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

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less