Written by Michael Thervil
It seems that the recent mayoral election confirmed our prediction/forecast here at VEDA Magazine as Texas Senator John Whitmire has won the position as the new Mayor of Houston. Now that our forecast has been confirmed, it’s time to look at why our prediction has come to be true. Factors such as cultural norms and expectations, gender roles, economics, age, and voting habits all come into play. Remember we at VEDA Magazine don’t support one political affiliation over another; in this case we simply articulate the facts that play a role in whether a candidate wins or loses an election.
Despite the exceptionally low voter turnout in this year’s mayoral election which registered at 17.5%, the voting power appeared to lay in the hands of the Latino/Hispanic population of Houston Texas. With that comes the variable of cultural norms reigns supreme. This is important to know that Latino/Hispanic voters may not view the political candidates and the political process in general in the same way as other ethnicities. When it comes to things such as tackling crime and the creation of quality employment opportunities, they’re on par with just about any other voter on these issues.
But the difference lies in the fact that, due to the Latino/Hispanic culture being patriarchal, meaning that men are typically seen as the ones that make the decisions regarding the socioeconomic direction in which their community moves. Hence, as a collective they tend to prefer men to be in positions of power and authority especially in the realm of politics rather than women and this transfers directly over to their voting habits as well. The opposite is true in the African American community. Social norms and expectations such as this were something that really crippled Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee’s chances of winning in the first place.
In saying that, when it came to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, even though she may have garnered the large support of the black Americans who account for 22% of the total Houston population, as opposed to their Latino/Hispanic counterparts who make up 45% of the total Houston population – it was no real help to her campaign. That means even if every single black American voted for her in the city of Houston it’s still not enough to counter the Latino/Hispanic vote; and the low voter turnout for this election added insult to injury. Another factor that played a monumental role in who would be elected for Houston mayor was both of the candidate’s age. The average age of those that participated in the voting process was roughly 60.
It’s a known fact that as people age, the more likely they are to adopt conservative values. This fact was magnified when younger voters practically disregarded the opportunity to vote during this election cycle. Thus, the younger voters who are more likely to be more liberal in thought, and who would have voted for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee were basically non-existent. Backing our position is that the median age of a Houstonian lies roughly between 33-35. This means that Millennials (ages 23-38) skipped this opportunity to vote for the more liberal of the two frontrunners in this mayoral election.
The question is why? followed by: “what could both political candidates have done better in order to generate more votes from this age group?”. We suspect that the lack of conversation concerning the creation of quality employment opportunities could have been to blame. Why? Because money is the lifeblood of people’s wellbeing. It reigns supreme over the social issues of crime, education, and homelessness. If Millennials were given the opportunity to make more money, they could move into an area of Houston where there’s less crime. On top of that, when given better employment opportunities, they would be better able to pay off their student loans and have more disposable income to stimulate the local economy.
This means better credit scores to purchase more houses. Thus, this equates to another opportunity for the city to rake in more taxes. in doing so, that tax money would’ve provided funding for schools and infrastructure (i.e. Metro Transit Service). When tackling the social issue of homelessness, the economic boost from having quality employment opportunities would’ve allow people to pay more taxes that would’ve funded the social service programs needed to help alleviate the number of people who fall into the category of being homeless. As a bonus, this would also fund the mental health services many citizens have been requesting.
What also hurt both Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and Senator John Whitmire, even though he won the election by a 30% margin, was the fact that they were seen as “just too old” to really be effective in the ability to be relevant to the needs, wants, and desires of younger voters. We think that people saw through Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee’s various attempts to seem “down to earth” and “being down with the people''; just as much as when they looked at Senator John Whitmire, they saw him as nothing more than some “a rich white dude”, who’ll “look out for his own”.
Again, relevance is key and is the fundamental thing that builds relationships with people from younger generations. Generation X’ers and Millennials have lived to see the same old dog and pony show for far too long and those that fell into the category of Generation Z, simply felt as if they were invisible. This is why neither generation hardly showed up to the booth. This political race just felt like more of the same, in which those that really needed to beef up their socio-economic situation would again, find themselves “on the shitty end of the stick” of stale lip-service.
Comments