Why People Don’t Vote: The 3 Key Elements We’re Missing

What would it take to get more New Jerseyans to vote? This question has perhaps acquired a new sense of urgency after the lackluster turnout for the November General Election in which only 41% of voters participated — the second lowest turnout in the past 20 years.

The two most talked about ideas for increasing voter turnout both focus on making it easier for people to cast a ballot. Expanding vote by mail and enacting same-day voter registration in New Jersey could increase turnout and bring in younger voters, both good things.

But I think redressing the problem of low voter turnout requires us to dig deep into the systemic issues that keep people from voting. There are three terms which I believe should be part of the conversation about why people don’t vote. They speak to complex challenges but ones that must be faced if we are to have a truly effective democracy in our state.

1. Political Efficacy

Political efficacy refers to a citizen’s belief that they as an individual can have an impact on political processes. Internal efficacy speaks to an individual’s sense that they understand politics and are informed enough to participate. External efficacy measures an individual’s belief in their ability to be heard and that their voice can make a difference.

How well does New Jersey measure up in terms of feelings of political efficacy among its citizenry? A recent Stockton poll suggests a troubling lack of internal efficacy. Respondents stated that they did not feel that they had adequate information to be meaningfully engaged. One of the reasons for low internal efficacy is New Jersey’s status as a news desert in many counties. As news deserts spread, residents become less informed about local, county and state politics. Engagement suffers.

I haven’t seen any polling on external efficacy though my supposition is that citizens with feelings of low internal efficacy likely have low feelings of external efficacy as well. They are disconnected from the system but it chugs along without their involvement. The political class makes decisions and we all live in the system they create and perpetuate. It is a pretty bleak outlook but probably not an uncommon one.

I would describe myself and many of the South Jersey progressives I regularly organize with as having a high level of internal efficacy and a low level of external efficacy. Though we are knowledgeable about political issues and power structures, living in a dominant party political machine means that it is unlikely we will be heard or have an impact as one individual. Power can only be accessed by organizing citizens en masse to advance change. While organizing is empowering and can yield important collective gains, the system shouldn’t require a person to mobilize large numbers just to be heard. I think l speak for many fellow South Jersey progressive organizers when I say this “high level internal efficacy/ low level external efficacy” combo can make for some pretty intense inner turmoil, the sort of turmoil that results in snarky write-ins and exasperated undervotes come election time.

2. Participatory Democracy

Like most of the Western world, the US is a representative democracy in which we elect people to govern and create laws and policies on our behalf. The people we elect are entrusted with representing our ideas and concerns. That fact that American trust in government is at a historic low (about 20%) is hardly a ringing endorsement for representative democracy.

One way we could bolster faith in representative democracy is by folding in more opportunities for participatory democracy. If we want more people to vote, we need to invest in democracy beyond elections. This past year, South Jersey Progressive Democrats and the public interest law firm, NJ Appleseed, convened meetings of citizens from across the state who all voiced frustration with the lack of participatory democracy. Boards and commission seats are filled by politically connected insiders. Public hearings before land use boards are conducted after decisions are made. Government records are hard to obtain. Public opportunities to offer ideas to power holders are poorly advertised, perhaps not by chance, or held at times when it’s impossible for working people to attend.

There are already plenty of spaces in which citizens are supposed to have a voice but too often these opportunities devolve into window dressing and cheap theater. Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of Citizen Participation” maps out what real as well as disingenuous citizen engagement looks like and how we can evolve to something better. Honestly the room for improvement in New Jersey is so wide we can start anywhere!

3. Public Funding for Elections (and Campaign Finance Reform)

To state the obvious, people don’t vote when they don’t like any of the options on the ballot. Too often, New Jersey ballots lack options. Here too the focus on fixing the problem has been centered on the ballot. From the perspective of someone who has run for office and runs grassroots campaigns, the end of the county line would make life easier in many regards. It would end the onus of bracketing to get an even quasi-decent position on the ballot. It would mean the incumbents do not get a measurable head start in the race. It would mean the end of candidates cleaving to the establishment for down-ballot advantage.

But coupled with the focus on ballot design should be some serious scrutiny of money in our elections. Public funding is not an idea I’ve heard discussed anywhere, maybe because too many are unaware of just how pervasive money is in New Jersey elections of all levels.

If we don’t address the role of big money in our elections, even with a new ballot design, candidates from the progressive movement will face a massive uphill climb. Candidates with the resources to self-finance may find the political landscape more welcoming. Establishment types inside the system who feel passed over or have personal grievances with other pols might fare better in blazing a path on their own. Will trade unions and special interest groups back progressive challengers or will they side with the incumbents who are good for their members or good on their issue (but can be counted on to fall short of championing real change)? As for the incumbents themselves, well, at the time of this writing, our state legislature is looking for ways to increase donation limits and gut pay-to-play regulations, in other words, flood our elections with more money.

We need to watch the role of money in our elections. We need to organize in opposition to it. We need to explore and advocate for compelling reforms. If we don’t, even with a dramatically revised ballot, we will be stuck with more of the uninspiring same come election time.

Plumbing the Depths of Our Democracy Problems for Real Change

I don’t think ballot access or ballot design changes are in any way incapable with deeper democracy reforms. Making it easier for people to cast a ballot and making the New Jersey ballot match those in the rest of the country would be definite wins for voters. But we also need to make sure that people feel informed and like their voice matters. We need to make sure people have a way to engage in democracy beyond casting a vote. And in all this work, we need to listen to citizens themselves who often know exactly what is broken in our democracy and what we could gain if we work to fix it.