Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Time to engage the biggest electoral bloc: Americans who are not voters

Opinion

"I Voted" stickers
SKrow/Getty Images
Fisher is deputy director of Unite America, which works to enact and helps finance political reform efforts and candidates "who put people over party." (It is a donor to The Fulcrum.) This piece was originally published by Independent Voter News.

Had "Did Not Vote" been a candidate for president in 2016, they would have won handedly. With 41.3 percent of the vote, this block of the electorate significantly outpaced the share of all voters who chose Hillary Clinton (28.5 percent) or Donald Trump (27.3 percent).

Despite the best efforts of both parties to turn out citizens to the polls, voter apathy remains a well-documented reality of American politics. It's an especially alarming reality when compared to our peers. Of the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents the world's 32 richest and most developed countries, the United States ranks 26th in voter turnout by eligible citizens.

American nonvoters are the subject of recently released research, The 100 Million Project, commissioned by the Knight Foundation and the centerpiece for a Tuesday online forum on civic engagement sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice.

Informed by a survey of 4,000 persistent non-voters nationwide and 8,000 persistent non-voters in 10 battleground states, the research is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of why many Americans don't exercise their civic duty.

The methodology used is unique in today's political industry. Almost always, pollsters terminate public opinion surveys as soon as respondents indicate they are unlikely to, or will not, vote in the next election. The result is an entire swath of the electorate whose attitudes and preferences go under analyzed and untold.

There are many reasons citizens don't vote, according to the research.

First and foremost, non-voters report a scarcity of candidates who truly motivate and inspire them to participate.

Second, they lack faith in the system; 48 percent of non-voters do not believe the results of elections represent the will of the people, and they are more likely than regular voters to believe election results are not reported accurately.

Third, non-voters are less likely to believe the actions of the president and other elected officials have an impact on their life.

And finally, news is viewed 25 percent less often by non-voters compared to voters, suggesting they are less informed.

There also remain simple reasons that dictate why voters don't participate, including high barriers to entry in our antiquated electoral systems.

We can help engage non-voters by making it easier to cast a ballot. Proactively mailing every voter a ballot — which is what will happen in just five states this year — could boost participation by up to 9 percent, according to new research. And the gains are equal across party affiliation and most likely to benefit constituencies that tend to vote less frequently — including young people, minorities and the poor.

To overcome the top reason why voters don't vote — a dearth of options they actually believe in — we should consider reforms that could lead to a multiparty democracy. Lee Drutman's recent book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," argues that a combination of ranked-choice voting and multimember districts would open our system up to new competition, and likely give more Americans more reason to vote.

But perhaps non-voters will change behavior on their own. Surprisingly, 71 percent of the non-voters surveyed say they plan to vote in this year's presidential election, with 78 percent of those respondents saying they were absolutely certain. This seems to be because 57 percent believe the 2020 contest is more important than previous elections and only 33 percent believe the country is on the right track.

Of course, the political science literature is littered with consensus that the fact voters say they're going to vote is a terrible indicator for if they actually will.

Candidates, political consultants and organizations who often consume themselves with only engaging the most likely to vote should consider whether — by engaging America's largest political constituency — they take the lead in creating a more representative and functional government.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less