROFESSOR NANCY GOROFF AND INCUMBENT LEE ZELDIN VIE FOR EASTERN SUFFOLK'S SEAT IN CONGRESS By Iryna Shkurhan In New York’s Congressional District 1, former Chairwoman of Stony Brook University’s Chemistry Department Nancy Goroff (Democrat) and incumbent Lee Zeldin (Republican) are on the ballot for the upcoming Nov. 3 election. Zeldin, ranked the second most conservative member of Congress from New York by GovTrack, has represented eastern Long Island since 2015 and is closely aligned with President Donald Trump. Two years ago he was reelected after beating Perry Gershon, the Democratic candidate, by only four points. Unlike Zeldin, Nancy Goroff is a political newcomer who has spent most of her career in academia. Running as a Democrat and member of the Working Families Party, she decided to take an 18-month leave of absence from her post at Stony Brook University to pursue a congressional campaign. Her past positions at the university include associate provost, interim dean of the Graduate School, and most recently chairwoman of the chemistry department. As a scientist and professor, her campaign is based on examining the facts and evidence to generate solutions to the climate crisis, healthcare access and coronavirus response. She hopes to bring a science perspective to policymaking in Congress and addressing climate change is one of her top priorities. If she wins the election, she would be the first member of Congress to hold a doctorate in science. “I am really committed to making sure we take serious sustained ambitious action on climate change. And we need to because it is long term, the biggest threat we face to our way of life,” Goroff said in an interview with The Statesman. Born and raised in Suffolk County, Zeldin is a former attorney, army veteran and current officer in the United States Army Reserve. During his five years in office, his top priorities have included protecting America’s security at home and abroad, supporting veterans, first responders and law enforcement. His proposed amendment to allow states to opt-out of the Common Core standards while keeping federal funding became a law in 2015. Zeldin has also helped to bring several federal projects and funding to Brookhaven National Lab, including $2 billion for an Electron-Ion Collider and $115 million for a Quantum Information Science Center. “I support Zeldin because he has delivered proven results for Long Island,” Kenneth Rothwell, junior sustainability studies major and president of the College Republicans at Stony Brook University, said. “During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Zeldin fought and secured over a million items of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Long Island's healthcare workers. In Congress, Zeldin helped secure a compromise that helped secure emergency loans to many families and businesses across the nation.” To tackle the climate crisis, Zeldin has tripled funding for the EPA Long Island Sound project and permanently funded and reauthorized The Land and Water Conservation Fund while in office. He serves as a member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus and is a cosponsor of the Carbon Capture Improvement Act, which would create financial incentives for industrial plants, facilities and power
plants to invest in carbon capture if passed. He also serves on the PFAS Task Force, which addresses manmade chemical contamination in water sources. “Completely surrounded by water, we all want to see our environment protected, we want our coastlines to be secured. We want to stay here and fight for our home,” Zeldin said at a virtual climate change discussion hosted by Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Students for Climate Action and the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Goroff has set a goal to make the United States carbon neutral by 2035, by investing in renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings and clean vehicles nationwide. But she has not given her full support for the Green New Deal, a progressive climate change initiative spearheaded by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
“I am deeply concerned by the effects of climate change. Our beaches are covered with trash. Our shorelines are eroding. Our climate needs to be prioritized,” said Catherine Maglione, a Miller Place resident and student at Columbia University, who has been phone banking for Joe Biden’s campaign. “Goroff has science on her side, and I trust her wholeheartedly to examine the facts and fight for policies that will significantly better our communities.” Most recently, Goroff has received high profile endorsements from former President Obama, former Vice President and Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer. The New York Times and Long Island’s premier newspaper, Newsday, have also endorsed her with faith that her science background will be an asset in Washington. “I like her ties to Stony Brook and especially her science background,” said Dylan Kattou, a freshman applied mathematics and statistics major at Stony Brook University, who voted for Goroff by mail. “I think science is being ignored right now and I hope that in Congress Goroff pushes the government to listen to the scientists.” The 314 Action Fund conducted a poll in order to gauge support for the candidates this month, showing Zeldin leading by one point, 49 to 48, and 2% of voters undecided. The margin of error is 4.9%. An earlier poll conducted in August by the
Global Strategy Group found that when voters heard balanced profiles of both candidates, the vote shifted by nine points, putting Goroff into a 4-point lead over Zeldin (47% to 43%). This election comes at a time when the country is divided along partisan lines and public health issues, such as climate change and the pandemic, are politically polarized. Trump won District 1, where registered Republican voters outweigh Democrats by roughly 3,000 voters, by eight points in 2016. But his rising unpopularity due to his response to the pandemic could sway voters to choose a candidate that is critical of the president, instead of one who unwaveringly supports him like Zeldin has, according to The New York Times. Goroff said her background as a scientist also puts her in a unique position to deal with the timely issues that threaten public health. “There are many people who voted for Trump and Zeldin in the past, but who have been really disenchanted by the president and Zeldin because they aren't wearing masks everywhere they go,” Goroff said. “And they know that the president and Zeldin have really let them down.” Zeldin was ranked the 12th most bipartisan member of the House of Representatives by FiveThirtyEight, despite voting in alignment with Trump 88.9% of the time. He has touted Goroff as a “radical professor,” though many of her stances are considered centrist. For instance, she does not support defunding the police, nor does she think all public higher education should be free. Goroff believes that the federal government needs to evaluate the allocation of federal funding and she believes in reinstating the previous higher tax rates for wealthy Americans and corporations in order to fund proposed initiatives for public health resources, education and public housing. To increase access to health care, Goroff has proposed to decrease the minimum age for Medicare while also offering it as a public option for all Americans and their employers. She believes that people should still have the opportunity to choose between a private and public option. She also wants to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for medications. Zeldin, along with the majority of Republicans, has voted to amend the Affordable Care Act and is against protecting coverage for preexisting conditions. In a virtual debate between the two candidates on Oct. 20, Zeldin accused Goroff of spreading misinformation about his views on health care reform, but his votes show he's consistently voted for health care reforms rated unfavorable to consumers by sites like healthreformvotes.org. Some constituents have said that they have felt Zeldin’s absence over the years, leaving their voices unheard. In the past three years, he has not held a town hall or hosted virtual events since the pandemic began. Zeldin’s team declined The Statesman’s request for comment. “I think what my students need most is somebody who's going to go down to Washington and make the world a better place by using policies to solve the problems that matter to people. Whether that's climate change, or health care, or getting us out of this pandemic,” Goroff said. Alek Lewis contributed reporting.
"EVERY VOTE REALLY DOES COUNT" YOUNG VOTERS FEEL A PUSH TO THE POLLS IN 2020 By Steven Keehner
For decades, data and popular opinion has suggested that young people are less likely to vote or get involved in politics. But for the 2020 general election, both Harvard Polls and what has already been observed in early voter turnout data show that decades of attempts to get young people to “rock the vote” may have finally paid off. Those between the ages of 18-29 are ranked as the least likely group to vote of any age-based demographic, and tend to vote 30% less in general election cycles and 40% less during midterm election cycles when compared to voters over the age of 60. “Young people have always voted at lower rates,” John Barry Ryan, an associate professor of political science at Stony Brook University who specializes in electoral voting, said. “Older people believe that their generations were very politically active when they were young, but that wasn’t really true.” Ryan explained that young people typically hit the polls at lower rates because they're usually busier than retirees, who are more likely to vote because they have more free time. However, at Stony Brook University and across the United States, data indicates that more young voters are likely to cast ballots in 2020. Groups like Generation Vote (GenVote) are working to appeal to younger people and teach the importance of political activism and voting. Disha Singh, the group’s director of Digital Media, said
Millennials and Gen Z’ers need to realize the political power they possess. “This young generation is the largest multiracial generation and also the largest voting block,” Singh said. “They’re passionate and want change. We have numbers — older generations are feeling threatened by that. It’s so important for young people to get into the fight for our future.” Using social media platforms to spread the group’s messages, GenVote seeks to not only inform younger people about the issues themselves but to also get them involved in the electoral process. “Voting is the bare minimum, but we want young people to get more involved in the literal process of voting, like poll watching or other jobs,” Singh said. Although the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has made in-person activities more difficult, it has not stopped GenVote from continuing their work, Singh said. GenVote has participated in protests and worked with lobby officials for voting reform. Singh explained that there has been a shift in activism, with young folks leading. “It’s made our work so much more important,” she said. Advocacy groups aside, the race to get young people to the polls is happening at colleges too. Stony Brook’s Center for Civic Justice members have committed themselves to helping students embrace the political world.
WHY VOTE?
"People fought for my right to vote." TWO ANONYMOUS RESPONSES TO THE SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE SURVEY
Since June, the center says that they have helped over 3,000 students register to vote or update their voter information and assisted over 2,000 with getting their absentee ballot. Providing assistance to students on and offcampus, they have hosted events and debates, and made partnerships with other groups to ensure that students understand what and how to engage with this election cycle. As Steven Adelson, the coordinator for the Center for Civic Justice explained, the goal is to not just register students but to also encourage them to be involved in the discussion. “Elections have consequences; who we elect and what we vote for will determine the direction of our communities for years to come,” said Adelson. “It is important that students recognize this now, invest in understanding their communities and become lifelong voters.” The center reports having an 11.2% increase in student registration from 2019 to 2020. They expect the final number to increase as more data is collected. Both the Stony Brook University College Democrats and the College Republicans have also made an effort to inform the campus community about voting and encourage voter engagement. Both organizations have hosted phone bank events throughout the semester, where student volunteers call voters and encourage them to get out and vote for their party's candidate. “It can be challenging for many to express their opinion, but by voting, you can let your voice get heard,” Declan Graham, a senior political science and economics double major and president of the College Democrats, said. “Many local races are determined by a handful of votes. It can make a large difference.” “As a citizen of the United States, our democracy relies on your vote to ensure the success of our nation,” Kenneth Rothwell, a junior sustainability studies major and president of the College Republicans, said. “Every vote really does count.” While talks of the importance of voting are unavoidable, this does raise a major question: Will this finally be the year young people vote? Ryan said he expects to see a higher turnout of younger voters. But as he explained, there is a catch. “Young people will probably turn out at higher rates this year — young people have in previous elections turned out at decently high rates, but typically all age cohorts turn out at higher rates in those elections,” Ryan said. “So, if young people turn out at high rates in 2020, I’d expect middleaged people and older people to turn out at even higher rates too.” This information follows voter turnout data, which typically sees an increase during years where the presidency is up for grabs. Both Graham and Rothwell anticipate a higher voter turnout from students this year. Singh said she believes the outcomes of this election will look different from 2016, with more young folks turning out, citing data from early voting studies conducted so far this year. “It’s our country and our world,” she said. “We should all be fighting for it.”