The political process is, by nature, not a spectator sport. Politics, it is said, maintains deliberate interest in the disinterested. Those that do not vote are not removed from the consequences of the elections that go on without them.

The upcoming midterm election exists in a national and cultural context wracked by division, rhetoric, and partisanship—this much is clear.

According to Dr. Kyle Kopko, Associate Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Research and Planning, “there are indications of increased activism [among college students and young people], but whether [they] turn out to vote is [a] big question.”

Turnout, according to Kopko, is “consistently lower” in midterm elections than in presidential election years. Much has been made in publications like Politico and in the media at large concerning a supposed “blue wave.” Graduate student and Republican Kyle Schaeffer is more skeptical.

“The Democrats could take the house, but it’s not going to be by as much as it’s been hyped. The Senate is staying red,” Schaeffer said.

But, need there be a “wave” at all to make a difference? Even some election losses have proven historically earthshaking; one need only look at George McGovern’s loss in 1972, or Barry Goldwater’s in 1964. Both were indications of their respective parties’ ultimate directions and impulses.

Professor of religion and Asian studies Dr. Jeffrey Long sees more reflected in this midterm than a simple victory or loss. The localization of politics in Pennsylvania’s now-11th congressional district has contributed to a local increase in energy in support for Democratic candidate Jess King.

It remains to be seen whether college students will turn out to vote, but there is enthusiasm on campus. If that translates into even a loss within four or five points, that will be an important sign that things may be more volcanic than they seem.

Some state governments, such as New Hampshire’s, are accused of pursuing policies which unnecessarily curtail the college student vote. According to The Hill, Gov. Chris Sununu signed a controversial bill to require payment of a non-residency fee to the state in order for out-of-state college students to vote in New Hampshire. It is notable that Sununu, a Republican in a swing state, is up for re-election this year.

The college student and youth vote question has long been at the forefront of American political development. In the 1968 presidential primary, college students and recent graduates, then held back by the voting age of 21, went “Clean for Gene” to campaign for Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s presidential bid.

When McCarthy did unexpectedly well against incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, Johnson suspended his campaign for re-election, and the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was prompted to join the race.

This election would have profound echoes into the 1970s, as many of Kennedy and McCarthy’s young supporters joined the McGovern campaign in 1972—McGovern’s primary victory in Wisconsin in that year is attributed by anthropologist Hunter S. Thompson in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72” to the youth vote and management of that campaign.

“Even if college student or young voter turnout isn’t significantly higher in 2018, it’s possible that we could see a marked increase for 2020…I suspect that Democrats will be more motivated to go to the polls this year due to frustrations with the Trump administration,” Kopko said.

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s words on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court ring with an increased importance, in these closing days of the midterm campaign. His words were “vote…vote…vote.”