In general, voting processes systematically favor older persons. This is from a Texan prospective.
It does this in a couple of ways:
1) Young people generally have jobs or educational obligations which track attendance hourly. Older people are generally retired or salaried due to their position on the employment track, which means they have greater freedom to manipulate their schedule to vote. While I realize that those jobs are required by law to provide a block of at least two hours to vote, I don't expect many people to know that.
2) Voter ID laws systematically discriminate against those with fewer resources. Young people have fewer resources generally than older people (in addition to having less time to obtain the required ID).
3). The process of voting generally is more inconvenient than it should be. Why is there only one day for voting? Why does early voting end before election day? Why do you need to go to a specific designated polling precinct for a national or regional election? Washington and a few other states have mail in ballots for everyone. There is no good reason in my opinion as to why this is not implemented in other states.
Secondarily, primary voting in general makes people feel disinfranchised by simply being undemocratic. Why vote when the party has so many "superdelegates" in their pocket? Who thinks that it's fair for someone to decide a county result by flipping a fucking physical coin when you have real hardware RNGs available to you for 50 bucks off amazon?
And that leads in to how incredibly shitty our general voting processes are. There are ways to vote that have been scientifically proven to be more representative, such as IRV. The fact that these (or their derivatives) have not been adopted after so much time is simply indicative that the government is not interested in actual representative results.
Additionally, the technology used for voting in many places is absolutely absurd in terms of verification. There is no excuse for using a voting machine that does not print a paper copy of your ballot choices. Absolutely none. If the incredible fiascos with Diebold during the past few elections have taught us anything, it's that a paper trail is necessary because you can't trust software or hardware for its intended purpose. I say this as someone who uses software in his job and writes it occasionally. EVEN IN THE BEST CASE, SOFTWARE WILL FAIL. Having a hard copy makes it near-impossible for ballot stuffing to occur or bugs to destroy the integrity of the election. As it stands, who knows if your vote actually was recorded properly. No one actually has a record of anything.