Older voters, with high turnout and growing influence, are reshaping American politics, driving key policies while leaving younger generations’ priorities in the background.
Tyler Flores
What Happened
There is a growing influence of older voters taking place in American politics.
With consistently high turnout rates and a steady increase in their share of the population, older Americans are becoming a force to be reckoned with in elections.
This trend is reshaping not just the campaigns candidates are running, but the policies that invariably take center stage as well.
Why it Matters
In recent elections, older voters have consistently turned out in greater numbers compared to younger demographics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that 71.9% of voters aged 65 and older participated in the 2020 presidential election. That’s significantly higher than the 48% turnout among voters aged 18 to 24.
This pattern isn’t new but has intensified in recent years. The Baby Boomer generation, which once redefined politics in its youth, now makes up a substantial portion of the senior electorate.
The influence of older voters isn’t just about their turnout — it’s also about their political leanings. Research from the Pew Research Center shows that a majority of voters aged 65 and older tend to favor conservative policies. Many identify as Republicans or leaning right on key issues.
While this is unsurprising, it has made older voters a pivotal demographic for candidates seeking office at every level.
The growing power of older voters is already shaping the political agenda, particularly on issues that directly affect them. Social Security, Medicare, and healthcare affordability remain high-priority topics for voters of this demographic. Their collective voice ensures these issues stay in the headlines.
Candidates know that proposing cuts to entitlement programs or failing to address inflation’s impact on fixed incomes can be political suicide.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to the United States. Other Western nations have experienced similar trends. In the United Kingdom, political parties have prioritized policies that benefit retirees, such as pension protections and healthcare access.
This international trend gives testament to the political power the aging demographics have in western democratic systems.
How it Affects You
For the average voter, particularly those leaning conservative, the growing clout of older Americans offers reassurance and challenges.
Their influence ensures traditional values and economic stability remain central to political debates. Policies like reducing taxes on retirement income, preserving Social Security, and addressing inflation resonate strongly with this demographic.
However, the dominance of older voters also means that issues important to younger generations, such as climate change and student debt, may take a backseat.
Many of their most pressing issues won’t be as urgent to younger demographics. Their influence on U.S. political campaigns and policy will remain important for policymakers for years to come.
The same thing is happening here in New Zealand. In the next decade, we will see the biggest transfer of wealth ever. As the boomers slowly die off, their offspring will inherit the wealth built up over the past 60-70 years.
With so few children being born, the seniors will dominate politics for years to come.
On the other hand, there will be a lot of assets for the fewer youth to inherit.
Seniors dominate US politics already. Just look at the line up of Senators, Reps, Party leaders etc. The average age of anyone in US politics has got to be 70+, unfortunately the average IQ is not – looking at you Pelosi, Schumer, Waters etc. No surprises that 8 out of the 10 oldest are Democrats, snouts in the trough until death.
How will the next generation value those assets?
To spend?
To be cheated by other grifters?
Will they find protecting those assets too much of a hassle?
Will they only truly value those assets after they have slipped through their fingers?
Or will they consider those assets a part of security in this devious world?
Will they protect & build on those.
Some assets, give some security; a freedom in life, if they are valued correctly in balance to life itself.
‘the first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it’.
More than 70% of wealthy families are broke by the second generation, and 90% by the third.
The only exception is when there is so much wealth, that wealth has a life of its own.
In its regeneration that it is very difficult to spend it all with in one generation or so, as it develops its own “life-force”.
If you assume that a couple have only one child, then that child ought to inherit the family home. If two such children marry, then they may each inherit a house in their 50s, as their parents pass away. They will have two houses.
If this couple only have one child, that child will eventually inherit two houses.
Repeat the process, and you can imagine how the younger generations will amass assets.
Governments can hamper this process through death duties and other taxes that prevent the accumulation of inter-generational wealth and force the people to depend on the State for their education, healthcare and retirement instead of funding it themselves.
…..”Repeat the process, and you can imagine how the younger generations will amass assets.”……
But will those assets have a value anything like they have now. An empty house is a liability until it is tenanted or sold. A business is valued on the demand for its product or services.
A declining population needs less resources. All roads lead downhill.
“An empty house is a liability until it is tenanted or sold.”
You are right. Witness the phenomenon of “aki-ya” (empty houses) in Japan.
It is very hard for Kiwis to imagine that houses could fall in value, but in rural Japan in depopulating villages they can’t even give them away.
In NZ the weighted average age of a MPs is below 50.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was 21 when she entered parliament in 2023
Tamatha Paul was 26
Simeon Brown was 32 when he became a highly ranked Minister
Only a couple of oldies like Winston but he wont go away.
————————–
The US is fucked having so many octogenarians around .
Making decisions about ten or 15 years hence when they wont be here.
Bad news.
They were still taking advice (orders ? ) from the old war monger POS kissinger when he was late nineties.
Fortunately in a worm farm doing something productive now.
US is probably the fucked up exception and not the norm in the world.
——————–
Australia having compulsory voting ( I dont agree) ensures the younger people get out and vote.
The fine for not voting is about AUD50, depending on State.
Not onerous but with State, Federal, local, and by elections this can add up.
<i>Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was 21 when she entered parliament in 2023… …Only a couple of oldies like Winston but he wont go away.</i>
You could clone Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and stack them 5 five high and five deep, and they still wouldn’t compare to Winston.
We should be grateful for the Winston’s in this world.
A compulsory retirement age or length of service is not a bad thing for MP’s, likewise an IQ test and a reasonable employment background should be mandatory for standing for Parliament.
I’m with you on the IQ test. They should add in a competency test, economics test, ethical tests, and drug tests – the latter being initial and ongoing random.
A reasonable retirement age is when they fail the above tests.
People age differently and experience cognitive and ethical decline at different ages. Winston still has his marbles and scruples, all the green party members, TPM party, 67% of Labour (could be higher) would never have passed the scruples test to begin with, and many would have failed the drug testing.
GG would have been filtered out at the beginning as would Swarbrick, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, and Ardern. Being an activist is not a good pool to draw MPs from.
And yes an employment check – that they can work, will work, and have created someone of value, and have values underpinning that.
Wrapping fish and chips, and working for a Marxist MP does not qualify.
If you dig deep enough, most, if not all troublemakers, hated working for a boss, and climbing through the ranks.
I am in favour of an age test, and that is a minimum age, unless they have already made significant contributions to society at an early age. 30 would be a good start.
You lost me at drug tests. That is advocating for tyranny.
…..”a reasonable employment background”……
Racism ! ! !