Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Three ways to change voting (or nonvoting) behavior

Opinion

Maryland primary voter

A voter casts a ballot in the Maryland primary election July 19.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Riegel is the co-founder of Motivote, a company that uses behavioral economics to help businesses, advocacy groups and candidates engage younger people and boost election turnout.

On paper, I check all the boxes for “civically engaged millennial”: I have degrees in political science and public administration. I participated in (and later, staffed) both Model UN and Youth & Government programs. I’ve asked bartenders to switch the TV to the vice presidential debate. I’ll talk incessantly about political opinions and care deeply about policy design.

And yet, until pretty recently, I had never voted in a non-presidential election.

It wasn’t that I didn’t think, in theory, it was important. But I never prioritized it.

I was living in New York but still registered in New Jersey. By the time I realized there was an election (usually on social media, the day of) it was too late to do anything.

Back in 2018, a grad school classmate and I started to explore the question of “why don’t people vote?” through a behavioral science lens.


She was a former student organizer, the person chasing you down with a clipboard on the quad. And she was frustrated by the volume of people who said they were planning to vote — and seemed to have every intention of doing so — but ultimately dropped off.

When it came time to pick a research topic for our MPA capstone project, we wanted to focus on this disconnect between intending to vote and actually doing it.

A lot of voter engagement centers on messages like, “It’s really important!” and “It’s your civic duty!” The problem is, these appeals don’t get at the very human behavioral breakdowns that prevent an estimated 50 percent of registered voters from casting their ballot.

As just one example: A 2018 report out of the New York Senate found that many New Yorkers didn’t vote in past elections for entirely preventable reasons – 28 percent had work/school obligations, 18 percent said they didn’t know the election date, and 16 percent said they forgot. Other reasons include child care obligations, not knowing the polling place, not having time or bad weather.

As humans, we default toward procrastinating on things that seem confusing, time-consuming or annoying.

Think about the micro-steps that go into voting. They include tasks like finding your driver’s license and entering the number, tracking down a printer and stamp to mail in a registration form or absentee ballot request, and carving out time to get to a polling place and wait in line. It’s no surprise that so many people put off important steps until it’s too late.

Luckily, we’re not starting from scratch. The field of behavioral science has figured out how to help people bridge “intention-action” gaps and increase follow-through. You may be familiar with these nudge strategies: Plan-making, reminders, defaults, social commitments, gamification, incentives.

If you’re looking to make the realities of human behavior a bigger focus of your voter engagement programs, here are some frameworks to guide you:

Plan-making

A lot of messaging to voters focuses on motivation — trying to convince people why it's important to vote.

But studies actually show that planning outweighs strong motivation.

Take an example from health care: In a study of people with the goal of getting healthier, one group who read motivational material about exercise — but did not plan when and where they would do it — showed no increase in exercise frequency. On the other hand, 91 percent of participants who planned their intentions (by writing down when and where they would do it each week) ended up following through.

Why can plans make such a difference? As humans, we believe in the best version of our future self. We hope we’ll “just remember” to do something, leaving it to chance. But, too often, that idealized self bumps up against a reality where we get busy and distracted.

Plan-making encourages us to think through potential obstacles and develop strategies for overcoming them.

How can we apply plan-making to voting?

Encourage voters to think through the details of how they'll vote — the more nuanced, the better.

A foundational study shows that when voters got phone calls that walked them through plan-making prompts, like when they will vote and where they will be coming from before that, increased turnout by 4.1 percent.

Prompt voters to think through their voting method (absentee, early, Election Day?), when they are planning to go, what they need to bring, whether they need to request time off from work or find child care, etc. Bonus points for adding it to their calendar!

Temptation-bundling

Temptation bundling is a strategy for habit formation where you “bundle” a source of gratification with a beneficial, but less enjoyable, activity.

For example, if you’re trying to get into a workout routine, you might only let yourself watch your favorite guilty pleasure show while on the treadmill.

How can we apply temptation-bundling to voting?

Connect an enjoyable experience to the act of voting. By pairing something you need to “get done” with something fun, you make it more likely to happen.

If your polling place is on the way to your favorite cafe, treat yourself to your favorite drink after casting your ballot.

If you’re in a vote-by-mail state, get friends together for an IRL or Zoom hangout where you fill out your ballots together.

Or, make plans to swing by an early voting center before work or class and then meet up for breakfast afterwards.

“Parties at the Polls,” which can lift turnout by 2 percent, are an example of temptation-bundling at a larger scale.

When community organizations set up food, music and activities near a polling place, they’re connecting something fun and celebratory to the behavior.

Social accountability

It’s no secret why finding an accountability buddy is such common advice when trying to hit a goal. Want to work out more? Sign up for fitness class with a friend. Keep putting off your assignment? Have a friend check in after each chapter.

Doing something with friends isn’t just more enjoyable; research shows it’s more effective.

Why? Humans love validation. When we know others are watching, we want them to think highly of us so we are more likely to engage in “prosocial” behavior. We're also less likely to back out when we know others are counting on us.

How can we apply social accountability to voting?

“Peer pressure” had a negative connotation growing up. But with voting, it comes in handy.

Start by telling friends you’re planning to vote. (This is a powerful signaling device, since people are more likely to vote when they think others are doing it.)

Even better, share your plan and ask for support: “Hey, I’m planning to vote early during my lunch break; can you check in with me this afternoon to make sure I did it?”

Level up by turning your friend group into a commitment circle. Let each other know when you’re going to cast your ballots and check up on anyone you haven’t heard from.

Organizations can facilitate social accountability with community competitions.

For example, college clubs and neighborhood squads can set goals like: 75 percent of our team will have voted by the Saturday before Election Day using absentee or early voting. Track progress, then celebrate teams that hit the goal.

Communal goals create incentives to check in on others in your group. When others are counting on you to show up, you’re less likely to put something off.

As you start to map out your messaging and engagement strategies for the 2022 midterm general elections, keep in mind that repeatedly telling someone to do something is not the best way to get them to take action. Instead, consider the behavioral barriers in their way and help them strategize to overcome. To learn more about using behavioral science to help voters decrease friction, say hi at jess@motivote.us.


Read More

Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less
America Cannot Function without Experts
a group of people sitting on top of a lush green field

America Cannot Function without Experts

America is facing a preventable national safety crisis because expertise is increasingly sidelined at the highest levels of government. In the first three months of 2026, at least 14 people have died in U.S. immigration detention centers — a surge that has drawn international criticism and underscored how life‑and‑death decisions depend on qualified leadership. When those entrusted with safeguarding the public lack the knowledge or are chosen for loyalty instead of competence, danger rarely announces itself. It arrives quietly, through misjudgments no one is prepared to correct.

That warning is urgent today. With Markwayne Mullin now leading the Department of Homeland Security amid rising scrutiny of immigration enforcement, questions about expertise are no longer abstract. Recent reporting shows a dozen detainee deaths in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody this year, highlighting systemic risks where leadership decisions have life‑and‑death consequences.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors standing in front of government military tanks.

People attend a pro-government rally on January 12, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Tehran's Enqelab Square on Monday, as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament, made a speech denouncing western intervention in Iran, following ongoing anti-government protests.

Getty Images

Changing Iran: With Help from Political Geographers on the Ground

INTRODUCTION

This article suggests a different path out of the present excursionist war. This would be a diplomatic effort with ample incentives to MAGA-Israel and the Conservative Shia Theocratic Khamenei Regime (CSTKR) to stop the war. In exchange for the U.S. and Israel stopping the bombing in Iran, this effort would allow the CSTKR to survive and thrive. They could keep and promote their belief that the return of the Muhammad al-Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who disappeared in 874 CE, is key to bringing on the end times to establish peace and justice on earth. While most people would endorse the attainment of peace and justice on earth, they would strongly object to its connection to try to actualize it through violent struggle.

This effort would assist Iran to thrive via the removal of sanctions, substantial technical and economic assistance, help in developing its civilian nuclear program, and letting them keep and maintain a mine-cleared Strait of Hormuz and charge tolls, similar to what Egypt levies for the Suez Canal. Charging tolls provides a strong incentive to keep that waterway open, maintained, and safe. It becomes an additional opportunity cost to keep it closed. The CSTKR and its proxy militias, in turn, must stop their bombing and terror campaigns and, in addition, the CSTKR must let the Strait of Hormuz be quickly opened, give up materials that can be used to build nuclear weapons, and accept the political reconfiguration of Iran as outlined here.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

U.S. Customs Protection officer

Photo provided by MILN

Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

Michigan officials and the city of Romulus have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a growing legal and political battle over plans to convert a local warehouse into an immigration detention center near Detroit.

The lawsuit, led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and joined by the city, seeks to halt the federal government’s effort to repurpose a commercial warehouse in Romulus into a large-scale detention site operated by ICE.

Keep ReadingShow less