Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

'Cost of voting' a barrier to the poor – but it can be overcome, scholars say

Georgia voters

The report says the cost of voting in Georgia has led to declining access to medical care in rural communities since the state out of the Medicaid expansion under the Obamacare.

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Structural barriers have created a "cost to voting" that disproportionately affects low-income Americans and reduces their participation in the electoral process, according to a report issued Tuesday by a group of academics.

"Those with fewer resources — time, money, information — are 'priced out' of participating due to factors such as election timing, voter identification requirements, felony disenfranchisement, and inefficient election management," the report concludes. "The result is that wealthier people vote at much higher rates than others."

Narrowing the pool of voters, in turn, produces consequences on society, such as increasing inequality, hindering economic growth and weakening public health, according to the report, which draws on existing social science research to summarize the problem. It also offers seven recommendations to lower the "cost of voting" as well as ensure more secure and fair elections.


That research suggests barriers to voting have contributed to rising inequality because poorer people, who are inclined to support the government playing a strong role in leveling economic disparities, hold less sway with politicians than wealthier Americans, who are more likely to vote as well as make political donations.

Dwindling political engagement by those with low incomes also breeds public health consequences. The report points to Georgia, where access to medical care in the state's rural communities has declined in the years since the state declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The report also details a host of other socio-economic problems caused by inequality, from stunting business investment and diminishing the purchasing power of a shrinking middle class to weakening the support for capitalism among the young and fostering political polarization.

"For all of these reasons, it is vitally important to advance electoral reforms, while maintaining the security of the electoral process," say the authors, Kelsie George and Samantha Perlman.

The report, "Securing Fair Elections: Challenges to Voting in the U.S. and Georgia," was issued by the Scholars Strategy Network, an association of academics and researchers who write about public policy in ways they hope are accessible to the general public.

Recommendations to increase engagement include enfranchising felons, eliminating voter ID requirements, reducing long lines at the polls on Election Day and changing the timing of local elections to coincide with state and federal elections, which research suggests is one of the most effective strategies to boost turnout.

Using voting machines that print paper ballots, adopting nonpartisan redistricting practices and judiciously eliminating ineligible names from voter registration lists would promote secure, fair elections, the report concludes.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less