Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Don’t just get out the vote: Put voters at the center of the process

Opinion

Early voters 2022

Voters in Columbus, Ohio, cast early ballots on Monday.

Paul Vernon/AFP via Getty Images

Leighninger is head of democracy innovation for the National Conference on Citizenship. Gifford is the founder and chief operating officer of ActiVote.

Many Americans aren’t confident about the choices they are making at the polls; as a result, some voters are making ill-informed decisions and others aren’t voting at all. In fact, roughly 50 percent of all the people who register never actually vote, and closer to 75 percent of those registered don’t vote in primaries and local elections. We would have higher turnout, and election results that better reflect what Americans want, if we put voters at the center of the process instead of treating them as the means to an end.

This was the overarching finding of the research on voter education we conducted this spring and summer. Our organizations, ActiVote and the National Conference on Citizenship’s Democracy Innovation Project, held focus groups and surveyed existing studies to find out if more customized, accessible, nonpartisan information would help voters. We asked focus group participants to use the ActiVote voter education tool, which allows people to compare how their policy views map with those of the candidates vying for their votes. The focus groups covered three different cohorts of voters: new voters, infrequent voters and “super voters.”

We had three more specific findings. First, voters don’t like to feel uninformed. “There are a lot of people that I vote for that I don't know who they are,” said one focus group participant. “I feel stupid every time I'm doing this.”


Theoretically, voters should be able to base their vote on what the candidates say they are going to do once in office, but voters have difficulty connecting their own policy views with candidate platforms. Another focus group participant said: “I realized how much I don’t know, especially about the bills and the policy kinds of questions. There's a lot of stuff going on, it's hard to keep track of.”

This is particularly true for local and state races. One focus group participant from Pennsylvania admitted, “The reason why I never vote locally is because I simply didn’t have the knowledge to do so.” Another Georgia participant stated: It takes so long to find the information that you do not have time to actually process the information.”

Many other studies have supported this finding. One example is the 100 Million Project about non-voting adults in America, which showed that voters do not have time to learn as much as they’d like about the candidates and the process. The more confidence voters have in the process and in the quality of their vote, the more likely they are to show up to the polls.

Second, voters are uncomfortable with the influence of partisanship on the information they receive. As one focus group participant put it, “The polarization that exists right now, it just feels very manipulating. Truth doesn’t seem to be the goal, right?” Many focus group participants talked about voting along party lines, or following the endorsements of organizations they support, as a fallback they were using to replace trusted, easily accessible information on candidates and issues.

When they saw a way to work through information together, the focus group participants recognized an opportunity to get past polarization. One participant felt, “The more people can delve into the issues and see where they really stand and see where candidates stand, the better. Hopefully that's helping people to understand it's not all about polarization. We can agree on some things.” Being able to see how their views compared with those of the candidates helped them focus more on values and policies and less on party.

Third, as people were better able to explore the information about issues and policies, they became more interested in voting on issues directly through opportunities like initiatives and referendums. Instead of “shoving Republicans or Democrats down our throats,” said one young voter, we should take an issue like infrastructure and say to people, “Look, our infrastructure needs help. Now you form your own opinion. How should the need be solved?”

This finding is supported by other research. Americans support practices and reforms that would give them a more meaningful say in public decisions. In one national opinion poll, Americans were asked about a list of possibilities for participatory democracy. Support for these ideas — including processes like participatory budgeting and citizen assemblies, which allow everyday people to contribute to policymaking — ranged from 75 percent to almost 90 percent, without significant differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Voting should not make people feel stupid — it should make Americans feel informed, connected and empowered. By providing more information, better ways to process that information and more opportunities to be heard on policy issues, we improve the way we elect candidates and make public decisions. If we want government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” we should spend more time and effort focusing on the people.


Read More

Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltazar Enriquez stands with "ICE OUT OF CHICAGO" sign in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood

Teresa Ayala Leon

Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltzar Enríquez was born in Michoacán, Mexico, and moved to Chicago at the age of three. Little Village, often called “The Mexico of the Midwest,” became his new home, a community he has grown to love and serve. In 2008, Enríquez joined the Little Village Community Council, a nonprofit organization originally founded in 1957. Upon becoming a member, he noticed the lack of participation and limited community programs available for residents. In 2020, he was named president of the council and began expanding, introducing initiatives such as Equal Education for Latinos, among other resources for the Little Village community. Enríquez reflected on his years of involvement and how he has navigated leading the council amid the current political climate.

Question: What inspired you most to get involved in the council?

Keep ReadingShow less
Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater
boy's writing on book

Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater

In the South, there is an idiom that says, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It means not discarding something valuable while trying to eliminate something harmful. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed response to unsubstantiated child care fraud allegations in Minnesota risks doing exactly that.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has frozen child care and family assistance grants in five states, and reports indicate that this action may be extended nationwide. Fraud at any level is wrong and should be thoroughly investigated, and once proven to be true, addressed. However, freezing child care payments and family assistance grants based on the views of a single social media “influencer” is an overcorrection that threatens the stability of child care programs and leaves families without care options through no fault of their own.

Across the nation, Americans rely heavily on child care. According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 70 percent of children under age six had all available parents in the workforce in 2023, underscoring how essential child care is to family and economic stability.

Child care funding, therefore, is not optional. It is a necessity that must remain stable and predictable.

Without consistent funding, child care operations are forced to significantly reduce capacity, and some are forced to close altogether. In 2025, a longtime family child care owner made the difficult decision to close her business after state budget cuts eliminated critical child care funding. While this example reflects a state-level funding failure, the impact is the same. When funding becomes unreliable, as is the case with the current funding freeze, child care business owners, employees, parents, and children all suffer.

The economic consequences extend well beyond families. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, when parents cannot find or afford child care, they are pushed out of the workforce, and businesses lose skilled employees. Child care gaps disrupt staffing across industries and cost states an estimated $1 billion annually in lost economic activity.

Child care is no longer just a family issue. It is an economic issue. It is one of the few sectors that directly affects every other industry. At a time when women are being encouraged to have more children, a strong support system must also exist, and that includes consistent, reliable child care funding.

Misuse of government funds is not a new concept. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than $200 billion in federal relief funding across programs was reportedly misused. Fraud occurs in every industry, and no system is immune to it.

If allegations of child care fraud are substantiated, safeguards should absolutely be implemented to prevent future misuse; however, freezing child care funding would further delay payments to a sector already plagued by late reimbursements, disrupt services for children and families, and destabilize small businesses that operate on thin margins.

The solution is straightforward. Strengthen oversight to mitigate risk, without punishing the entire field. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of child care programs operate in good faith and in compliance with the law, providing care to millions of children nationwide. According to a 2020 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, only seven states since 2013 have had errors in more than 10 percent of their child care fund payments.

Yes, accountability matters, but solutions must be precise and measured. Sweeping actions based on unsubstantiated claims destabilize the entire child care system. When child care collapses, families lose care, caregivers lose income, small businesses close, and the economy suffers.

We can strengthen safeguards without dismantling the system that families and the economy depend on. We can address misuse if and where it exists. But we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Eboni Delaney is the Director of Policy and Movement Building at the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in Partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

Keep ReadingShow less
It’s The Democracy, Stupid!

Why democracy reform keeps failing—and why the economy suffers as a result. A rethink of representation and political power.

Getty Images, Orbon Alija

It’s The Democracy, Stupid!

The economic pain that now defines everyday life for so many people is often treated as a separate problem, something to be solved with better policy, smarter technocrats, or a new round of targeted fixes. Wages stagnate, housing becomes unreachable, healthcare bankrupts families, monopolies tighten their grip, and public services decay. But these outcomes are not accidents, nor are they the result of abstract market forces acting in isolation. They are the predictable consequence of a democratic order that has come apart at the seams. Our deepest crisis is not economic. It is democratic. The economy is merely where that crisis becomes visible and painful.

When democracy weakens, power concentrates. When power concentrates, it seeks insulation from accountability. Over time, wealth and political authority fuse into a self-reinforcing system that governs in the name of the people while quietly serving private interests. This is how regulatory agencies become captured, how tax codes grow incomprehensible except to those who pay to shape them, how antitrust laws exist on paper but rarely in practice, and how labor protections erode while corporate protections harden. None of this requires overt corruption. It operates legally, procedurally, and efficiently. Influence is purchased not through bribes but through campaign donations, access, revolving doors, and the sheer asymmetry of time, expertise, and money.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington Loves Blaming Latin America for Drugs — While Ignoring the American Appetite That Fuels the Trade
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.

Washington Loves Blaming Latin America for Drugs — While Ignoring the American Appetite That Fuels the Trade

For decades, the United States has perfected a familiar political ritual: condemn Latin American governments for the flow of narcotics northward, demand crackdowns, and frame the crisis as something done to America rather than something America helps create. It is a narrative that travels well in press conferences and campaign rallies. It is also a distortion — one that obscures the central truth of the hemispheric drug trade: the U.S. market exists because Americans keep buying.

Yet Washington continues to treat Latin America as the culprit rather than the supplier responding to a demand created on U.S. soil. The result is a policy posture that is both ineffective and deeply hypocritical.

Keep ReadingShow less