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

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
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less