I'm sure there's a lot of non-rational peer-group following behavior that causes people to not vote, but likewise with the people who do vote. So associating the lack of prevailing rationality to a specific choice is fallacious.
American politics in 2018 is not lacking in drama or stark divisions. If today's politics doesn't excite you, what could possibly do it?
For instance where should a voter who cares deeply about abortion and capital punishment to go? The Democrats are not simply pro-choice, they demean and belittle his pro-life position. The Republicans find it inconceivable that he doesn't want to execute people guilty of the most heinous crimes, and he's dismissed as an unserious bleeding-heart. So maybe it's not that he's unexcited by the issues, but rather because of his strong inclinations he has no one to vote for.
It might be that low turnout is evidence that the current 'baskets' of the two parties are poorly aligned with the current electorate.
Note how none of the issues you've listed actually threaten status quo economic interests.
(You might think immigration does, in that tightening it up would increase competition for labor. But the issue would be backstopped from harm to actual people long before the economics would be affected)
Voting isn't like going to the shopping mall to buy something for yourself. It's something you do because politics also affects other people.
> Voting isn't like going to the shopping mall to buy something for yourself. It's something you do because politics also affects other people.
You're saying this like the philosophy of acting for a greater good isn't already reflected in my position, and so supports your argument Yet, regarding the issues you've listed, half the people voting are doing it because it negatively affects others? That's clearly nonsensical!
What I'm trying to get across is to ask yourself why these particular issues are so pressing and prominent. Not for yourself (I assume you've already done this). Not for the "others" (although you should do this). But constructively, in the larger scale.
Understanding the larger forces in play might be intellectually interesting, but if it results in apathy and forgetting to play defense it's just another way to lose.
Maybe voting isn't going to make things a whole lot better, but remember that it could always be worse.
And from a neutral point of view, both teams are doing a lot of attacking - while also seeing themselves as being under attack. Given the circularity, taking a step back and analyzing the larger picture intellectually is the only way to possibly win!
It's funny how we could see the sensationalism of the news cycle as it ramped up in traditional channels, but now that much of our media is our own social echo chamber, it's less perceptible.
Calling it "just apathy" is unjustifiable maligning. How is it not completely rational to be apathetic to whether business interests A or business interests B win their contest? What you're doing is the equivalent of a sports fanatic insisting that someone pick a team to root for.
Give these "apathetic" people an actual choice (like say a pitchfork) and you'll see how they really feel. In fact, I'd posit that a primary mechanism by which elections are won is convincing people that "this time will be different".