Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Encouraging students to vote locally builds stronger communities

Encouraging students to vote locally builds stronger communities

Young voters flock to a voting site at Iowa State University

Getty Images

Blankenship is an assistant professor of Psychology at James Madison University. His research focuses on the role of identity and stereotypes on the political engagement, belonging, and well-being of marginalized groups, specifically focusing on groups with concealable identities. He is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

Many colleges, including James Madison University (JMU), are located in small, close-knit communities such as Harrisonburg, Virginia. These communities are essential to the character and identity of these colleges, and the colleges themselves form and shape their surrounding communities in important ways.


There are clear economic benefits that colleges provide to their host small towns. In fact, some have argued that creating a thriving university/college in the community is crucial to securing the future of rural communities in the future. However, after graduation, many college graduates relocate from their college home in pursuit of opportunities elsewhere. This void results in a lack of highly skilled workers who could potentially greatly further support the economic, social, and cultural development of these communities they are leaving behind. This problem, known as “brain drain,” has many root causes, with most stemming from a lack of connection that students have built with the area.

Enticing recent graduates from institutions such as JMU to want to stay in the area after their graduation is a multi-faceted problem that requires lots of different types of interventions, such as increased housing availability and encouraging employment opportunities for highly skilled workers. One other possible solution is to encourage college students to register to vote locally in their college communities, which can help foster emotional and social connections to the area, increasing the likelihood of retention.

Building Connections To Place Through Voting

Recent research has shown that students who vote locally have a stronger connection to their communities than those who do not vote at all, vote by mail in their hometowns, or travel back home to vote on election day. In my research, I have found that students who voted locally were much more likely to agree with statements like, "living in The Shenandoah Valley is important to how I see myself.” This suggests that voting locally can make students feel more connected to their communities and plant a seed for developing stronger connections, potentially leading to the decision to stay in the area after graduation.

Other research, such as a study by Jacobs and Munis (2019), similarly points to the power of place for affecting political engagement. Fostering local political engagement is probably not enough to foster these strong connections, but rather serves as a starting point that leads students to want to learn more about local issues, create a sense of investment in local businesses, schools, and nonprofits, as well as lead to a sense of identification with the community in more subtle ways (e.g. “I am a Harrisonburg citizen”), which research shows can be powerful in affecting future decisions, like deciding where to live.

College Students Are Not Politically Homogeneous

There are many stereotypes about college students and their political affiliations. However, research has shown that political divides are much more balanced than one might expect. In an in-process research study that I am conducting with JMU students, approximately half expressed interest in voting for Democrats, while the other half expressed interest in voting for Republicans. This matches with evidence from other sources, which show similar insights in their (unscientific) polling, that 30% of JMU students identified as Democrats, with similar numbers identified as Republicans (24%) and independents (29%). This roughly equal ideological spread also indicates that elected officials should be encouraged to support students voting locally, knowing that their fears about students voting them out of office are likely unfounded.

Encouraging College Students To Vote Locally

Encouraging college students to vote locally is both a policy and a messaging problem. Universities can play a role in encouraging students to register to vote locally by reframing their messaging to encourage students to register and vote locally in their college communities. JMU is a national model for encouraging student voting and leveraging their success toward these aims.

In terms of policy, the state could also intervene by passing laws that make it easier for students to register to vote in their college communities. For example, university housing offices and apartment complexes that are identified as leasing a large share of their apartments to students (e.g. those that lease by the room), could be compelled to share information with their residents annually about how to update their voter registration to their current address. Similarly, Virginia could implement laws that require state universities to ensure students update their forms of identification to match their local address on file with the university, to receive their student ID. Since student IDs can also be used as a form of identification for voting in Virginia, this would increase election security, while also providing an opportunity for students to easily update their voter registration while at the Department of Motor Vehicles, in accordance with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (i.e. the “Motor Voter Act”).

Encouraging college students to vote locally can help build emotional and social connections to their college communities, which can then lead to a greater likelihood of them staying in the area after graduation. Such efforts and policies may lay the groundwork for building strong, stable, prosperous communities and increase the likelihood that local college alumni/ae will remain lifelong residents.

This writing was originally published through the Scholars Strategy Network.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less