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.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.