Miller is executive director of Nonprofit VOTE, which works to help other nonprofits across the nation boost civic engagement and voter turnout among their allies.
Our democracy is a chorus, one that only improves when more and diverse voices join, adding richness to the sound. Despite the volume of last year's election — one that broke a century-old record for voter turnout — there were nonetheless missing and underrepresented voices. Those gaps in turnout are even more pronounced in local election cycles like 2021, resulting in an older, whiter electorate.
So how do we achieve a truly representative electorate? Voter-friendly policies are important, but they are not enough by themselves. Yes, everyone can have a right to a music stand and a song book, but who is conducting the auditions? In the end, voter turnout is largely a reflection of who is contacted about voting ... and who is not.
Political parties and campaigns have failed to close voter participation gaps because that's not their goal. Their goal is to win an election, not foster an inclusive electorate. Even the most well-meaning campaigns have to prioritize their resources on "likely" voters — the experienced singers who performed last time. The uninvited singers don't show and the cycle repeats itself.
So who has the capacity and motivation to expand the invite list and create the truly diverse and representative chorus of voices? One key to that question is America's nonprofits, from food pantries to housing clinics, which are motivated by broader values of inclusivity and ensuring the communities they serve are heard.
The newly-released Nonprofit Power Report, which details our work with 180 nonprofits across seven states in 2020, shows that nonprofits that marry voter engagement with their mission can help foster a more inclusive and representative democracy. It also provides a roadmap for nonprofit leaders eager to ensure our country lives up to its promise as a diverse chorus of citizenry.
The report explores nonprofit reach and impact on turnout among other things. Let's start with whom nonprofits reach.
Nonprofits typically offer their services to the very communities that are most underrepresented in our democracy. So it only makes sense that when those same organizations do voter engagement work, they are engaging a part of the electorate most often left out of the national conversation. In fact, the report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits in our program were:
- More than twice as likely to be voters of color.
- More than twice as likely to earn less than $30,000 annually.
- Nearly twice as likely to be young (18-24).
Often described as "low propensity" voters, these groups are rarely contacted by political campaigns. They represent the choral singers who don't get invited. Without that contact, they don't show up to the polls and the next election sees candidates once again not engaging them — completing the vicious cycle of exclusion.
As trusted actors with a vested interest in uplifting the communities they serve, nonprofits can sow the seeds of real and inclusive political participation. Where campaigns see low-propensity voters, nonprofits see high-potential voters hungry for genuine engagement and respect.
The Covid pandemic also provided a learning opportunity as many nonprofits pivoted to online and digital strategies, while others continued in-person engagement with social distancing and PPEs. The organizations that did Covid-safe, in-person engagement were 1.7 times more likely to reach low-income voters and 1.4 times more likely to reach voters of color than those who relied on digital strategies.
But reaching voters is just the first step in ensuring our democracy lives up to its promise. What impact do nonprofits have in getting those newly engaged voters, some for the first time, to the polls?
The Nonprofit Power Report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits have a turnout advantage over voters not contacted by nonprofits. Even in a highly saturated election year like 2020, voters engaged by nonprofits saw their turnout increase by 3 percentage points. However, when we dialed into specific voter demographics, especially people of color, young voters and low-income voters, the results were even more encouraging:
- Low-income voters saw a 7 percentage point boost.
- Asian American and Pacific Islander voters saw a 6 percentage point boost.
- Hispanic voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.
- Young voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.
At Nonprofit VOTE, we believe in this work because we believe in the power of nonprofits. Whether that's through hands-on training, our webinar series, robust resource library or research, we know that organizations genuinely embedded in their communities can be powerhouses for democracy. That's why we encourage you to take a deep dive into the Nonprofit Power Report, including the Practitioner's Report providing a roadmap for your organization.
In the end, there is no question that nonprofits that commit to voter engagement can have a positive impact on the communities they serve and the nation at large. The only question is what role your organization will play to ensure our democracy is a song for all, by all.



















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.