Wilson is an associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis and a public voices fellow at The OpEd Project.
Senate action on voting legislation is stalled in 2021, even though governors across the country urged the U.S. Senate to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This postponement came at a time when voting rights are under siege in many cities and states, potentially blocking many who can vote from voting at all.
In a recent interview with CBS’ “Face The Nation,” Vice President Kamala Harris said, “And right now, we're about to take ourselves off the map as a role model, if we let people destroy one of the most important pillars of a democracy, which is free and fair elections.”
Recently New York City activists worked to give noncitizens the right to vote in local elections while Massachusetts is considering same-day voter registration. Meanwhile, the Justice Department recently announced its lawsuit against the state of Texas for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
National questions involving voting seem more politicized and polarized.
The voting rights bill, named in memory of the late civil rights leader and long-serving representative from Georgia, proposes many reforms including requiring federal preclearance in changing certain electoral districts, limiting restrictive voter ID requirements, and adding requirements to changing voter roll maintenance or voting locations.
Ballot access has become a highly politicized topic in our country. Changing the rules of voting will inevitably influence changes in behavior. But just making it easier to vote does not mean people will be incentivized to do so. Perhaps getting younger Americans involved in the process will improve voting rates.
Previous legislation has made small improvements. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Voter Registration Act of 1965 marked increases, but none have ushered in a substantial wave of higher voter turnout.
To encourage people to vote, the voters themselves actually need to want to do so. Research demonstrates that early learning experiences as well as trust and understanding of the electoral system lead to greater voter interest. In this arena, the U.S. as a democracy falls behind other countries.
In the United States, voter turnout averages 55 percent to 60 percent in presidential election years and the numbers are far lower in off-year election cycles ( 53.4 percent in 2018 and 41.9 percent in 2014).
Interestingly, 2020 marked a record high, with 67 percent of voting-age-eligible citizens voting, according to the Census Bureau. While this increase warrants recognition, the reality is that it is still well below many democracies globally. Turkey and Sweden rank among the highest in voter turnout with 88.9 percent and 82 percent, while Switzerland (36 percent) and Luxembourg (48 percent) are among the lowest.
Other countries can boast of higher voter turnout but that may be a result of their institutional structures that incentivize or require it. Data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance shows 27 countries practice compulsory.
Even then, voter turnout reveals a decline in voter turnout in all countries over the last 70 years, though the numbers are still higher in those states that require voting compared to those that do not. More democracies hold elections on weekends or even declare them to be holidays, giving many workers the day off with plenty of time to cast their ballots.
And this is where the United States needs to step up, Vice President Harris said in the CBS interview: "I believe that voting rights is one of the most significant issues that is facing us as individuals and as leaders today, there's no question, no question. Voting rights lead to every other right, every other right. And so we need to prioritize it as a nation, all of us and understand why voting rights are important and- and- and insist that our elected leaders preserve these rights."
One way to get more voter involvement is getting students working the polls. Forty-five states have youth poll worker programs that allow adolescents as young as 15 to work directly in elections.
For example, Indiana offers the Hoosier Hall Pass Program through the secretary of state’s office, enabling 16- and 17-year-olds to serve as registered poll workers in elections.
Though this program has existed for nearly two decades, many students and school districts are not taking advantage of this unique opportunity to participate directly in democracy. In Indianapolis and Marion County, the state’s capital and largest urban area, 150 students served among the 4,000 poll workers employed during the general election.
Poll workers tend to be older; a Pew Research survey found a majority of poll workers are over 60 years old. This was especially concerning during the Covid-19 pandemic. Voter registration efforts, like Big-Ten-leading Purdue University, can likewise encourage participation among younger voters.
When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, only white men who owned property qualified to cast a ballot. Since then, numerous amendments and laws have enabled more Americans to participate, breaking down barriers of race, sex, ethnic ancestry, property ownership and age.
The requirements to vote now are fairly simple and straightforward: You must be an American citizen, at least 18 years old, and fulfill your state’s residency and registration requirements. In most states, you cannot be serving a felony conviction, but in Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., felons never lose their right to vote.
The American election system would benefit from a serious reevaluation of the mechanisms that exist and the effects they have. Voting is so much more than an annual task, and empowering “pre-voters” through experiential learning can impart that sense of civic virtue that is necessary for a healthy democracy.
Perhaps then more Americans who can vote actually will vote.



















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.