In a cogent column this week, the Toronto Star’s Chantal Hébert argued young people could make more of a difference by working within the political system rather than railing against it in street-level protests like the “Occupy” movements that have swept through cities across the globe. She makes some good points when it comes to Canadian youth, in particular, but the same doesn’t seem to hold true for youth in the United States, where the protests largely originated.

Young people, who make up the dominant group in the Occupy protests, are also the least politically engaged. Demographically speaking, voter turnout is roughly proportional to age. Generally, the older eligible voters get, the more likely they are to actually cast ballots.

“If voters aged 18 to 35 cast a ballot in the same proportion as their elders, the outcome of elections could be different,” Hébert writes, and she’s absolutely correct.

She goes on to say that, aside from simply voting, there are plenty of other methods for young Canadians to exert their influence, especially in the current political climate. The time is ripe to get in on the ground floor, she argues, now that corporate and union donations to political parties are banned and the sway once held by “powerful lobbies” is far weaker than it was a decade or two ago.

With the federal NDP seeking a new leader, too, Hébert points out there is a perfect window of opportunity for young Canadians (who tend to support the NDP more than other demographic groups) to join the party and help steer it in a new direction. She cites Alberta as a recent example of how well that can work, noting that it was a relatively small group of “progressive voters” who “got tired of being on the outside looking in” and “became voting members of the province’s Conservative party and were instrumental in having Red Tory Alison Redford elected leader and premier-designate.”

“It is easier to change parties from the inside than from the street,” she writes and, again, she is correct – at least when it comes to Canada.

What she doesn’t mention in her column, however, is that the recent Occupy protests began largely as an American movement and change from within isn’t quite so easy south of the border.

While the influence of “powerful lobbies” has been increasingly restricted in Canada, the situation has been quite the opposite in the United States, where a 2010 Supreme Court decision swept aside limits on corporate and union political contributions and effectively opened the door to unlimited campaign spending. Money has never had more influence over politics in the U.S. than it does now.

That plays a pervasive role in every level of the political system, including the selection of new leaders. Grassroots efforts may influence the selection of party leaders in Canada but the U.S. primary system is quite different. Candidates must be extremely well funded to even have a chance at securing a nomination and individual voices are routinely drowned out by the demands of deep-pocketed lobby groups.

This is a big part of what the Occupy movement has been railing against. Young Americans, in particular, feel disenfranchised, and rightly so. In a system where money talks, being unemployed or underemployed and mired in student debt means you have little say. Taking to the streets may very well be your best option, especially in a two-party system where both Democrats and Republicans are so heavily beholden to their campaign contributors.

While the political system is not as closed off to individuals in Canada, many of the demonstrators at Occupy rallies from Vancouver to Edmonton to Toronto came to stand in solidarity with their American peers. Those who attended to “smash the system” on this side of the border, however, should realize it’s not as broken as they might think.