Young people are more inclined than ever to vote by mail in this year's election, but a new poll shows a majority of them lack the resources and knowledge to do so.
In light of the coronavirus pandemic, half the states have already adjusted their general election plans to emphasize mail-in voting or otherwise make casting ballots easier and safer. But a poll, released last week by the progressive youth voter engagement group NextGen America, indicates a significant lack of familiarity with the absentee voting process among voters younger than 35.
The survey is the latest indication that an optimistic expectation which surfaces every four years — the leaders of tomorrow are finally going to turn out in great numbers and cast the decisive votes for president — may be dashed once again.
That's because fewer than half of those surveyed know what they need to do to vote absentee (47 percent) or were familiar with their state's vote-by-mail deadlines (42 percent). And only narrow majorities indicated they had ready access to a printer (54 percent) or to a booklet of stamps (52 percent).
An NPR analysis of mail voting in this year's primaries found at least 65,000 ballots were rejected because they arrived too late. First-time voters, especially ones who are young, Black or Latino, are more likely to have their ballots rejected due to delayed arrival or another error.
Despite these issues and lack of clear instruction, more Americans are planning to vote by mail this fall. Only 5 percent of those surveyed said they voted absentee in 2016, but nearly two-fifths said they would mail in their ballots this fall. Most still plan on voting in person, though, either early (18 percent) or on Election Day (36 percent).
Regardless of preferred voting method, 77 percent of young people said they are more motivated to vote in the 2020 election than any other election in their lifetime.
Young voters have expressed similar passion to pollsters in the past, but that has not translated to actual ballot casting. Turnout among those younger than 30 was 46 percent four years ago — when overall turnout was 56 percent of those eligible.
To capitalize on this enthusiasm now, NextGen America is conducting massive voter outreach to encourage participation in the general election and inform young people about the voting process. A week ago the group organized the first-ever National Vote By Mail Day, using its volunteer network to text absentee voting information to 3.7 million people across 11 states.
NextGen was founded in 2013 by billionaire Tom Steyer, who ran a largely self-funded but unsuccessful Democratic presidential campaign. The organization was initially focused on climate activism, but has pivoted its primary focus to promoting youth voter engagement.
The need for better youth voter education was also made apparent in a June poll by election researchers at Tufts University's Tisch College, which reported that one-third of young people didn't know whether they could register to vote online. (Online voter registration is permitted in all but nine states.)
For the NextGen poll, 1,001 young people were interviewed over nine days ending July 22. The margin of sampling error was 3 points.
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.