essay on bringing change in democracy through vote

Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy

The essence of democracy.

Voting is the cornerstone of a democracy. It’s the tool that allows citizens to choose their leaders and voice their opinions on important issues.

Why Voting Matters

By voting, you get to influence the society you live in. It’s a way to ensure that your interests are represented in government.

The Power of Each Vote

Every vote counts. In many cases, elections have been decided by just a few votes. Therefore, your vote can make a real difference.

In summary, voting is a crucial component of democracy. So, always exercise your right to vote!

250 Words Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy

Democracy is often defined as ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people.’ It is a system that bestows power in the hands of the citizens to choose their representatives. The cornerstone of this power lies in the act of voting.

The Role of Voting

Voting is not just a right, but a duty and a moral responsibility. It is the most direct and effective way of participating in the democratic process. The vote of every citizen contributes to the formation of a government and the trajectory of the nation.

Empowering the Masses

Voting gives citizens the power to express their opinion and choose leaders who align with their views. It is a tool to effect change and ensure the government reflects the will of the people. Voting also empowers marginalized groups, providing an equal platform for their voices to be heard.

Accountability and Transparency

Voting ensures accountability and transparency in the democratic system. It acts as a check on the government, reminding them of their responsibility towards the electorate. If the government fails to deliver, voters have the power to change the administration in the next election.

The importance of voting in democracy cannot be overstated. It is the fundamental right and duty of every citizen to participate in this process. It is through voting that we shape our society, influence policies, and ensure the government serves the common good. By voting, we uphold the democratic values of freedom, equality, and justice.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy

Introduction.

Democracy is a system of governance where citizens participate directly or indirectly in the decision-making process. At the heart of this system lies the act of voting, an essential tool through which citizens express their will, choose their leaders, and influence public policy. The importance of voting in a democratic society cannot be overstated as it forms the basis for the exercise of political and civil rights.

The Pillar of Democratic Governance

Voting is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. It is the mechanism through which citizens exercise their sovereignty and control over the government. By voting, citizens choose their representatives who will make laws, shape public policy, and steer the direction of the nation. This process ensures that the government is accountable to the people, and not the other way round. The act of voting is, therefore, a powerful expression of political freedom and self-determination.

Instrument for Social Change

Voting is not only a political act but also a tool for social change. It gives citizens the power to influence public policy and the direction of societal evolution. Through the ballot box, citizens can express their views on critical issues such as education, health, economy, and social justice. Voting, therefore, serves as a peaceful means of effecting change and shaping the society we want to live in.

Equality and Inclusivity

In a democracy, voting underscores the principle of equality. Regardless of social, economic, or cultural backgrounds, every citizen has an equal vote. This inclusivity strengthens social cohesion and fosters a sense of belonging among citizens. Moreover, it ensures that marginalized and underrepresented groups have a voice in the political process, thereby promoting social equity.

Responsibility of Citizenship

Voting is not just a right; it is a responsibility. By participating in elections, citizens contribute to the democratic process and the overall health of the political system. Abstaining from voting leads to a skewed representation, which may not reflect the true will of the people. Therefore, every vote counts, and each citizen ought to take this responsibility seriously.

In conclusion, the act of voting is a cornerstone of democracy, serving as a tool for change, a symbol of equality, and a responsibility of citizenship. It gives power to the people, ensuring that the government remains accountable and responsive to their needs. Hence, for a democracy to be truly representative and effective, it is essential that citizens understand the importance of voting and actively participate in the electoral process. The future of our democratic society depends on the collective action of informed and engaged citizens.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Electoral Literacy for Stronger Democracy
Essay on Democracy in Sri Lanka
Essay on New Delhi

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Voting is Still One of Our Most Powerful Tools For Change

John freeman on how every election is a chance to rebuild.

A vote is the difference between a citizen and a subject. The powerful used to be able to say to all and sundry, You must; a vote says to the powerful, No, you must listen.

Thus begins, in many places, the modern world.

For a long time the powers that be have turned an ear toward the people—because every two to four years, those voters are waiting for them. Everywhere the vote has traveled, so has a sense of accountability. If you are greedy or corrupt or abuse your power or ignore the needs of citizens, there’s a chance you will be voted out.

So there has been a move, from the very beginning of the vote, to restrict who has the power to use it—to plane down the realm of responsibility. From the beginning, in most places, it was just men with land who could vote; then it was just men; then it’s all those men plus women. The history of many liberal democracies is this story—at least in part: the drive toward greater inclusion.

Now we are swinging the other way. Most of our societies are so top-heavy—literally crumbling under the weight of an oligarch class whose interests are vastly overrepresented—that the only way for them to function is to reduce or even cancel the vote. Were people to vote at higher percentages, power would lose. So the vote itself has to come under attack.

Some of these assaults are soft and accomplished through suggestion. A foreign power or even a candidate may put out that the vote is rigged, stoking the already understandable apathy. In many two-party systems, the candidates themselves play a game in debates, provoking just enough apathy to shave off voters from each other’s total. These subtractions can be accomplished with targeted messaging, too.

Apathy, however, is not enough to keep the powers that be in their seats. So voters literally have to be removed from rolls. Those who haven’t voted in years are scrubbed from voter rolls; new laws are passed to make it harder to vote—paperwork is needed, appointments required. These rules target poor and overworked people, minorities, and those who have an unhappy relationship with the law’s surgical precision. Sometimes “accidents” happen: you turn up to vote and your name isn’t on the rolls. On it goes. Districts are drawn and redrawn, especially in America, to make it especially difficult for one of the parties to win. Both parties have used this tool. In some cases, the police are brought out: nothing turns some voters away from a polling center like two or three squad cars parked, lights flashing. False messages are spread about polling time, about laws. Polling stations are moved across town to someplace inconvenient. In one recent election, a candidate illegally installed cameras inside polling stations. In the worst cases, people are beaten, chased away. Called and threatened. The history of voter suppression is told through the bodies of citizens.

Voting isn’t entirely fair; it’s only a partially decent enterprise. Yet it’s the best one we’ve created for channeling civic participation.

The very first responsibility that comes with a vote, then, ought to be the awareness that it needs to be protected and constantly improved. A great many people are handed the right to vote, and it never occurs to them that it will be taken away. This fact needs to be taught to children—who have an instinct for fairness—when they first learn history and government. Many schoolbooks ask teachers to present the right to vote as an arrival point, a destiny of civic society, when in fact the vote is simply an element allowing a civic society to function. You corrode the vote and hope will go dark.

Social scientists have found that in the absence of mandatory voting, some people will always need to be coaxed to the polls. They are old, or indigent, or depressed, or lonely, or apathetic, or just simply not engaged. They don’t have a ride, or they are too busy; they aren’t feeling well, or they have better things to do. So volunteers need to walk door-to-door to speak with them about upcoming elections. To agitate democracy to life. Imagine if instead of 55 percent of people voting, 90 percent did. Imagine if this were a celebratory part of every civics class taught round the world—children escorted by an adult or two around neighborhoods reminding people to vote, with no partisan agenda? What sort of accountability would a candidate face? Who can face down the civics equivalent of a Girl Scout cookie sale?

This kind of ceremony feels like just the beginning of a series of changes that could protect the vote. Any government that refuses to consider them is sending up a red flag. Why isn’t voting mandatory? Why isn’t registration automatic, say, when you get a driver’s license or a state ID? Why isn’t voting a national, state, and local holiday with required paid leave? Why isn’t public transportation free on voting days? Why can’t you vote online? Almost every single study of voter participation tells you these elements will increase turnout. Ask yourself why your local and federal governments are not following these simple questions.

The only answer to continued resistance to these changes is to run. To run yourself. Governments in some parts of the world know that the financial barriers to candidacy are often so high that they can essentially neglect their constituents. Indeed, there’s a cycle to voter suppression, one made worse by the corruption of elections through the politics of money. Certain populations are said not to vote, so candidates from those backgrounds and areas can’t run because they do not get the money to run. Even when they do get the money to run, their opponents know just which demographics to push down on, whom to scrub from voting rolls. The nakedness of this control mechanism can vandalize any kind of optimism.

Yet each election is a chance to rebuild a politics of optimism. Each candidate is a chance to defeat the cynical politics of voter suppression. So if your vote is being ignored, run. One of the extraordinary aftereffects of the Me Too movement has been a huge surge in female candidates. If government cannot be trusted to protect the rights of women, let alone a woman’s right to choose, then the thing to do is to run. Nearly five hundred women ran for congressional primaries alone in 2018 in the United States, which led to the most diverse Congress ever elected, one that looks a lot more like the nation it represents. In a world knitted by social media and crowdsourced funding, smaller candidates have greater weapons than ever in elections. It is possible to run for office without taking major donations or beginning with enormous ad buys.

A cynic might say here that even if someone enters elected office with the noblest of intentions, the politics of power and money will eventually corrupt them. In a world in which most elected officials make terrible compromises, that may be so. Here’s why we need a revolution of how we approach civic life, though, and who gets to be involved. Imagine if in coming elections, candidates win who are not corrupted, who were themselves once voters so outraged they ran for office; imagine if a great many of them refused the kinds of strings-attached donations that have led us to the point we are in now, where elected officials say one thing and vote another way on key legislation. What if so many people like this get elected that it’s impossible to buy them all—also because they refuse. What would be possible then?

The ubiquity of money in politics today, especially in America, means that one of the most powerful statements a candidate can make is, I won’t take the money. Voters can signal their desire for this. Peer pressure can, in fact, drive it. Voters can also protest for it. Have you ever watched an election in which one candidate changes a position under duress so that their opponent holding it loses that advantage? With the right amount of protesting and public service ads and a strategic use of social media, voters can make it known that refusing dark money in elections is a must.

These types of changes are necessary to lend power back to the voter. A voter is a mighty thing; a single voter has decided elections. A single voter has led to sweeping social change. A single vote, in, say, a justice system ruling, has led to the overturning of some of the worst and most discriminating practices in many of our societies. A common judicial ruling tally is 5–4. That vote was made possible by your vote. A candidate who talks only of himself gives fair warning that he does not understand this fundamental truth. Change is always driven by and stems from people. The elected official—the person later seen as heroic—often has done something quite simple, decent, and just. People bring to politics an understanding of what they need and how they live. This should not be so hard. Yet society has shown that preserving this relationship requires constant vigilance and questioning. A vote is the most important way to ask, Are you hearing us?

__________________________________

From Dictionary of the Undoing by John Freeman. Used with the permission of Via MCD X FSG Originals.

Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

John Freeman

Previous article, next article, support lit hub..

Join our community of readers.

to the Lithub Daily

Follow us on Twitter

essay on bringing change in democracy through vote

Meet the PhD Student Inventing a New Scientific Language in Welsh

RSS - Posts

Literary Hub

Created by Grove Atlantic and Electric Literature

How to Pitch Lit Hub

Advertisers: Contact Us

Support Lit Hub - Become A Member

Become a Lit Hub Supporting Member : Because Books Matter

For the past decade, Literary Hub has brought you the best of the book world for free—no paywall. But our future relies on you. In return for a donation, you’ll get an ad-free reading experience , exclusive editors’ picks, book giveaways, and our coveted Joan Didion Lit Hub tote bag . Most importantly, you’ll keep independent book coverage alive and thriving on the internet.

Become a member for as low as $5/month

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Voting — The Importance of Voting for Strengthening Democracy

The Importance of Voting for Strengthening Democracy

Categories: Voting

About this sample

Words: 630 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 630 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Shaping government policies, promoting representation and inclusivity, fostering civic participation, challenges and the importance of overcoming them.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 591 words

4 pages / 1956 words

1 pages / 544 words

6 pages / 2506 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Voting

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the Republican Party finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with a series of ethical and democratic dilemmas that have the potential to shape the future of American politics. [...]

Compulsory voting is a topic that sparks fervent debate, challenging us to consider the role of civic duty, individual choice, and the overall health of a democratic society. This essay delves into the complexities surrounding [...]

I am a Political psychology of International Relations MSc Student who is interested in voting behaviour and the psychology behind why people vote the way they do. Research into the “Why” is very Sparse in International [...]

The Paper frameworks different policy disagreements and arguments about lowering the voting age to Sixteen. I feel the opposite about bringing down the democratic age to 16. As I would see it, 16-year-olds are basically not [...]

In the United States, the legal age for voting stands at eighteen, this is an age that has been lowered from twenty-one due to statue reform. Every citizen has the right to vote, yet so many choose not to. Especially in the 2008 [...]

Are 16-year-olds mature enough to vote? This question has sparked heated debates among policymakers, educators, and the public at large. In recent years, there has been a growing movement to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Open Search Search
Information for Information For

To Increase the Youth Vote, Address the Why and the How

By Bita Mosallai

Young people don’t turn out for elections. Young people don’t care about their government. Our government doesn’t need young people’s voices. These are some statements that have been continuously pushed down our throats since our first government class in high school, before we could even understand what it meant to vote. Some young people have come to believe our voices do not matter because older politicians do not pay attention to the issues we are concerned about.

As a first-time voter who was heavily involved in a youth voter registration drive last year, I believe two approaches must be taken to strengthen the youth vote. First, we need to address the larger systematic issue of why young people don’t think voting is important and, second, we must provide guidance to young voters through peer-to peer-contact about how to vote.

This new generation—Generation Z—is more outspoken and politically conscious than ever. Yet as I continually speak with people my age, there is still frustration with our government. Young people argue their voice is not actually heard in the political process or that they feel powerless with how our government is set up. I tell them: Why can’t the answer be to change our government? If you don't like a politician, vote them out. If you wish to see a bill on the policy agenda, vote for the politician who you know will support that bill. One of the most important ways we can create change and a better future for ourselves is by voting, because that's how our government has been set up. We need to provide appropriate support to young voters through civic education and in-person guidance, so they can get to a place where that frustration turns into productive action.

I’ve met young people that have devoted their entire life to civic engagement and activism, but I’ve also met people who didn’t care enough to vote in a general election. But if you’ve spoken to any young person, you know that every single one of us has a belief we are passionate about. Now, not every single person is using their vote to act on their beliefs, which is problematic because voting is ultimately how our representatives are elected. We need to make youth see why voting matters to them; they need to see they are not just voting for the President, they are voting for Congress, governors, important ballot measures, state judicial candidates, etc. They need to see that protesting and pressuring politicians through other methods is effective, but ultimately, they need someone in office that aligns with their views because other methods beyond voting can only do so much.

While guiding youth on why voting is important, the how also matters. Working on a youth voter registration drive last year with the Student PIRGs helped me realize that the best way to support youth voters was by validating the inevitable challenges they will face. Voting is complicated, even though older and more experienced people, as well as elected officials, make it out to be something as easy as filling out a form. For young people voting can be new and intimidating, with rules, deadlines, and many guidelines in place for specific states. Last year, I recognized that along with many young people being newly eligible to vote, voting by mail was a new concept for even experienced voters, so people needed assistance more than ever. Supporting young people through the process, rather than leaving them to figure it out for themselves, also motivates young people to continue voting in the future.

Support becomes even more important when youth encounter all the information out there about politics and elections. I don’t believe that there is not enough accessible information; I believe there is too much information and resources, so voting becomes overwhelming. Simply googling how to sign up for a vote by mail ballot in Arizona took me through five different voter registration sites. All these different resources can be incredibly helpful if curated well, but they may intimidate voters further, and having one single voter registration tool and sticking with it could be one key to not confusing first-time voters.

While we work to streamline resources, first-time voters can benefit from in-person guidance. One of the best ways to make the process easier is by enlisting the help of knowledgeable people who can answer questions. In particular, having other young people who are willing to answer questions can be even more effective—peer-to-peer contact is powerful. I have heard stories from friends and acquaintances who recalled how they got far through the process of registering to vote or requesting a ballot, but didn’t complete an easy step or missed a deadline. But the biggest problem is that they never reached out for help. We need to support our peers if we want them to contribute their much-needed voices.

Voting is not this easy process where you just check the box for President. There are complex voting laws, research you have to do to become an informed citizen, and then you have to do the work to keep elected officials accountable. The process can be overwhelming, but if we wish to construct our ideal government, we need to contribute our voice. If we wish to see a future where the youth vote is robust, we need to provide additional support to young voters and convince them voting is the most effective way of creating change. Young people won’t vote unless they believe their voices are valuable, and they may give in to defeat unless we are out there to help them and remind them there are people watching and waiting for us to give up.

Bita Mosallai is a junior at the University of Arizona. She works with the Student PIRG on civic engagement, food insecurity, and environmental efforts. She aims to combine her passions of education and government in her future career.

Democracy Reform, One Ballot at a Time

Joshua A. Douglas

The way our democracy operates is on the ballot this November. Voters do not just elect people to public office; they can also dictate the rules for elections through ballot initiatives in many states. From creating independent redistricting commissions to adopting campaign finance measures to expanding voter eligibility and changing the way we vote, voters in states and localities may fundamentally reshape our electoral processes. These efforts follow similar activity 2016 , when several localities enacted new rules to enhance their democratic processes. These positive measures provide a path forward in light of a conservative U.S. Supreme Court that has cabined voting rights and opened the door to more money in our campaigns . Passing these reforms will go a long way toward improving our system in a proactive manner. If faced with a challenge to one of these positive expansions, the Court should defer to the voters’ preferences.

In a forthcoming book, Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting , I chronicle the ongoing fight for positive voting reforms, highlighting the democracy champions who are on the ground in communities all over the country and are engaged in a grassroots effort to take back our democracy. Vote for US tells the stories of these amazing individuals, providing inspiration and ideas on how to achieve meaningful change in today’s harried political climate. Here, I want to highlight the efforts underway this November as well as sketch out why the reforms should pass constitutional muster if challenged in court.

Take the problem of redistricting. In most states, politicians themselves draw the lines every ten years, leading to unfairly drawn districts that entrench the current party in power. This is a bipartisan problem: Republicans in Wisconsin and Democrats in Maryland , to give just two examples, both draw lines to help their party in future elections. This results in not only protracted litigation, but also congressional delegations and state legislatures that do not truly reflect the will of the people.

But this November voters in four states —Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah— can ameliorate the problem by enacting independent redistricting commissions. This activity follows Ohio voters passing an initiative in May 2018 to create their own commission. These states would join a handful of others —Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington—that take the process of redistricting away from elected politicians. Some localities also use independent redistricting commissions to draw local lines, such as for city council. To be sure, independent redistricting commissions cannot overcome all consideration of politics in crafting legislative lines. Studies are also mixed as to whether independent redistricting commissions actually produce more competitive elections. That is partially because it is difficult to agree on what measures of a map’s performance indicate “success.” Yet taking explicitly political actors out of the process is surely a step in the right direction.

Voters in a few places will also consider whether to expand the electorate to more people. Currently Florida is one of four states that disenfranchise felons for life, which has a disproportionate effect on racial minorities. The Florida electorate, however, can change that on November 6 through Amendment 4 , which would restore the right to vote for all felons—except those convicted of murder or sexual offense—who have completed their sentence, parole, and probation. Enacting this state constitutional amendment, which requires 60 percent approval, would re-enfranchise over 1.4 million Floridians.

Other voter expansions are also afoot. Voters in Golden, Colorado will decide whether to lower the voting age for local elections to 16. Doing so would follow the action in localities in Maryland and California, which have opened the election process for 16- and 17-year-olds for local or school board elections. The D.C. City Council is also considering a similar proposal and early indications show that it has the support of a majority of council members. Lowering the voting age has many benefits : it can create a culture of democratic engagement early in life while young people are in the supportive environments of home and school and may increase voter turnout in the future as they age and become habitual voters. Psychologists have found that 16-year-olds are cognitively developed enough to be informed voters. Coupled with improved civics education , lowering the voting age—at least for local elections—offers immense promise.

Nevada voters will decide whether to join over a dozen other states in adopting automatic voter registration, where the state takes the onus of registering everyone, such as by using information from its motor vehicles database. This reform improves turnout by automatically putting more people on the rolls, eliminating a barrier for people who do not take the affirmative step of registering in time. Maryland voters will decide whether to adopt same-day registration, allowing individuals to register at the polls on Election Day. A proposal in Michigan would adopt several election-related reforms, including automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and no-excuse absentee voting.

Campaign finance reform is also on the ballot in a few places, including Missouri, South Dakota, Portland, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado. The reforms in Missouri and South Dakota would lower campaign contribution limits and impose other ethics rules. The Portland measure would also impose contribution and spending limits for city elections. The Denver proposal would allow candidates to use public money to fund their campaigns, which can open the door for more people to run for office. The goal of all of these proposals is to make politicians less beholden to wealthy interests and more receptive to their constituents.

Finally, a few localities may change their voting methods. Voters in Fargo, North Dakota will decide whether to adopt approval voting, where voters can “approve” of multiple candidates for a single office and the person with the most votes wins. Lane County, Oregon may adopt STAR (Score, Then Automatic Runoff) voting, where voters can assign a score of zero to five to each candidate, with the winner determined based on these scores. These voting methods give voters more choices and eliminate a system in which a candidate can win with only a plurality of the vote. Moving in the opposite direction, voters in Memphis will decide whether to repeal its prior approval of instant runoff voting (also known as ranked choice voting ), which would allow voters to rank-order the candidates. Voters had previously approved of the system, which is set to go into effect in 2019.

Amidst these positive voter expansions, there are also a few ballot measures this year that would make it harder to participate in our elections. Specifically, voters in Arkansas and North Carolina will decide whether to amend their state constitutions to allow strict voter ID requirements.

These numerous ballot propositions, with the exception of the Memphis push to repeal ranked choice voting and the Arkansas and North Carolina voter ID proposals, have a common theme: the voters themselves may adopt electoral reforms that will expand democratic participation and reduce the influence of incumbents. Any judicial review of these laws, if they pass, must take account of these aims.

This brief blog post does not provide ample space to offer a robust judicial test that courts should follow when considering the validity of voter-backed initiatives on democratic processes. But a few general outlines are appropriate.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has already rejected a constitutional challenge to a voter-backed independent redistricting commission. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof….” After Arizona voters passed an initiative to create an independent redistricting commission, the Arizona legislature itself brought suit, claiming that the voters’ action took away the power from the “legislature” to dictate the “times, places and manner” of holding elections, as the U.S. Constitution directs. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , a 2015 decision, the Court rejected the state legislature’s argument by a 5-4 vote. The Court, per Justice Ginsburg, held that the Arizona Constitution, in creating the referendum power, contemplated that the people themselves could essentially serve as the “legislature,” meaning that a voter-created independent redistricting commission was consistent with constitutional demands. Justice Kennedy was in the majority in that case, suggesting that the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh could change the outcome. Yet this is one area in which Justice Kavanaugh should follow his promise to adhere to precedent, even if he disagrees with the majority’s opinion, especially as voters promoting these reforms in other states have now relied on the decision.

Second, courts should generally defer to voters who want to open up their democratic process to include more people. Regardless of the type of challenge involved (constitutional or otherwise), judges should adopt an interpretive lens that sanctions these pro-democracy reforms. Put another way, courts could invoke what is essentially a one-way “ democracy ratchet ” for election rules that promote greater participation in the electoral process. In doing so, judges should consider whether the voter-backed initiative has the purpose or effect of expanding opportunities for democratic participation, with the corollary impact of limiting the entrenchment of those in power. If the new rule is democracy-enhancing in this way, then the court should defer to the voters. Improving electoral participation through expanded voter registration opportunities, expanding the eligible electorate by easing felon disenfranchisement laws or lowering the voting age, and adopting public financing or limiting contributions all make it easier for more people to participate in our democracy. Courts should allow voters to decide to expand their state and local democracies in this fashion. The fact that the voters themselves passed these reforms suggests that they truly want to take their democracy back from entrenched interests and widen the scope of those who participate. By contrast, courts should turn a skeptical eye on laws that restrict democratic participation , such as a voter ID requirement that would make it harder for some people to vote. More careful scrutiny is required in this instance because a majority is using its majority status to cut off the ability of others (the minority) to participate in democracy.

To be sure, this proposed framework still presents difficult interpretative questions and more space would be needed to flesh out all of the benefits, disadvantages, and permutations of this approach. For instance, does a limit on the amount of a campaign contribution expand or restrict electoral participation? Although there are strong arguments on both sides, the whole point of a contribution limitation is to ensure that politicians are not beholden just to their wealthy donors; a contribution limit requires a candidate to seek smaller donations from more people. In this way, a contribution limit, while cutting off the electoral participation of a few at a certain level, will likely encourage participation from a greater number of people.

In sum, even amidst all of the news of voter suppression , there is still a lot to celebrate with respect to our democratic system, and hopefully after November 6 there will be even more: positive electoral reforms that change the way our democracy operates. Separate from and in addition to fighting voter suppression, we need to harness the potential of these positive reforms to reshape our democracy. Courts, when faced with a challenge to a law that expands democratic participation, should defer to the voters who enact these positive changes.

Election Law

On Constructing a Stronger Right to Strike Through Comparative Labor Law

David J. Doorey
Harvard Law Review

Read our research on: TikTok | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

5. electoral reform and direct democracy.

Free and fair elections are a critical element of a healthy democratic system . And in many of the 24 countries surveyed, reforming how elections and the electoral system work is a key priority. People want both large-scale, systemic changes – such as switching from first-past-the-post to proportional representation – as well as smaller-scale issues like making Election Day a holiday.

Many people link these changes to greater citizen representation, whether it’s because they allow people to vote more easily or because their votes can be more readily and accurately converted into representation.

But some people take it even a step further, arguing for their country to have more direct democracy . Particularly in France and Germany, where direct democracy is the second-most suggested change, people want to have more chances to vote via referenda on topics that matter to them.

Electoral reform

Changing the electoral system appears in the top five ranked issues in seven of the 24 countries surveyed. In Canada, Nigeria and the UK, the issue ranks second among the 17 substantive topics coded.

In six countries, those who do not support the governing party or parties are more likely to mention electoral reform than those who do support such parties. In the UK, for example, where electoral reform is ranked second only to politicians, 17% of those who do not support the ruling Conservative Party mention electoral reform, compared with 6% of Conservative Party supporters. (For more information on how we classify governing party supporters, refer to Appendix D .)

However, in the U.S. and Israel, this pattern is reversed: Those who do support the governing parties are more likely than those who do not to mention electoral reform as an improvement to democracy.

“People should have the right to choose their leaders through a free and fair election.” Woman, 20, Nigeria

Across the countries surveyed, people want to see a wide range of electoral reforms. Some of these focus on the logistics of casting votes – how and when people vote , and who is eligible . Others focus more on changing the electoral system , referencing issues like electoral thresholds and gerrymandering. And some emphasize the need to ensure free and fair elections . In Nigeria and Brazil, people who are not confident that their recent national elections were conducted fairly and accurately (as asked in a separate question in Brazil, Kenya and Nigeria) are more likely to bring up electoral reform.

Logistics of casting votes

Some of the calls for electoral reform center specifically on how ballots are cast. For example, some see benefits to electronic voting options over paper ballots, especially as a tool to protect elections: “Use modernized technology to help in security of the voting system,” said one Kenyan woman. Others see electronic ballots as an issue of convenience, particularly if it means one can vote from the comfort of their own house. As one Canadian man put it: “I think people should be able to vote electronically, using the internet and telephone instead of going to a polling station. It makes it more convenient.”

Still, in some places that have electronic voting, respondents raise concerns about this method. “End the electronic ballot box,” said a Brazilian woman. A man in India expressed his preference for paper ballots : “The use of electronic voting machines should be stopped and bring paper ballots back so that transparent democracy will be seen.”

For some Americans, increased access to absentee or mail-in voting is a specific electoral change they want to see: “Making vote-by-mail standard in every state, giving voters time to vote at their convenience, rather than having to miss work. It also gives them the time to research candidates at their leisure.” Others in the U.S. oppose mail-in voting : “Stop voter fraud! Go back to voting on Election Day. Enough with this all-month voting and mail-in votes,” wrote one American woman. “Stop mail-in ballots unless for military or another exempt person,” echoed a man. There are large partisan divides in U.S. views of voting methods , and more Democrats cast absentee votes than Republicans.

When people vote

People also see the need to change the frequency of elections . Some request fewer elections so that officeholders spend less of their term campaigning for reelection: One Australian man wanted to “lengthen the period between federal elections to five years.” Others want to see more elections, like a Canadian woman who said, “Do not have an election every four years; it should be every two years,” or a Nigerian woman who wanted her government to “conduct elections every two years, or frequently.” One South African woman went so far as to say, “Elections should be held every year.”

Some in the U.S. (where national elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November) call for making Election Day a holiday . The U.S. is one of few advanced economies that does not hold elections over the weekend or designate the day a national holiday. For example, one American man said, “Create a national voting holiday to ensure every American has a chance to vote.” Another person said, “Eliminate voter suppression. Make Election Day a national holiday. Make voting as easy as mailing a letter.”

Who gets to vote

Making changes to who is allowed to participate in elections is another means people see to improve their democracy. For example, some want to alter the age at which citizens become eligible to cast their votes . For those who want to lower it, the argument centers around allowing more young people to participate in elections: “Lowering the voting age to 16, now young people have more stake in the game,” suggested a Canadian man. An American man had a similar opinion, saying, “I think lowering the age for voting would help democracy, because many teens as young as 16 already have views about policies in the U.S.”

Not all are in favor of lowering the voting age, however. As one Swedish man put it: “Raise the voting age. People at 18 need to take their electoral mandate more seriously.”

“There should be a voter’s license, and voters should take a civics test. Informed voting is the crux of democracy.” Man, 76, Italy

Others feel voters need to pass a knowledge test in order to cast a vote. “The right to vote should be bound by educational attainment,” said a man in Hungary. An Italian man said, “Those who want to vote should pass a test of general culture before the elections.” And a woman in Sweden was specific on this policy: “One should know what you’re voting for, a little mini test so you know what you’re voting for. A driver’s license to vote.” (For more on perceived citizen responsibility, read Chapter 4 .)

In some countries, though, there are calls to protect people’s existing right to vote . In the U.S., where voter suppression has become an electoral issue, several people were vocal about protecting the right to vote. “Abolish state laws that restrict voters’ rights,” suggested one American man. An Australian man focused specifically on protecting voting rights for Aboriginal people: “Ensure Indigenous voters have the opportunity to vote in all circumstances.” Certain respondents even want to enfranchise new types of voters: “Open the right to vote to all permanent residents, such as all Europeans who live in France,” said one French woman.

Mandatory voting

“To oblige every citizen to vote and influence according to law.” Man, 68, Israel

Respondents in some places went as far as suggesting that voting in elections and referenda be required as a means to improve democracy. One Greek woman said, “All citizens should be forced to vote on very important laws and decisions for the country.” A man in the Netherlands saw mandatory voting as a way to improve voter turnout: “Compulsory voting should be reintroduced. For provincial council elections, turnout is only 50% to 60%. Introducing compulsory voting could improve this.”

Still, not everyone who lives in a country that has mandatory voting approves of it. “Don’t make it compulsory to vote for someone. That way, the people who really care will have their vote and those who don’t care won’t just pick the first person on the sheet or the one with the best name with no idea who they are voting for,” said one Australian woman. Another Australian shared a similar view: “I would like to see the scrapping of compulsory voting, as this will mean political parties will need to work harder for votes.” And, in Argentina, where voting is mandatory for most citizens, some respondents called for its overhaul – “that voting is not compulsory.”

Changing the electoral system

“Election law reform. Stop voting by region and switch to a national election where one can choose the winner based on the highest number of votes nationwide.” Woman, 63, Japan

People also call for a different style of voting than they currently have. For example, some focus on implementing a first-past-the-post voting system (in which people vote for a single candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins). As one Australian man put it: “Introduce first-past-the-post voting , dispensing with preferential voting, as the minor parties are making every government difficult to operate.”

Other people value proportional representation , a system where politicians hold the number of seats proportional to their party’s support in the voting population. “Reintroduce the proportional representation voting system and ensure accountability by elected officials,” said a South African man. And a French woman said, “All representatives should be elected by proportional representation.”

Some expressed frustration with ballots listing a choice of parties instead of specific candidates , as in the case of a Swedish man who said, “Direct election of people, not parties. It is better to vote for a person, you know what they think.” An Australian agreed: “Enhancing the electoral process for Australians to vote for candidates, and less for their parties.”

There are also calls for things like ranked-choice voting (“Ranked-choice voting would limit extremism.”) and two-round voting (“The kind of two-round voting system would improve democracy.”).

But no one system necessarily satisfies everyone. In some countries that already have first-past-the-post voting, for example, there are requests to eliminate it: “Get rid of first-past-the-post. The electoral system needs reform so that the representation by popular votes should have some weight,” said one man in Canada. One Japanese woman said, “Abolish the single-seat constituency system ,” referring to a type of voting that includes first-past-the-post, where one winner represents one electoral district.

Electoral threshold

“The electoral threshold should be raised, there should be fewer and larger parties.” Man, 82, Netherlands

Changes to the electoral threshold , or the minimum share of votes needed for a candidate or party to provide representation, is suggested by some as a way to improve democracy – particularly among those who live in countries with low thresholds and fragmented party systems. In Israel, where the 3.25% electoral threshold leads to many parties participating in each election, one woman said, “Significantly increase the electoral threshold.”

This sentiment is echoed in the Netherlands, where the 0.67% threshold is the lowest in the world . One Dutch man said, “I think a high electoral threshold would be good. This could lead to less fragmentation and speed up decision-making.” Another Dutch man saw this change as a means to improve the overall quality of elections: “Raise the electoral threshold, so that there will be more substance. That way not everyone can just start a party.” The Dutch survey was conducted prior to November 2023 elections , in which the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) won the most seats in the House of Representatives.

Making all votes count – or count more

Revising the borders of electoral districts is a reform some think could help increase voter representation. Gerrymandering , for example – a term coined in the U.S. to describe the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries in a way that creates an advantage for one party over another – is something that people in multiple countries flagged as a problem. For example, an Australian man said, “If we were to ban gerrymandering then each political group would have an equal chance to be elected.” In the U.S., one man said, “It would help if we got rid of gerrymandering and the Electoral College and things that suppress the majority.”

For others, voter representation is not just about physical electoral districts, but about correcting a perceived imbalance in the value of each vote . A 38-year-old Japanese man suggested “equalizing the value of votes from young people versus those of the elderly. Young people should be entitled to two votes.” This issue was also brought up in Spain: “The best thing would be one person, one vote. That is, that all votes were worth the same, that they were not counted by autonomous communities,” said one man.

The U.S. Electoral College

The Electoral College – the process by which U.S. presidential elections are decided – is a major focus of electoral reform for many Americans. One man’s response summarized this stance: “Abolition of the Electoral College to allow for direct representation of individual voters rather than allowing certain states to be overrepresented compared to their population size.”

Most of the U.S. respondents who mention the Electoral College are against the process, like one woman who said, “We need to do away with the Electoral College. It was a good idea, but now it doesn’t make sense.” For many, it’s an issue of unequal representation: “The Electoral College should go away, and potentially change how senators are allotted. Sparsely populated areas have too much influence while tens of millions of city residents essentially have no say,” said another woman.

Free and fair elections

“Have transparent voting and respect who wins. And the one who loses should help the one who won and move on.” Man, 38, Argentina

People also call for more election integrity . For example, some feel there should be more transparency: “More openness in general election, no corruption, collusion or nepotism,” said a woman in Indonesia. Or, as a Nigerian man put it: “Let us have a free and fair election with transparency.” People are concerned about this issue in advanced economies as well, with one Canadian man saying, “Election integrity needs to be improved, and no outside interference.”

Others emphasize the importance of respecting election results . “Accept when a candidate loses the election and when a candidate is elected,” said a man in Brazil. An Israeli man put it simply: “Respect the results of the elections.”

“Monitor the processes more, so that there is no miscount.” Woman, 23, Mexico

Improving electoral monitoring , or the use of unbiased observers to ensure that elections are free and fair , is also a key change people want: “Supervision over the counting of votes,” as a woman in Israel said.

In Mexico, where President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has sought controversial election reforms that many believe will weaken the country’s National Electoral Institute (INE), there are specific calls to “strengthen the INE instead of wanting to destroy it,” as one man said.

A Nigerian man expressed his wish for a better institutional oversight, saying, “The electoral commission should be independent and free from interference from the ruling party.” Nigeria’s electoral commission faced criticism during the February 2023 presidential election and was accused of delaying election results .

Direct democracy

“Consult the French people more often through referendums about important issues, life-changing issues.” Woman, 49, France

For some, a form of government where the public votes directly on proposed legislation or policies is a solution to fixing democracy.

This sentiment is particularly common in European countries: In France, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, it appears in the top five topics mentioned.

In most other countries, it is less of a priority.

In a handful of countries (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK), those who do not support the governing party or coalition are more likely to mention direct democracy.

French people stand out as particularly likely to mention direct democracy

In France, direct democracy is the second-most mentioned change people want to see. French people on the ideological left are more likely to bring up this topic than those on the right. Additionally, French adults who believe most elected officials don’t care what people like them think ( as asked in a separate question ) are twice as likely to mention direct democracy as those who say most officials care what they think.

Some in France specifically reference Article 49.3 of the French Constitution , under which the government can push legislation through the National Assembly with no legislative vote: “Article 49.3, which had been established for certain situations, is being used to force through unpopular measures,” said one man. The survey was fielded in France between February and April, a period during which Article 49.3 was used to implement controversial pension reforms . Another French man criticizing Article 49.3 saw direct democracy as a clear solution, saying, “Take into account the opinion of citizens in the form of a referendum. Ask for the citizens’ opinions to avoid passing laws in the form of 49.3.”

The Swiss model

Switzerland’s political system – in which the public is able to vote directly on constitutional initiatives and policy referenda – is perceived positively by others around the world, many of whom want their own country to emulate this model. For example, one Canadian woman said, “If people could vote on important issues like in Switzerland and make decisions on important laws, that’s a true democracy there.”

“More public participation on single important topics, just like the referendums in Switzerland.” Man, 55, Germany

This viewpoint is particularly widespread across European respondents; many want their country’s democracy to resemble Switzerland’s. “It would be a good idea to go back and make decisions much more collegially, like the Swiss system,” said a French man. And a Swedish woman said, “More referenda on nuclear power, sexuality, NATO and the EU. Like Switzerland, which has referendums on many issues.” (The survey was conducted prior to Sweden joining NATO in March 2024.)

Respondents in many countries highlight the benefits of more referenda , or instances where the public votes directly on an issue. For some, a key factor is the frequency of voting . One Kenyan man responded, “Citizens should have a referendum at least once in a while to decide on major issues that affect the country.” And a German woman asked that “more referendums take place.”

“More citizen participation in real decision-making. In other countries, referendums are held expressing opinions on different issues, not like here where they vote every four years.” Man, 41, Spain

In other cases, referenda are seen as opportunities for the government to seek the public’s approval . A Mexican man explained, “Before becoming legal, reforms should pass through a citizen filter and popular consultation.” This sometimes includes ensuring that more marginalized voices get a chance to weigh in. For example, one Israeli man said, “When enacting any law, there should be a referendum where all citizens vote, whether Arabs or Jews.” And an Australian woman wished to see more perspectives reflected, calling for “more direct democracy, and more opportunities for influence by poor, multicultural and minority groups.”

In the UK, where a controversial June 2016 referendum resulted in the UK departing the European Union (known as Brexit), some still express support for direct democracy. A British woman suggested, “We need to put down more questions more polls for the public to choose new policies, new laws.” One British man even noted that a referendum could undo Brexit: “We should have a referendum that is truly reflective about Brexit and rejoining the EU.” But other Britons are more wary of direct democracy: One man said, “We should not allow the general public to make critical decisions. The general public should not be allowed to make economic decisions, for example, Brexit.”

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of contents, freedom, elections, voice: how people in australia and the uk define democracy, global public opinion in an era of democratic anxiety, most people in advanced economies think their own government respects personal freedoms, more people globally see racial, ethnic discrimination as a serious problem in the u.s. than in their own society, citizens in advanced economies want significant changes to their political systems, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Chapter 1: American Government and Civic Engagement

Engagement in a Democracy

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain the importance of citizen engagement in a democracy
Describe the main ways Americans can influence and become engaged in government
Discuss factors that may affect people’s willingness to become engaged in government

Participation in government matters. Although people may not get all that they want, they can achieve many goals and improve their lives through civic engagement. According to the pluralist theory, government cannot function without active participation by at least some citizens. Even if we believe the elite make political decisions, participation in government through the act of voting can change who the members of the elite are.

WHY GET INVOLVED?

Are fewer people today active in politics than in the past? Political scientist Robert Putnam has argued that civic engagement is declining; although many Americans may report belonging to groups, these groups are usually large, impersonal ones with thousands of members. People who join groups such as Amnesty International or Greenpeace may share certain values and ideals with other members of the group, but they do not actually interact with these other members. These organizations are different from the types of groups Americans used to belong to, like church groups or bowling leagues. Although people are still interested in volunteering and working for the public good, they are more interested in either working individually or joining large organizations where they have little opportunity to interact with others. Putnam considers a number of explanations for this decline in small group membership, including increased participation by women in the workforce, a decrease in the number of marriages and an increase in divorces, and the effect of technological developments, such as the internet, that separate people by allowing them to feel connected to others without having to spend time in their presence. [1]

Putnam argues that a decline in social capital —”the collective value of all ‘social networks’ [those whom people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other”—accompanies this decline in membership in small, interactive groups. [2] Included in social capital are such things as networks of individuals, a sense that one is part of an entity larger than oneself, concern for the collective good and a willingness to help others, and the ability to trust others and to work with them to find solutions to problems. This, in turn, has hurt people’s willingness and ability to engage in representative government. If Putnam is correct, this trend is unfortunate, because becoming active in government and community organizations is important for many reasons.

Some have countered Putnam’s thesis and argue that participation is in better shape than what he portrays. Everett Ladd shows many positive trends in social involvement in American communities that serve to soften some of the declines identified by Putnam. For example, while bowling league participation is down, soccer league participation has proliferated. [3] April Clark examines and analyzes a wide variety of social capital data trends and disputes the original thesis of erosion. [4] Others have suggested that technology has increased connectedness, an idea that Putnam himself has critiqued as not as deep as in-person connections. [5]

LINK TO LEARNING

To learn more about political engagement in the United States, read “The Current State of Civic Engagement in America” by the Pew Research Center.

Civic engagement can increase the power of ordinary people to influence government actions. Even those without money or connections to important people can influence the policies that affect their lives and change the direction taken by government. U.S. history is filled with examples of people actively challenging the power of elites, gaining rights for themselves, and protecting their interests. For example, slavery was once legal in the United States and large sectors of the U.S. economy were dependent on this forced labor. Slavery was outlawed and blacks were granted citizenship because of the actions of abolitionists. Although some abolitionists were wealthy white men, most were ordinary people, including men and women of both races. White women and blacks were able to actively assist in the campaign to end slavery despite the fact that, with few exceptions, they were unable to vote. Similarly, the right to vote once belonged solely to white men until the Fifteenth Amendment gave the vote to African American men. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the vote to include women, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made exercising the right to vote a reality for African American men and women in the South. None of this would have happened, however, without the efforts of people who marched in protest, participated in boycotts, delivered speeches, wrote letters to politicians, and sometimes risked arrest in order to be heard. The tactics used to influence the government and effect change by abolitionists and members of the women’s rights and African American civil rights movements are still used by many activists today.

A print from 1870 that shows several scenes of African Americans participating in everyday activities. Under the scenes is the text

The rights gained by these activists and others have dramatically improved the quality of life for many in the United States. Civil rights legislation did not focus solely on the right to vote or to hold public office; it also integrated schools and public accommodations, prohibited discrimination in housing and employment, and increased access to higher education. Activists for women’s rights fought for, and won, greater reproductive freedom for women, better wages, and access to credit. Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and intercourse between consenting adults of the same sex was illegal in many states. Although legal discrimination against gays and lesbians still remains, consensual intercourse between homosexual adults is no longer illegal anywhere in the United States, and same-sex couples have the right to legally marry.

Activism can improve people’s lives in less dramatic ways as well. Working to make cities clean up vacant lots, destroy or rehabilitate abandoned buildings, build more parks and playgrounds, pass ordinances requiring people to curb their dogs, and ban late-night noise greatly affects people’s quality of life. The actions of individual Americans can make their own lives better and improve their neighbors’ lives as well.

Representative democracy cannot work effectively without the participation of informed citizens, however. Engaged citizens familiarize themselves with the most important issues confronting the country and with the plans different candidates have for dealing with those issues. Then they vote for the candidates they believe will be best suited to the job, and they may join others to raise funds or campaign for those they support. They inform their representatives how they feel about important issues. Through these efforts and others, engaged citizens let their representatives know what they want and thus influence policy. Only then can government actions accurately reflect the interests and concerns of the majority. Even people who believe the elite rule government should recognize that it is easier for them to do so if ordinary people make no effort to participate in public life.

PATHWAYS TO ENGAGEMENT

People can become civically engaged in many ways, either as individuals or as members of groups. Some forms of individual engagement require very little effort. One of the simplest ways is to stay informed about debates and events in the community, in the state, and in the nation. Awareness is the first step toward engagement. News is available from a variety of reputable sources, such as newspapers like the New York Times ; national news shows, including those offered by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio; and reputable internet sites.

Visit Avaaz and Change.org for more information on current political issues.

An image of a large group of people lined up along a sidewalk.

Another form of individual engagement is to write or email political representatives. Filing a complaint with the city council is another avenue of engagement. City officials cannot fix problems if they do not know anything is wrong to begin with. Responding to public opinion polls, actively contributing to a political blog, or starting a new blog are all examples of different ways to be involved.

One of the most basic ways to engage with government as an individual is to vote. Individual votes do matter. City council members, mayors, state legislators, governors, and members of Congress are all chosen by popular vote. Although the president of the United States is not chosen directly by popular vote but by a group called the Electoral College, the votes of individuals in their home states determine how the Electoral College ultimately votes. Registering to vote beforehand is necessary in most states, but it is usually a simple process, and many states allow registration online. (We discuss voter registration and voter turnout in more depth in a later chapter.)

Voting, however, is not the only form of political engagement in which people may participate. Individuals can engage by attending political rallies, donating money to campaigns, and signing petitions. Starting a petition of one’s own is relatively easy, and some websites that encourage people to become involved in political activism provide petitions that can be circulated through email. Taking part in a poll or survey is another simple way to make your voice heard.

Votes for Eighteen-Year-Olds

Young Americans are often reluctant to become involved in traditional forms of political activity. They may believe politicians are not interested in what they have to say, or they may feel their votes do not matter. However, this attitude has not always prevailed. Indeed, today’s college students can vote because of the activism of college students in the 1960s. Most states at that time required citizens to be twenty-one years of age before they could vote in national elections. This angered many young people, especially young men who could be drafted to fight the war in Vietnam. They argued that it was unfair to deny eighteen-year-olds the right to vote for the people who had the power to send them to war. As a result, the <strong”>Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which lowered the voting age in national elections to eighteen, was ratified by the states and went into effect in 1971.

Are you engaged in or at least informed about actions of the federal or local government? Are you registered to vote? How would you feel if you were not allowed to vote until age twenty-one?

Some people prefer to work with groups when participating in political activities or performing service to the community. Group activities can be as simple as hosting a book club or discussion group to talk about politics. Coffee Party USA provides an online forum for people from a variety of political perspectives to discuss issues that are of concern to them. People who wish to be more active often work for political campaigns. Engaging in fundraising efforts, handing out bumper stickers and campaign buttons, helping people register to vote, and driving voters to the polls on Election Day are all important activities that anyone can engage in. Individual citizens can also join interest groups that promote the causes they favor.

GET CONNECTED!

Getting Involved

In many ways, the pluralists were right. There is plenty of room for average citizens to become active in government, whether it is through a city council subcommittee or another type of local organization. Civic organizations always need volunteers, sometimes for only a short while and sometimes for much longer.

For example, Common Cause is a non-partisan organization that seeks to hold government accountable for its actions. It calls for campaign finance reform and paper verification of votes registered on electronic voting machines. Voters would then receive proof that the machine recorded their actual vote. This would help to detect faulty machines that were inaccurately tabulating votes or election fraud. Therefore, one could be sure that election results were reliable and that the winning candidate had in fact received the votes counted in their favor. Common Cause has also advocated that the Electoral College be done away with and that presidential elections be decided solely on the basis of the popular vote.

Follow-up activity: Choose one of the following websites to connect with organizations and interest groups in need of help:

Common Cause ;
Friends of the Earth which mobilizes people to protect the natural environment;
Grassroots International which works for global justice;
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget which seeks to inform the public on issues with fiscal impact and favors smaller budget deficits; or
Eagle Forum which supports greater restrictions on immigration and fewer restrictions on home schooling.

An image of several people working together to build the wooden framework of a building.

Political activity is not the only form of engagement, and many people today seek other opportunities to become involved. This is particularly true of young Americans. Although young people today often shy away from participating in traditional political activities, they do express deep concern for their communities and seek out volunteer opportunities. [6]

Although they may not realize it, becoming active in the community and engaging in a wide variety of community-based volunteer efforts are important forms of civic engagement and help government do its job. The demands on government are great, and funds do not always exist to enable it to undertake all the projects it may deem necessary. Even when there are sufficient funds, politicians have differing ideas regarding how much government should do and what areas it should be active in. Volunteers and community organizations help fill the gaps. Examples of community action include tending a community garden, building a house for Habitat for Humanity, cleaning up trash in a vacant lot, volunteering to deliver meals to the elderly, and tutoring children in after-school programs.

An image of three people behind a table. On the table are serval large open containers of food. A crowd of people is in the background.

Some people prefer even more active and direct forms of engagement such as protest marches and demonstrations, including civil disobedience. Such tactics were used successfully in the African American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and remain effective today. Likewise, the sit-ins (and sleep-ins and pray-ins) staged by African American civil rights activists, which they employed successfully to desegregate lunch counters, motels, and churches, have been adopted today by movements such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. Other tactics, such as boycotting businesses of whose policies the activists disapproved, are also still common. Along with boycotts, there are now “buycotts,” in which consumers purchase goods and services from companies that give extensively to charity, help the communities in which they are located, or take steps to protect the environment.

Many ordinary people have become political activists. Read “19 Young Activists Changing America” to learn about people who are working to make people’s lives better.

INSIDER PERSPECTIVE

Ritchie Torres

In 2013, at the age of twenty-five, Ritchie Torres became the youngest member of the New York City Council and the first gay council member to represent the Bronx. Torres became interested in social justice early in his life. He was raised in poverty in the Bronx by his mother and a stepfather who left the family when Torres was twelve. The mold in his family’s public housing apartment caused him to suffer from asthma as a child, and he spent time in the hospital on more than one occasion because of it. His mother’s complaints to the New York City Housing Authority were largely ignored. In high school, Torres decided to become a lawyer, participated in mock trials, and met a young and aspiring local politician named James Vacca. After graduation, he volunteered to campaign for Vacca in his run for a seat on the City Council. After Vacca was elected, he hired Torres to serve as his housing director to reach out to the community on Vacca’s behalf. While doing so, Torres took pictures of the poor conditions in public housing and collected complaints from residents. In 2013, Torres ran for a seat on the City Council himself and won. He remains committed to improving housing for the poor. [7]

Why don’t more young people run for local office as Torres did? What changes might they effect in their communities if they were elected to a government position?

FACTORS OF ENGAGEMENT

Many Americans engage in political activity on a regular basis. A survey conducted in 2018 revealed that almost 70 percent of American adults had participated in some type of political action in the past five years. These activities included largely non-personal activities that did not require a great deal of interaction with others, such as signing petitions, expressing opinions on social media, contacting elected representatives, or contributing money to campaigns. During the same period, approximately 30 percent of people attended a local government meeting or a political rally or event, while 16 percent worked or volunteered for a campaign. [8]

Americans aged 18–29 were less likely to become involved in traditional forms of political activity than older Americans. A 2018 poll of more than two thousand young adults by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics revealed that only 24 percent claimed to be politically engaged, and fewer than 35 percent said that they had voted in a primary. Only 9 percent said that they had gone to a political demonstration, rally, or march. [9] However, in the 2018 midterm elections, an estimated 31 percent of Americans under thirty turned out to vote, the highest level of young adult engagement in decades. [10]

Why are younger Americans less likely to become involved in traditional political organizations? One answer may be that as American politics become more partisan in nature, young people turn away. Committed partisanship , which is the tendency to identify with and to support (often blindly) a particular political party, alienates some Americans who feel that elected representatives should vote in support of the nation’s best interests instead of voting in the way their party wishes them to. When elected officials ignore all factors other than their party’s position on a particular issue, some voters become disheartened while others may become polarized. However, a recent study reveals that it is a distrust of the opposing party and not an ideological commitment to their own party that is at the heart of most partisanship among voters. [11]

Young Americans are particularly likely to be put off by partisan politics. More Americans under the age of thirty now identify themselves as Independents instead of Democrats or Republicans. Instead of identifying with a particular political party, young Americans are increasingly concerned about specific issues, such as same-sex marriage. [12] People whose votes are determined based on single issues are unlikely to vote according to party affiliation.

The other factor involved in low youth voter turnout in the past was that younger Americans did not feel that candidates generally tackle issues relevant to their lives. When younger voters cannot relate to the issues put forth in a campaign, such as entitlements for seniors, they lose interest. This dynamic changed somewhat in 2016 as Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders made college costs an issue, even promising free college tuition for undergraduates at public institutions. Senator Sanders enjoyed intense support on college campuses across the United States. After his nomination campaign failed, this young voter enthusiasm faded. Despite the fact that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton eventually took up the free tuition issue, young people did not flock to her as well as they had to Sanders. In the general election, won by Republican nominee Donald Trump, turnout was down and Clinton received a smaller proportion of the youth vote than President Obama had in 2012. [13]

A chart showing the political affiliations of young Americans. Under the question

While some Americans disapprove of partisanship in general, others are put off by the ideology —established beliefs and ideals that help shape political policy—of one of the major parties. This is especially true among the young. As some members of the Republican Party have become more ideologically conservative (e.g., opposing same-sex marriage, legalization of certain drugs, immigration reform, gun control, separation of church and state, and access to abortion), those young people who do identify with one of the major parties have in recent years tended to favor the Democratic Party. [14] Of the Americans under age thirty who were surveyed by Harvard in 2015, more tended to hold a favorable opinion of Democrats in Congress than of Republicans, and 56 percent reported that they wanted the Democrats to win the presidency in 2016. Even those young Americans who identify themselves as Republicans are more liberal on certain issues, such as being supportive of same-sex marriage and immigration reform, than are older Republicans. The young Republicans also may be more willing to see similarities between themselves and Democrats. [15] Once again, support for the views of a particular party does not necessarily mean that someone will vote for members of that party.

Other factors may keep even those college students who do wish to vote away from the polls. Because many young Americans attend colleges and universities outside of their home states, they may find it difficult to register to vote. In places where a state-issued ID is required, students may not have one or may be denied one if they cannot prove that they paid in-state tuition rates. [16]

The likelihood that people will become active in politics also depends not only on age but on such factors as wealth and education. In a 2006 poll, the percentage of people who reported that they were regular voters grew as levels of income and education increased. [17] Political involvement also depends on how strongly people feel about current political issues. Unfortunately, public opinion polls, which politicians may rely on when formulating policy or deciding how to vote on issues, capture only people’s latent preferences or beliefs. Latent preferences are not deeply held and do not remain the same over time. They may not even represent a person’s true feelings, since they may be formed on the spot when someone is asked a question about which he or she has no real opinion. Indeed, voting itself may reflect merely a latent preference because even people who do not feel strongly about a particular political candidate or issue vote. On the other hand, intense preferences are based on strong feelings regarding an issue that someone adheres to over time. People with intense preferences tend to become more engaged in politics; they are more likely to donate time and money to campaigns or to attend political rallies. The more money that one has and the more highly educated one is, the more likely that he or she will form intense preferences and take political action. [18]

CHAPTER REVIEW

See the Chapter 1.3 Review for a summary of this section, the key vocabulary , and some review questions to check your knowledge.

Robert D. Putnam. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 75. ↵
———. 1995. "Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6: 66–67, 69; "About Social Capital," https://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/saguaro/about-social-capital (May 2, 2016). ↵
Everett Ladd. The Ladd Report. http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/l/ladd-report.html ↵
April Clark. "Rethinking the Decline in Social Capital." American Politics Research. April 29, 2014. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1532673X14531071 ↵
Emily Badger. "The Terrible Loneliness of Growing Up Poor in Robert Putnam's America." The Washington Post. March 6, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/06/the-terrible-loneliness-of-growing-up-poor-in-robert-putnams-america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.32998051b18a ↵
Jared Keller. 4 May 2015. "Young Americans are Opting Out of Politics, but Not Because They’re Cynical," http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/young-people-are-not-so-politically-inclined . ↵
Winston Ross, "Ritchie Torres: Gay, Hispanic and Powerful," Newsweek, 25 January 2015. ↵
Pew Research Center. 26 April 2018. "Political Engagement, Knowledge, and the Midterms." http://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/10-political-engagement-knowledge-and-the-midterms/ . ↵
Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. 17 October 2018. Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics and Public Service. https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/Harvard-IOP-Fall-2018-poll-toplines.pdf . ↵
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). 7 November 2018. "Young People Dramatically Increase Their Turnout to 31%, Shape 2018 Midterm Elections." CIRCLE. https://civicyouth.org/young-people-dramatically-increase-their-turnout-31-percent-shape-2018-midterm-elections/ . ↵
Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph, "Why Don’t Americans Trust the Government?" The Washington Post, 30 January 2014. ↵
Keller, "Young Americans are Opting Out." ↵
Tami Luhby and Jennifer Agiesta. 8 November 2016. "Exit Polls: Clinton Fails to Energize African-Americans, Latinos and the Young, http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/first-exit-polls-2016/ . ↵
Harvard Institute of Politics, "No Front-Runner among Prospective Republican Candidates," http://iop.harvard.edu/no-front-runner-among-prospective-republican-candidates-hillary-clinton-control-democratic-primary (May 2, 2016). ↵
Jocelyn Kiley and Michael Dimock. 25 September 2014. "The GOP’s Millennial Problem Runs Deep," http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/ . ↵
"Keeping Students from the Polls," New York Times, 26 December 2011. ↵
18 October 2006. "Who Votes, Who Doesn’t, and Why," http://www.people-press.org/2006/10/18/who-votes-who-doesnt-and-why/ . ↵
Jonathan M. Ladd. 11 September 2015. "Don’t Worry about Special Interests," https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2015/9/11/9279615/economic-inequality-special-interests . ↵

connections with others and the willingness to interact and aid them

strong support, or even blind allegiance, for a particular political party

the beliefs and ideals that help to shape political opinion and eventually policy

beliefs and preferences people are not deeply committed to and that change over time

beliefs and preferences based on strong feelings regarding an issue that someone adheres to over time

Share This Book

America Should Embrace a Parliamentary Democracy

Capitol Building up close overcast at dusk

O ur nation faces the serious threat of electing Donald Trump for a second term despite his willingness, even enthusiasm, for gutting vital democratic norms . What appears to be a glitch in the U.S. electoral system is actually an inherent feature: it can produce a dictator.

Many voters regard our centuries-old system as fundamentally sound and wise. But this view is mistaken: Our two-party presidential scheme produced Donald Trump. And ending the risk of electing a dictator means giving up our right to vote for one.

The solution lies in embracing a system of parliamentary democracy that blunts the risk of an extremist taking power—one that leading political scientists consider the best means of doing democracy. The scheme, called mixed-member proportionality (MMP), is uniquely suited to ending the ongoing threat of dictatorship posed by our two-party presidential system. Under MMP, voters will give up voting directly for President and Vice President in exchange for genuine power to affect the direction of our government, all while diminishing the threat of an authoritarian gaining power.

In our two-party presidential system, the risk of an authoritarian like Trump gaining power always lay just beneath the surface. The very structure of our system invites it.

The ever-present danger of our system is an extremist representing a subset of voters gaining control over one party, then prevailing against the other in the general election. This renders two-party presidentialism ripe for dictatorial exploitation. Each side’s overwhelming demand for unity, including with constituencies embracing deeply problematic views, forces us into two competing camps. The threat to democracy becomes acute when these pressures become so intense that one party succumbs to the will of a leader bent on doing whatever it takes to gain and hold power. When a party leader, such as Trump, is singularly focused on power, voter suppression, hyper-partisan gerrymandering, obstructive legislative tactics, and manipulative confirmation practices risk being transformed from outlier strategies to playbook. Even fomenting a violent attempt at blocking the peaceful transfer of power, and demanding loyalists condone it, becomes just another Wednesday. Our system’s demand for unity is so strong that once each party settles on its presidential candidate, party elites see their job as serving even the most problematic standard bearer.

Both parties need not experience these power dynamics in the same way. The ultimate threat to democracy arises when an opportunistic leader takes control of one party while exploiting tensions beneath the surface on the other side. Trump’s nationalist campaign not only transformed the GOP; it has also stressed the fault lines between the centrist Democrats and that party’s progressive base.

Intuitively, voting directly for President and Vice President might seem to safeguard against a dictator. Voters can simply vote for the other candidate. Instead, our system disempowers voters by demanding that they choose the lesser of two evils every four years. Partisan extremism risks leading voters on each side to rally behind their candidate—no matter how problematic—viewing the other as an existential threat.

An irony of two-party presidentialism is that as the threat to democracy grows, voters feel increasingly disengaged and disempowered.

There is a genuine pathway forward: transform the U.S. into a thriving multiparty parliamentary democracy. The solution demands changing two features of how we do the business of democracy in the U.S. We must change how we elect the House of Representatives and how we choose and hold accountable the President. The centerpiece shifts the choice of President from voters to House party leaders. To appreciate why this alternative system is superior to ours, we must revisit some commonly held intuitions about our own electoral politics.

Successful democracies embrace two defining features missing in American democracy: proportional representation and coalition governance. These attributes of well-designed parliamentary systems dramatically lower the risk of an authoritarian taking power. Proportional representation means parties are seated in the legislature, typically the lower chamber, based on their relative percentages of votes. Coalition governance is a process by which party leaders, based on proportional representation, negotiate to form a governing majority and the party that leads the successful negotiation then heads the government.

Democracy is about ensuring voters have genuine input into what their choices are. Limiting our choices to two candidates, Joe Biden and Trump, despite a supermajority— 63% —of voters frustrated by our two parties and hoping for more options, doesn’t empower voters. Voters are empowered when the options before them meaningfully reflect their values. This explains why, as political scientist Arend Lijphart shows in his book Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance , voters in coalition systems are happier. They turn out in higher numbers. Their governments are more responsive.

Voters in our system rightly wish for third parties, with candidates who truly align with their sincerely held beliefs and preferences. But to have viable third, fourth, or more parties, we must give those parties a genuine role in governance. That means the power to join a governing coalition in exchange for delivering policy commitments or favored appointments to their constituents. Unlike two-party presidentialism, multi-party coalitions give third parties that role. A comparison of systems in different democracies reveals that two seemingly opposite dynamics pose the same threat. Two-party presidentialism invites the risk of an authoritarian taking over one party, then taking control of the government. But in an electoral scheme with too many parties, the threat of an authoritarian seizing control also resides beneath the surface. With too many parties, one party led by a charismatic leader who represents a minority of the electorate can gain more seats than any other even if far short of a majority. This becomes the first step in rolling over other parties, one by one, in the quest for eventual control. This very danger, experienced in the Nazi regime, contributed to post-World War II Germany embracing MMP, which political scientists widely consider the best way to do democracy.

To thwart dictatorship, we must fight against the twin threats. We must achieve the political Goldilocks principle—not many parties, nor too few.

Political scientists recognize the solution and agree that MMP is the most well-functioning democratic scheme . MMP produces more parties, with a sweet spot between four and eight. It does so by blending two forms of electoral representation in the lower legislative chamber, for us the House of Representatives. In the U.S., each voter would cast two ballots, one by district, as we do now, and one by party. Winner-take-all district voting will still favor two parties. But the party votes would then be used to ensure that each state’s House delegation reflects party proportionality. The combination makes it exceedingly difficult for any single party to capture a majority of seats in the House.

The most vital step in the fight against dictatorship comes next. In descending order of representation, up to five party leaders negotiate until a majority coalition forms. With supporters no longer wasting votes, third parties helping form a coalition will demand policy concessions or favored appointments as their price, providing genuine value to their constituents. The party that succeeds in negotiating a majority coalition will have its predesignated slate assume the offices of President and Vice President.

This scheme will end the two-party presidential system—and the risk of dictatorship—and transform the U.S. into a thriving multi-party parliamentary system. Candidates can no longer succeed simply by denigrating the other side. They must demonstrate a willingness to govern with other parties, despite inevitable policy disagreements. Party leaders will no longer succumb to extremists for fear of fracturing their side and ceding power to the opposition. Instead, they’ll realize that success demands moderating stances to forge majority coalitions.

Read more: What to Know About the Origins of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race

Two-party presidentialism disallows the moderating influence, and pressures, required for effective coalition governance. As the GOP shrinks in size, calls for unity increasingly mean acquiescing to Trump’s most outrageous demands. This includes embracing lies about 2020 election fraud and the events of January 6, 2021. For Democrats, growing fragmentation marked by an unpopular incumbent and divisions associated with his age, handling of the southern border, and navigating the Middle East, risk threatening Biden’s ability to maintain the coalition and turnout that propelled him into the White House in 2020.

However the 2024 election is resolved, no single election can permanently end the threat of dictatorship. Accomplishing that demands radical, yet achievable, reform.

Transforming our two-party presidential system into MMP requires amending the Constitution—one amendment to change how we elect members of the House, and two that change how we select and hold accountable the President. Amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of states. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The process is difficult. But it’s mistaken to believe it can’t be achieved to avert an existential threat to our democracy.

When we hit the inflection point of inevitable constitutional change, parliamentary America will appeal to those whose support is vital to approval. First, sitting members of both Houses of Congress keep their jobs. Second, key politicians gain new powers. Members of the House gain the power to select the President through coalition bargaining. No longer beholden to the leaders of only two parties, politicians can embrace sincerely held views without fear of retribution. And state politicians gain a new pathway to Capitol Hill through proportionality and party lists.

A shift to parliamentary America will end our constitutional crisis. We must replace two-party presidentialism with a well-designed system of multiparty coalition governance. By giving up the way we’ve elected Presidents, voters will gain more power and greater influence. Their votes will express what they truly value and, most importantly, they will gain genuine power to ensure our democracy overcomes the threat of dictatorship.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?
Why We're Spending So Much Money Now
The Financial Influencers Women Actually Want to Listen To
Breaker Sunny Choi Is Heading to Paris
The UAE Is on a Mission to Become an AI Power
Why TV Can’t Stop Making Silly Shows About Lady Journalists
The Case for Wearing Shoes in the House
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

The future of U.S. democracy hangs in the balance as states battle over voting rights

Dave Davies

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, says lawmakers in 27 states are considering hundreds of bills designed to limit voting or undermine the integrity of the election process.

DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies, in today for Terry Gross.

As former President Donald Trump and his allies continue to press unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen, voting rights activists have been sounding alarms about bills proposed in state legislatures which would restrict voting in future elections. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice finds that as of mid-January, legislatures in 27 states are considering more than 250 bills with restrictive provisions, compared to 75 such bills a year ago - a tripling of proposals to restrict the vote. The report also finds that there are at least 41 bills that would undermine the electoral process by, among other things, giving partisan actors more influence and permitting citizens to initiate or conduct post-election audits. At the same time, the survey noted, 32 states are considering bills which would expand access to voting.

To get a sense of how election rules might change and their impact, we've invited Michael Waldman to join us. He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU law school, a nonpartisan law and policy institute focused on improving systems of democracy and justice. He was the director of speechwriting for President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1999. He's written several books, including "The Fight To Vote," about the history of American battles over voting rights. An updated edition released last month includes new material on Trump's efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and the new wave of restrictive voting bills.

Well, Michael Waldman, welcome to FRESH AIR. This report says there is a dramatic increase in bills in state legislatures restricting voting rights or threatening the vote-counting process. You know, we should note here that, you know, in state legislatures, any lawmaker can introduce a bill, and they do it for lots of reasons - to get attention, to, you know, get the support of a certain actor or constituency. It doesn't mean they're all going to pass. What can you tell us about the real impact or threat of these proposals?

MICHAEL WALDMAN: Well, you're certainly right that there are many bills introduced this year and many bills carried over from last year in the new legislative sessions. And not all of them are serious, and not all of them will pass. But what we also know from looking at last year is very often these bad bills become bad laws. In 2021, inspired by the big lie of a stolen election, we saw 19 states pass 34 new laws that in one way or another made it harder for people to vote. And not all of them are as bad as others. Some are worse than others. Uncannily, though, they tend to target Black voters, Latino voters, Asian and Native voters. They seem very mischievous and even targeted in that way. And we see this trend continuing, and there is far less protection for voters from the federal government or the federal courts than we would want at a moment like this.

DAVIES: Right. And I guess we should just note, I mean, these proposals and the battles over them fall strictly on partisan lines, don't they?

WALDMAN: That's very true. There've been times in American history where there's been bipartisan agreement on voting. Very often throughout the whole country's history, it has divided along party lines. And right now, these bills are being pushed through on a party-line vote very unambiguously in states across the country by Republicans.

DAVIES: Republicans proposing, Democrats opposing. All right, so let's talk about some of these proposals and some of the areas that they would affect. A lot of this, of course, has to do with mail-in voting, which dramatically expanded during the pandemic. Some of these involve requirements to apply for a mail-in ballot, right?

WALDMAN: Well, that's right. When it comes to voting, there have always been things that have been controversial. Just think of something like voter ID. Absentee balloting or mail-in voting was not one of them until 2020, when Donald Trump started claiming that it was all a big fraud.

The 2020 election was really something of a civic miracle. Despite the pandemic, you had the highest voter turnout since 1900. And one of the reasons for that was expanded use of mail voting. And the election was, by all accounts of Donald Trump's own Department of Homeland Security and others, very secure.

Too many of these proposals would cut back on vote-by-mail. They would limit who has access to it. In Texas, for example, a law passed that would provide criminal penalties for an election official who sent out application forms for absentee ballots unless the person specifically requested one - that's an example of both how the election system is being targeted, as well as the way vote-by-mail is being pushed back. And in recent days, a federal court actually blocked that law.

DAVIES: Yeah, this is an interesting thing. You know, typically, there are state election codes with myriads of - with lots and lots of provisions, but I've never heard of a state election official being criminally prosecuted for misapplying one. Have you?

WALDMAN: We saw in 2021 laws or proposed laws to cut back on vote-by-mail, to cut back on early voting, to cut back on voter registration. I wouldn't call them good, old-fashioned voter suppression laws, but some of them were like that. But on top of it now, we see laws to subvert the elections, to make the counting of the ballots more partisan or to make the job of election officials harder. You see in places like Texas actual criminal penalties aimed at election officials. You see in a place like Georgia a law passed to change who counts the results and to take the secretary of state out of the line of really having the significant role in deciding the winner of elections.

DAVIES: Let's just focus a bit on these proposed restrictions and, in some cases, already enacted restrictions on mail voting. You know, there was an enormous amount of mail voting in the 2020 election. Take one of these laws, either enacted or proposed, and tell us how mail voting would be different if they were enshrined in law.

WALDMAN: Well, in Texas, for example, they passed a law that's on the books that said you had to put your voter ID number or your Social Security number - last four digits - on your application for a mail-in ballot. That doesn't sound so bad, right? But many people don't remember which one they used when they registered to vote. And if you don't get it exactly and precisely right, they reject your ballot request. In one county in Texas, as the primary is coming up in Texas, half the requests for absentee ballots were rejected in the last few weeks. This is a series of obstacles designed to trip up voters, and those obstacles are succeeding. You see things like that in these laws all over the place.

Many of the laws originally were even worse as they were proposed. In Georgia, for example, they basically ended vote-by-mail for anyone under 65. There was such an outcry that they didn't pass that, but the kinds of restrictions that you see with giving officials the ability to reject ballots if the wrong identification number is used or something else has the same consequence of making it harder for many people to vote. And we ought to be trying to make it easier, safer and more secure.

DAVIES: Now, I think we should note that the Brennan Center does not oppose, you know, security measures for mail voting. I mean, over the years, there have been some cases where absentee ballots have been abused, most notably in 2018 in North Carolina at a congressional race. You're not opposed to, for example, ID requirements in some cases, right?

WALDMAN: Right. It's really important that elections be secure. It's really important that the integrity of elections be protected. A lot of the worries that people had, that we had about vote-by-mail have been very much improved by new developments, by bar codes being put on the envelopes and things like that - basic security things familiar to all of us from when we send a package somewhere - that really have made it much, much more secure than it used to be. I'm not against voter ID, for example, which is a, you know, often a controversial topic. I think it makes sense for people to be who they say they are and to be able to prove it. What the problem is is requirements for voter ID that lots of people don't have.

And to give just one maybe surprising example, about 11% of eligible voters in the United States don't have a driver's license. I can't imagine getting around without a driver's license, but my kids resisted getting driver's licenses for a long time. Eleven percent don't have a driver's license. And when you pick the kind of voter ID, it can be very mischievous and malicious. You may remember there was a law back in Texas that said that you could not use your University of Texas ID as a government ID to vote, but you could use your concealed carry gun permit. That's the kind of example of picking and choosing the rules in a way that has a pretty clear implication of who it helps.

DAVIES: The new report that the Brennan Center has issued says that there are a number of states that are considering laws to expand voting rights and voting access. You want to describe some of them and their chances of passage?

WALDMAN: Yes. One of the interesting stories is that in recent years, until the 2020 election and its aftermath, the big story has been, on a bipartisan basis, moves to expand access to voting and modernize the election system - everything from automatic voter registration, which is now the law in 19 states, that increases people's ability to participate, laws that expand early voting so that working people have more time to vote than they have in the past, laws dealing with the system of felony disenfranchisement - that is the set of rules that limit who can vote if they've had a criminal conviction in the past. Some states have very strict rules, Florida being the main one, dating back to the Jim Crow era, that say that if you've had a criminal conviction of any kind, that you are banned from voting for a lifetime. Well, what happened in 2018 is voters overturned that by 64%.

Now, the legislature stepped in and tried, in effect, to undo that and actually made it very hard for people, still, to exercise their rights. But the trend in many states is for strengthened voting rules, for expanded voting rules. It has not just been Democrats. It's been both parties. But what we've seen since the 2020 election and Donald Trump's claims - false claims of a stolen election is that restricting the vote or taking on the election system or undermining the confidence in elections has become a cause among many of Trump's followers. And we see it animating politics in places like Arizona and Texas and many other states.

DAVIES: We need to take a break here. Let me reintroduce you. We are speaking with Michael Waldman. He is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School. It has a new report on proposed changes in voting rules in state legislatures. Waldman's book "The Fight To Vote," by the way, is out in an updated edition. We will continue our conversation in just a moment. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're talking about proposals in state legislatures to restrict voting and, in some cases, undermine the integrity of election processes. We are speaking with Michael Waldman. He is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School, which has just released a new report on those proposals.

Apart from efforts to restrict voting and restrict access to voting, the report says that there are these proposals, some inactive, which undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Can you give us examples?

WALDMAN: Well, look at a state like Georgia. Brad Raffensperger is the conservative Republican who's secretary of state, and he's fought with voting rights groups over the years. He's no pushover. And we all know that Donald Trump, in his effort to overturn the election, called Raffensperger and demanded that he, quote, "find 11,000 votes," which was what Trump needed to take back the state. And Raffensperger showed some real courage. He stood up to it. He released the tape of the phone call. The response was the Republican state legislature removed the secretary of state as the chair of the state board of elections - took him out of the power of actually deciding the results of elections. That's a pretty pointed example of the political payback that's involved here.

We see bills in places like New Hampshire and Virginia that would potentially allow the removal of professional election officials and replacing them with partisans. We see proposals in a place like Virginia, which might not pass given the political makeup of the state, to remove election officials if they think that they are, quote, "demonstrating less-than-satisfactory performance" decided by the legislature.

Election administration is something that has been at its best when it's nonpartisan, when it's professional. And election officials of both parties right now feel tremendously threatened. They're threatened by these laws. They're threatened often by partisans in the state government. But unfortunately, also, they're now being threatened by people riled up about this stuff. We did a survey of election officials, along with the Bipartisan Policy Center, and 1 out of 3 election officials feels threatened, and many of them have had actual threats of violence. And, you know, these are not the most glamorous jobs. (Laughter) These are not - they're not in this for the big bucks. A lot of them are looking potentially to leave their jobs. And if we wind up in a situation where not just partisans, but people who believe false things about elections being stolen wind up running the elections, that's going to be something that would give us a lot of reason to worry in years to come.

DAVIES: Right. So if these provisions were - some of these provisions were - had been in effect in 2020, how might things have gone differently?

WALDMAN: We now know more and more every day that Trump really did try to steal the election, and people stood in his way - governors of his own party who certified the results, secretaries of state of his own party, local election officials in places like counties in Michigan who certified the results. And we know Trump tried to overturn the election, and it was chaotic and clown-like. But there's no reason to think it will be chaotic and clown-like next time, either by him or by someone else. You see not efforts led by, you know, Rudy Giuliani with hair dye dripping down his face at a press conference, but party operatives systematically removing obstacles to partisan decisions about who wins the next election.

DAVIES: I want to just mention one thing about Donald Trump's call to the Georgia secretary of state, Raffensperger. I've listened to that entire tape. What Trump actually says in the tape is, I need to find 11,700 votes or whatever the number was. He didn't tell Raffensperger you have to find them, but that's clearly the import of the call. He listed a half-dozen things that he should do.

WALDMAN: He also threatened to criminally prosecute him, and since he's the head of the federal government, that had a little bit of oomph at the time.

DAVIES: Oh, yeah. Everything about the call was improper, including Raffensperger getting on the phone with a disgruntled candidate, I think. I mean, you don't - you shouldn't have secretaries of state doing that. You know, there's a process for contesting an election. But, you know, it occurs to me that if you have a situation in which partisan actors under these new laws are in control and can, you know, reverse results, it would still require them to make a factual showing. I mean, there's still going to be a tabulation by systems that are in the main pretty reliable, and there will be a result. And those individual actors will have to, you know, make a raw power play and kind of say, well, you know, black is white. You know, what you see isn't true. I wonder if there's some hope that just being put on the spot and having to say, having to make a factual case that you can't make might be a break on this, which is not to say that the laws are not harmful.

WALDMAN: And that is, of course, what happened in 2020. It was the facts of the election results were underlying why people stood up and, regardless of whatever their party affiliation was, why they did the right thing. The election in 2020 and now, in fact, is quite secure. The ability to have paper ballots, which is now widespread, gives people the ability to count and to recount if necessary. The system actually has gotten quite effective and precise in avoiding some of the confusion about election results that we saw in the past, in our country's history and in the recent past. Think about the Florida recount in 2000. We saw a 60 or so lawsuits brought against the results in the 2020 election, and they were all thrown out of court and not just on technical grounds. They were deemed to be very flimsy.

And over and over again, every time there's been a recount, an audit or anything else, people have said, you know what? The system got it right. The results were counted accurately. And interestingly, the expanded electorate, the record turnout, people voting by mail didn't really help one political party or another. As you know, the Republicans actually did very well in the congressional race. They did much better in the House than expected. They did better in the Senate than expected. Only Trump lost, and he actually even did better than expected.

So it's not as though having this safe and effective election in the middle of a pandemic, it's not as if it benefited one party or another. I guess I would say it just benefited voters, which makes the false claims about it all the more maddening because they're really so at variance with what actually happened.

DAVIES: If Democrats could rig votes any way they want, surely they would have taken control of the Senate.

WALDMAN: You know, the claim that the machines were rigged to only throw votes to Biden, but at the same time, the Republican congressional candidates won - doesn't make a ton of sense.

DAVIES: We need to take a break here. Let me reintroduce you. We are speaking with Michael Waldman. He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School, which has just released a new report on proposed changes in voting rules in state legislatures. Waldman's book, "The Fight To Vote," is out in an updated edition with new material on former President Donald Trump's efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and the new wave of restrictive voting bills. We'll be back to talk more after this short break. I'm Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Dave Davies, in for Terry Gross. Our guest is Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School, which has just released a new report on the growth in proposals among state legislatures to restrict voting access, to give partisan actors more influence in the electoral process, and in some cases, to expand access to voting. An updated edition of Waldman's book "The Fight To Vote" has just been published with new material on former President Donald Trump's efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and the new wave of restrictive voting bills.

You know, in your book, you go back to the early days of the republic and note that, you know, voting has never been easy. There have been fights over it for all of the history of the United States. You know, we - way back in the late 18th century, it wasn't even just only white men who got the vote, but in most places, only white men with property. And that's changed over the years.

And then, you know, eventually slavery ended, and eventually the Civil Rights Act was passed, and women were permitted to vote. There is one debate among the founders that has relevance today that you mention. And it specifically is about the role of state legislatures in deciding - well, the role of the states in deciding the rules for voting in the republic. You want to outline what was at issue in that debate as they were drafting the Constitution?

WALDMAN: Well, there's a provision in the Constitution called the elections clause. That's been pretty important, though it's not terribly widely known. What it says is that legislators set the times, places and manner of elections, but Congress has the power to alter those rules at any time. And James Madison insisted that the elections clause be in the Constitution not because he loved state legislatures, but precisely because he thought state legislatures were corrupt and would be taken over by what they called factions - but of course, we call political parties - and that they would do things like gerrymander and voter suppression.

Of course (laughter) they didn't use those words in those days. Among other things, Elbridge Gerry - it's actually how it's pronounced - was standing right there, but that is actually what they were talking about. They were talking about rules drafted by states to favor the political interests of the people drafting the rules. There was a big debate over it in the Constitutional Convention. Madison insisted that it stay in, and he prevailed. The intent of the Constitution is quite clear. The goal is to make sure that partisan mischief does not upend our elections.

You're right that they didn't have a guarantee of the right to vote in the original Constitution though five amendments ever since then have talked about the right to vote. But they were very focused on representation, and they knew very acutely the risks of corruption and self-dealing, and they tried to put in those protections, which makes it all the more ironic that that very provision is now being used or argued for as a basis for giving more power to people who would twist the rules, in my view.

DAVIES: Right. I mean, the clause itself mentions the states, gives them a function, but says that Congress can exercise its will. But now we have this notion that states are supreme and independent in matters of election. Where does this come from?

WALDMAN: Well, what you're hearing people say is that because it uses the word legislature, which was basically meant states - but because it uses the word legislature, then supposedly, the only people who have any power over these elections are state legislatures, you know, the guys in ill-fitting suits under the dome (laughter) basically. And that would cut out the state constitutions. That would cut out the state courts, who rely on those state constitutions. It would cut out governors. And certainly, it would cut out election officials from having any ability to do anything.

This has never been found by a court. This is not some big doctrine that exists in the Constitution, but it is also the case that at least four of the very conservative, current members of the U.S. Supreme Court think this is a good idea. And it's very likely that there'll be some major constitutional showdowns over this in years to come, maybe even very soon.

DAVIES: Right. It's the state legislatures that are enacting these new voting provisions. And I think in some proposals, the state legislature itself would be the deciding entity in the case of, say, a presidential election and where the electors go.

WALDMAN: That is what some people want. It hasn't happened yet, and those laws have not passed yet. It's important to remember that when it comes to presidential elections, things are a little murkier because of the Electoral College. But what the Supreme Court said, again, most recently in - and at least, an aside in a case in 2020 is under the Constitution, state legislatures can pick any way to pick a president. But all of them have chosen to give the voters the say.

And once voters are given that say, then the state legislatures cannot just step in and say, you know what? We don't actually like who people voted for. We're going to vote for the different person. So I think that if, in fact, state legislatures claim the role of undoing what the voters had done, that would be just an outrageous, of course, affront to democracy. And I think it would be incredibly divisive and would not stand.

DAVIES: There have been efforts in Congress to exercise some controls and establish rules, which would - you know, which would reverse some of the decisions that have been made in states that restrict ballot access or alter the election process. Give us a sense of where all that stands.

WALDMAN: Well, it's been one of the great political clashes of the past year and of current times just as it has been throughout the country's history. In this period, states have been rushing forward to pass these restrictive voting laws, and Congress has the power, legally and constitutionally, to stop it, to set national standards. The question has been, does it have the political will? And so far, the answer is, you know, not yet.

Over the course of the past year, two key pieces of legislation were moving through Congress. I was very supportive of them. The Freedom to Vote Act set national standards on voting and banned partisan gerrymandering among other things. And the John Lewis Voting Rights Act restored the strength or would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act, which was the great landmark and highly effective civil rights law enacted in 1965, which has been basically gutted by the United States Supreme Court.

These bills were eventually combined into one bill. It passed the House of Representatives. It had the strong support of the president. It has the support of a majority of the Senate. But it has been filibustered. And as you know, two of the Democratic senators, Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, although they support the bills, would not make the rules changes to actually enable them to pass. So it was a very big disappointment for those of us who think this legislation is pretty important, pretty necessary.

You know, there are just times in the country's history where federal action is the only real, strong answer when states are abusing the rights of their people, and I think that's where we are now. And it gives me great concern because if it is the case that Congress can't pass voting rights legislation because of the filibuster and the courts will not protect voting rights because they've been turning away from it, then that gives a green light to states to do their worst. And there's just no reason to think that whatever we're seeing right now is as bad as it can get.

DAVIES: We need to take another break here. Let me reintroduce you. We're speaking with Michael Waldman. He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU law school, which has just released a new report on proposed changes in voting rules in state legislatures. We'll be back after this quick break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE INTERNET SONG, "STAY THE NIGHT")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we're speaking with Michael Waldman. He's president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU law school, which has released a report on proposed changes in voting in state legislatures. Waldman's book "The Fight To Vote" is out in an updated edition with new material on former President Trump's efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and that new wave of restrictive voting bills.

You know, Michael Waldman, this is such an extraordinary time, and we're seeing democracy under assault and fights over voting procedures, access and counting in so many places. Is this unique in American history?

WALDMAN: You know, in a lot of ways, there are new things, but in a lot of ways, this is one of the great stories of American history from the very beginning. At the time we started as a country, we were anything but what any of us would consider a democracy. As you said, only white men who owned property could vote. But the ideals of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence and the idea that government is legitimate, as it said, only if it rests on the consent of the governed, that started to shake things up from the beginning.

That year, in 1776, each of the newly independent states had to write their own constitution. And in Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin was in charge of writing the constitution, and they eliminated that property requirement so that men could vote - working-class and poor men as well. And Franklin explained why they did it. He said, there's a man who owns a jackass. It's worth $50, so the man can vote. Then the jackass dies. So the man is older, the man is wiser, but the jackass is dead, so the man can't vote. So who, Ben Franklin asked, really has the right to vote - the man or the jackass? Good question. One more reason we love Ben Franklin.

Well, up in Massachusetts, John Adams was writing their constitution. And people there said, hey, you ought to do what they did down in Pennsylvania, eliminate the property requirement. And Adams was aghast at this idea. He said, if we do that, women will demand the right to vote, lads of 18 will demand the right to vote, men who have not a farthing to their name will think themselves worthy of an equal voice in government, and they will demand the right to vote. John Adams said, there will be no end of it.

And that's really the story of the country. There has been no end of it. From the beginning, people have demanded access to democracy, have demanded a seat at the table, demanded to be able to vote or have their votes counted, and other people have fought back against that to try to stop it. And that fight has continued all throughout history. And in many ways, that's what we're seeing again today. As the country's changing, it's demographically changing, there's a backlash against that, and we're seeing it play out in these fights over voting.

DAVIES: I guess what I wonder about in some of these cases is, yeah, it's convenient in some cases to have people believe this notion that elections can be stolen, but eventually, if elections lack credibility, that's not really good for anybody, is it?

WALDMAN: No, it's very worrisome. Many of the basic elements of a democracy, which we have taken for granted in our country, is that when someone loses, they're not happy about it, but they congratulate the winner and accept the results and that people effectively accept the legitimacy of the process of counting votes or of the voting system. And the more polarized we are as a country, the more partisan the fights get, the harder it is to maintain that.

You know, we see this kind of thing not just in the United States, unfortunately, but in many other places in the world at the same time. There's a real pushback against democracy. There was a big wave of democratization after the Cold War, especially, and now, whether in Hungary, whether in Turkey, whether in the Philippines or Brazil or here in the United States, we see people really calling into question, as Trump has, the legitimacy of our democracy. And it's a scary thing. It's something that we, I guess, feel we need to fight against it. We need to stand up. People from all political persuasions need to say, no, our democracy is not rigged, no, our democracy is legitimate, and we need to try to make it work.

DAVIES: The courts have often been a place that people turn to when bad ideas are enacted by state lawmakers. To what extents have - are the federal courts a remedy for what's going on in the current epoch?

WALDMAN: It's one of the interesting and surprising things I learned in researching the book, which is that very rarely has the fight for voting rights been successfully waged in the courts. It's really come much more in legislatures or at the ballot box or on the streets. And that is certainly true in this current era. This Supreme Court under John Roberts has actually been very aggressive in cutting back on protections for voting rights and campaign finance. The court has not struck down a single restrictive state voting law in the past decade. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most effective single civil rights law probably that the country had, and it was gutted. Its most important provision was gutted in 2013 by the Supreme Court in a case called Shelby County. And then the parts of the law that were still standing were gravely weakened last year in a case that didn't get so much attention called Brnovich. And now the Supreme Court seems poised to kind of finish it off altogether.

The court undid a century of campaign finance law in the Citizens United case in 2010. And when it comes to gerrymandering - that's the drawing of the district lines either to benefit a political party or to make it harder for racial minorities to be represented - the Supreme Court looked at the issue of extreme partisan gerrymandering and washed its hands and said, we're not going to get involved. In fact, federal courts aren't even allowed to hear the cases. So I don't think that we can realistically look to the courts and certainly not this Supreme Court to be the ones defending and saving American democracy.

(SOUNDBITE OF ANTHONY BRAXTON'S "MAPLE LEAF RAG")

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. And we're talking about proposals in state legislatures to restrict voting and, in some cases, undermine the integrity of election processes. We are speaking with Michael Waldman. He is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School, which has just released a new report on those proposals.

The Brnovich case - you mentioned this - in Arizona was a case in which the question was, would some changes in voting rules which had a disparate impact on Native Americans and people of color, are they illegal under the Voting Rights Act? And an appeals court said, yeah, these rules, regardless of their intent, had a disparate impact, and they violate the Voting Rights Act. What did the Supreme Court do? What's the implication of it?

WALDMAN: Well, what the Supreme Court said - and as with so many of these cases, it's - what matters is less the specific facts of the laws they were looking at than the legal standards they set out. What the Supreme Court said was that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, that's the part that was still standing that said that after the fact, you can bring a lawsuit against discriminatory voting practices, and that was what had been used in recent years to block a lot of the worst voter suppression laws. Well, the Supreme Court said that you have to prove intent to discriminate, not just the impact to discriminate. And that makes it very easy for state legislators to just basically cover their tracks. They gave them something of a how-to manual on how to pass these laws without making it look like your intention is to discriminate - just, oh, what do you know? It turns out that's the result.

This is ominous because this part of the Voting Rights Act has been very useful in recent years in blocking some of the worst voting laws, and now it is much, much more gravely weakened. And the legislation that is being considered by Congress would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act and make it clear that if there's a really, really clear disparate impact that a voting law is something that affects Black people or Latinos or other minorities much more so than white voters, then we can say that that needs to be protected against.

DAVIES: If the federal courts aren't likely to reverse any of these changes that we're seeing, there, of course, are state laws, and there are state constitutions, and some of these state laws can be challenged by those who argue that they violate provisions of their state constitutions. Is that a meaningful avenue to pursue?

WALDMAN: It is likely that this is going to be an important avenue going forward, as the federal government doesn't do its job to protect voting rights nationwide. Every state constitution but one has an explicit protection for the right to vote that is stronger than what's in the U.S. Constitution. And people are now starting to bring lawsuits in state courts to validate those rights, and we're going to see whether they are able to make some success. And there's some evidence that there will be success. My organization, the Brennan Center, for example, brought a lawsuit in Ohio on behalf of Black and Muslim voters challenging the redistricting, challenging the new legislative maps, which we said and they said did not reflect the actual population of Ohio. And the state Supreme Court, now twice, under Ohio's law and the Ohio constitution, has thrown out those maps in the kind of cases the federal courts wouldn't go near right now. So - we saw something similar in North Carolina.

One of the interesting twists here is a lot of these state Supreme Court justices are elected. And I've never been a big fan of electing judges. But you can also see the argument that, well, it may be that those courts are a little more responsive to the wide variety of people in a state.

DAVIES: One of the other things you write about is the importance of protecting election officials, people who are, you know, civil servants or in some cases elected officials but who are doing their best and have been - have received, you know, physical threats as a result of doing their jobs. How do citizens help reassure these elected officials and stand by them?

WALDMAN: It's a crazy moment. These folks are really under assault in all different kinds of ways. We need to make sure that there aren't laws that put them at risk of criminal prosecution for just doing their job. We need to stand up against the disinformation, which is often what they're flooded with when, you know, some video goes viral and they wind up getting deluged with hate and hateful messages, again, just for doing their jobs. I think we all can insist that law enforcement, both local law enforcement and federal law enforcement, step up and recognize that this is a real problem of these threats to these public servants. And in effect, just letting these election officials know that we all have their back, I think, is pretty important.

DAVIES: You know, regardless of what happens in votes in legislatures or court cases, we do have this problem of tens of millions of people who believe that elections in this country can be stolen, that tens of millions of ballots in a presidential election can be fraudulent. And it seems that something needs to be done to engage those people and get them to look at things differently. Any thoughts on that?

WALDMAN: You know, it's a big challenge for our democracy and one we haven't faced before. I point out that the southern states didn't like that Lincoln got elected. In fact, they seceded because of it. But nevertheless, they admitted that he got elected - to give just one historical example. We've not previously faced a situation where not just tens of millions of people believe the false idea that the elections were stolen, but their leaders keep telling them it was the case. And as far as they know, the former president of the United States keeps saying it. And the idea of the big lie is that if you say something outlandish often enough, people think, well, he can't be making all that stuff up.

I really think that part of what has to happen is that other Republicans need to stand up with much more courage than they've showed so far to say, you know, I don't like Biden, I don't like the Democrats, I'm a Republican, but this idea that the election was stolen is nonsense. And we hear people say that sometimes in a whisper, and then they kind of back off. I do think part of what has to happen is a little bit of courage on the part of other Republicans. It is a big, interesting, strategic question always because this idea of voter fraud is not entirely new. Elections in the United States are actually very secure. Voter fraud is vanishingly rare. As a statistical matter, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit, for example, in-person voter impersonation. That's been confirmed over and over and over again. And people say, well, you know, facts are not going to persuade people.

You can't just pound people with facts on this kind of thing. But at least at the Brennan Center, partly because of how we do our research, we do really think it's important that people understand that this isn't just a claim. This isn't just a question. It's a lie. The elections are tremendously secure. But I think people have to have an understanding, too, of the basic, deep patriotic values that undergird our elections. It's very hard to be an American. It's hard to live up to the ideals that maybe they haven't been the reality, but they're certainly what we've all aspired to if we're going to just kind of cast aside our democracy. I think it's that deep an issue right now.

DAVIES: Well, Michael Waldman, thank you so much for speaking with us.

WALDMAN: Thank you.

DAVIES: Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU Law School, which has just released a new report on proposed changes in voting rules in state legislatures. An updated edition of Waldman's book, "The Fight To Vote," has just been published with new material on former President Donald Trump's efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and the new wave of restrictive voting bills.

If you'd like to catch up on interviews you've missed, like our conversation with W. Kamau Bell, who directed the four-part Showtime documentary series "We Need To Talk About Cosby," or with journalist Matthieu Aikins, who shed his own identity and passport to travel with an Afghan refugee taking smugglers' routes to Europe, check out our podcast. You'll find lots of FRESH AIR interviews.

(SOUNDBITE OF FRANK ZAPPA'S "WAKA/JAWAKA")

DAVIES: FRESH AIR's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Amy Salit, Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Sam Briger, Lauren Krenzel, Heidi Saman, Ann Marie Baldonado, Therese Madden, Seth Kelley and Kayla Lattimore. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Thea Chaloner directed today's show. For Terry Gross, I'm Dave Davies.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 22 May 2023

Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding

Alia Braley ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6188-8299 1 ,
Gabriel S. Lenz ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7844-6027 1 ,
Dhaval Adjodah ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1777-7222 2 ,
Hossein Rahnama 2 , 3 &
Alex Pentland ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-9983 2 , 3

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7 , pages 1282–1293 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3340 Accesses

3 Citations

298 Altmetric

Metrics details

Politics and international relations
Social policy

Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Here we present evidence that this behaviour is driven in part by the belief that their opponents will undermine democracy first. In an observational study ( N = 1,973), we find that US partisans are willing to subvert democratic norms to the extent that they believe opposing partisans are willing to do the same. In experimental studies ( N = 2,543, N = 1,848), we revealed to partisans that their opponents are more committed to democratic norms than they think. As a result, the partisans became more committed to upholding democratic norms themselves and less willing to vote for candidates who break these norms. These findings suggest that aspiring autocrats may instigate democratic backsliding by accusing their opponents of subverting democracy and that we can foster democratic stability by informing partisans about the other side’s commitment to democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

Replication data for the main text and Supplementary Information are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4BDET (ref. 71 ). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Replication code for the main text and Supplementary Information is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4BDET .

Wike, R., Simmons, K., Stokes, B. & Fetterolf, J. Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy (Pew Research Center, 2017).

Lindberg, S. I. & Boese, V. A. Autocratization Changing Nature? (Democracy Report, 2022).

Levitsky, S. & Ziblatt, D. How Democracies Die (Broadway Books, 2018).

Svolik, M. When polarization trumps civic virtue: partisan conflict and the subversion of democracy by incumbents. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 15 , 3–31 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Bermeo, N. On democratic backsliding. J. Democr. 27 , 5–19 (2016).

Gamboa, L. Opposition at the margins: strategies against the erosion of democracy in Colombia and Venezuela. Comp. Polit. 49 , 457–477 (2017).

Waldner, D. & Lust, E. Unwelcome change: coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 21 , 93–113 (2018).

Fish, M. S. Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (eds Roeder, P. G. et al.) 54–95 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002).

McClosky, H. Consensus and ideology in American politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 58 , 361–382 (1964).

Ahmed, A. Is the American public really turning away from democracy? Backsliding and the conceptual challenges of understanding public attitudes. Perspect. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001062 (2022).

Goodman, S. W. ‘Good citizens’ in democratic hard times. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 699 , 68–78 (2022).

Grossman, G., Kronick, D., Levendusky, M. & Meredith, M. The majoritarian threat to liberal democracy. J. Exp. Polit. Sci. 9 , 36–45 (2022).

Krishnarajan, S. Rationalizing democracy: the perceptual bias and (un)democratic behavior. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 117 , 474–496 (2023).

Jacob, M., Wunsch, N. & Derksen, L. The demand side of democratic backsliding: how divergent understandings of democracy shape political choice. OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/c64gf (2022).

Putnam, R. Making Democracy Work (Princeton Univ. Press, 1993).

Weingast, B. R. The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91 , 245–263 (1997).

Przeworski, A. Democracy as an equilibrium. Public Choice 123 , 253–273 (2005).

Reuters. US presidential election is rigged, says Donald Trump. Guardian (18 October 2016); https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/18/us-presidential-election-rigged-donald-trump-wisconsin-video

Ingraham, L. The Ingraham Angle. Fox News (9 September 2020).

Carlson, T. Tucker Carlson Tonight. Fox News (24 September 2020).

Ingraham, L. The Ingraham Angle. Fox News (1 October 2020).

Rose, J. & Baker, L. 6 in 10 Americans say U.S. Democracy is in crisis as the ‘big lie’ takes root. NPR (3 January 2022).

McCarty, N. Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22 , 129–146 (2019).

Pierson, P. & Schickler, E. Madison’s constitution under stress: a developmental analysis of political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 23 , 37–58 (2020).

Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L. & Bradburn, N. Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on ‘America in one room’. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115 , 1464–1481 (2021).

Lee, A. H.-Y., Lelkes, Y., Hawkins, C. B. & Theodoridis, A. G. Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 951–963 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370 , 533–536 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Graham, M. H. Does partisan identity reduce support for electoral fairness? OSF https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vwe36 (2020).

Arbatli, E. & Rosenberg, D. United we stand, divided we rule: how political polarization erodes democracy. Democratization 28 , 285–307 (2021).

Graham, M. H. & Svolik, M. W. Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114 , 392–409 (2020).

Cassese, E. C. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit. Behav. 43 , 29–50 (2021).

Martherus, J. L., Martinez, A. G., Piff, P. K. & Theodoridis, A. G. Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Polit. Behav. 43 , 517–540 (2021).

Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Politics 80 , 964–981 (2018).

Bartels, L. Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 22572–22579 (2020).

Ocasio-Cortez, A. Well, it’s official: Republicans are now arguing that the US isn’t (& shouldn’t be) a democracy. This is what they believe. From lobbyists writing their bills to sabotaging our civil rights, the GOP works to end democracy. Twitter (27 August 2019); https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1166502815717568512

Warren, E. Health care. Reproductive Freedom. Workers’ rights. Dreamers’ futures. Our planet. Democracy. Everything is on the line—so everything is on the table. Twitter (26 September 2020); https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1309876174231949312

Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80 , 378–391 (2016).

Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 279–286 (2020).

Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376 , 20200143 (2021).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5 , 1369–1380 (2021).

Voelkel, J. G. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 , 55–64 (2022).

Kteily, N., Hodson, G. & Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 , 343–370 (2016).

Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 14864–14872 (2020).

Landry, A. P., Ihm, E., Kwit, S. & Schooler, J. W. Metadehumanization erodes democratic norms during the 2020 presidential election. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 21 , 51–63 (2021).

Landry, A. P., Schooler, J. W., Willer, R. & Seli, P. Reducing explicit blatant dehumanization by correcting exaggerated meta-perceptions. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 14 , 407–418 (2021).

Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2116851119 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pasek, M. H., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Levy-Vene, A. & Moore-Berg, S. L. Misperceptions about out-partisans’ democratic values may erode democracy. Sci. Rep. 12 , 16284 (2022).

Broockman, D., Kalla, J. & Westwood, S. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Amer. Jour. Pol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.1271 (2022).

Voelkel, J., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. & Mernyk, J. Megastudy identifying successful interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes. OFS https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 (2023).

Carey, J. M., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B., Sanders, M. & Stokes, S. Searching for bright lines in the Trump presidency. Perspect. Polit. 17 , 699–718 (2019).

Ahler, D. J. Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J. Politics 76 , 607–620 (2014).

Bicchieri, C. Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

Imai, K., Keele, L. & Tingley, D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol. Methods 15 , 309–334 (2010).

Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L. & Imai, K. Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. R package version 4.5.0 (2014).

Ads by political rivals in Utah go viral. Good Morning America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yaf5OJRu8 (2020).

Mazepus, H. & Toshkov, D. Standing up for democracy? Explaining citizens’ support for democratic checks and balances. Comp. Polit. Stud. 55 , 1271–1297 (2022).

Şaşmaz, A., Yagci, A. H. & Ziblatt, D. How voters respond to presidential assaults on checks and balances: evidence from a survey experiment in Turkey. Comp. Polit. Stud. 55 , 1947–1980 (2022).

Simonovits, G., McCoy, J. & Littvay, L. Democratic hypocrisy and out-group threat: explaining citizen support for democratic erosion. J. Politics 84 , 1806–1811 (2022).

Matanock, A. M. How international actors help enforce domestic deals. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 23 , 357–383 (2020).

Hyde, S. D. Democracy’s backsliding in the international environment. Science 369 , 1192–1196 (2020).

Lührmann, A. & Lindberg, S. I. A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it? Democratization 26 , 1095–1113 (2019).

Cleary, M. R. & Öztürk, A. When does backsliding lead to breakdown? Uncertainty and opposition strategies in democracies at risk. Perspect. Polit. 20 , 205–221 (2022).

Gamboa, L. Resisting Backsliding: Opposition Strategies Against the Erosion of Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

Al Jazeera. Brazil election: ‘It is over,’ Bolsonaro tells supreme court. Al Jazeera and News Agencies (2 November 2022).

Ternovski, J. & Orr, L. A note on increases in inattentive online survey-takers since 2020. J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media 2 (2022).

Miratrix, L. W., Sekhon, J. S., Theodoridis, A. G. & Campos, L. F. Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Polit. Anal. 26 , 275–291 (2018).

van der Loo, M. simputation: simple imputation. R package version 0.2.8 (2022).

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).

Choi, J., & Shen, S. Two-sample instrumental-variables regression with potentially weak instruments. Stata J. 19 , 581–597 (2019).

Braley, A. & Lenz, G. S. Replication code and data for ‘Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding’. OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4BDET (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

For helpful feedback, we thank C. Amat, L. Barden-Hair, J. Barker, A. Berinsky, C. Bicalho, J. Chu, D. Bischof, D. Broockman, J. Druckman, S. Fish, J. Fishkin, M. Graham, A. Guess, K. Hansen, C. Hosam, S. Hyde, H. Jefferson, M. Kagan, J. Krosnick, M. Landau-Wells, N. Malhotra, A. Matanock, J. Mernyk, C. Mo, E. Moro, J. Pan, S. Pink, D. Rand, C. Redekopp, E. Schickler, R. Slothus, N. Stagnaro, J. Voelkel, R. Willer, A. Wojtanik, A. Yan and S. S. You. We also thank J. Levy for research assistance. We also thank Aarhus University, Aletheia, MIT Connection Science, the MIT Media Lab Human Dynamics Group, the Stanford Communications Department, the Stanford Polarization and Social Change Lab, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, the UC Berkeley Political Science Department, the Broockman-Lenz Lab, the International Conference on Computational Social Science (IC2S2 2020), the Bridging Divides & Strengthening Democracy Conference (2022), the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference (SPSP 2023), the Association for Psychological Science (APS 2023), and the American Political Science Association (APSA 2023). Funding for this study was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (A.P.) and the University of California, Berkeley (G.L.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Travers Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Alia Braley & Gabriel S. Lenz

MIT Connection Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Dhaval Adjodah, Hossein Rahnama & Alex Pentland

MIT Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Hossein Rahnama & Alex Pentland

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B. developed the concept and designed studies 1 and 2a. A.B. and G.S.L. collaborated on the design of studies 2b and 3. A.B. and G.S.L. fielded the studies, performed the final analysis, constructed the figures and wrote the paper. G.S.L., D.A., H.R. and A.P. supervised studies 1 and 2a, and G.S.L. supervised studies 2b and 3.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alia Braley .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Michael Pasek, Jennifer McCoy and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–15 and Figs. 1–21.

Reporting Summary

Source data, source data fig. 1.

Source data for Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 4

Source data for Fig. 4.

Source Data Fig. 5

Source data for Fig. 5.

Source Data Fig. 6

Source data for Fig. 6.

Source Data Fig. 7

Source data for Fig. 7.

Source Data Fig. 8

Source data for Fig. 8.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Braley, A., Lenz, G.S., Adjodah, D. et al. Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding. Nat Hum Behav 7 , 1282–1293 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2022

Accepted : 03 April 2023

Published : 22 May 2023

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Supply, demand and polarization challenges facing us climate policies.

Matthew G. Burgess
Leaf Van Boven
Michael P. Vandenbergh

Nature Climate Change (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

My Study Campus

Essay Writing

Importance of Voting Essay: Why Every Citizen Should Exercise Their Right to Vote

Voting is a fundamental right and duty of every responsible citizen to make a strong democracy. Elections are going on some the states presently, therefore, the topics has become one of the most important essay topics for all competitive as well as academic exam.

Importance of Voting, Importance of Voting Essay

Essay on Importance of Voting

Voting is a fundamental right and duty of every citizen in a democratic society. The act of voting allows citizens to have a say in the selection of leaders who will represent them and make decisions on their behalf. In a democratic system, voting ensures that power rests with the people rather than in the hands of a select few. Despite the importance of voting, many individuals do not exercise this right. Lets discuss the importance of voting and highlight why every citizen should vote.

Importance of Voting in Promoting Democracy

One of the primary reasons why voting is crucial is that it promotes democracy . In a democratic society, citizens elect their leaders through a voting process. The leaders then represent the interests of the citizens and make decisions on their behalf. Through voting, citizens can choose leaders who will advance their interests and promote the common good. By voting, citizens participate in the democratic process and contribute to shaping the future of their country.

Importance of Voting to Ensures Equal Representation

Another essential aspect of voting is that it ensures equal representation. In a democracy, every citizen has a voice and the right to vote. Regardless of one’s social status, wealth, or education, every vote counts equally. When citizens vote, they ensure that they are adequately represented in government. The government must then consider the views of all citizens, regardless of their background or socio-economic status. This helps to prevent the domination of any particular group in society.

Importance of Voting in Encouraging Civic Responsibility

Voting is not only a right, but it is also a civic responsibility. By voting, citizens contribute to the development and progress of their country. It is essential for citizens to participate in the democratic process and have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. Voting is an excellent way to show civic responsibility and a commitment to the future of the country.

Importance of Voting in Empowering Citizens

Voting is a powerful tool that empowers citizens. Through voting, citizens can influence the policies and decisions made by their government. This is particularly important for marginalized groups who may otherwise have little voice in society. By voting, these groups can elect leaders who will represent their interests and promote policies that benefit them. Voting also empowers citizens to hold their leaders accountable for their actions. If leaders fail to deliver on their promises, citizens can vote them out of office during the next election.

Voting Shapes the Future

The act of voting shapes the future of a country. By participating in the democratic process, citizens have a say in the direction that their country takes. They can choose leaders who will promote policies that align with their values and priorities. Voting allows citizens to contribute to the shaping of their country’s future, and this is a critical aspect of democracy.

Voting is a Fundamental Right

Voting is a fundamental right and it must be protected. In many countries, individuals have had to fight for their right to vote. This is because the right to vote is closely linked to the right to self-determination and freedom. By exercising their right to vote, citizens can help to preserve and strengthen their democracy.

Importance of Voting in Enhancing Political Stability

Voting is essential for promoting political stability. When citizens vote, they provide a mandate to their elected leaders. This mandate gives the government the legitimacy to make decisions and implement policies. When citizens do not vote, the government may lack the mandate to govern effectively, and this can lead to instability. By voting, citizens can help to ensure that their government is stable and effective.

Importance of Voting in Reflecting National Identity

Voting is an important aspect of national identity. In many countries, voting is seen as a crucial part of national identity and a symbol of citizenship. When citizens vote, they demonstrate their commitment to their country and its future. By participating in the democratic process, citizens can also demonstrate their understanding of the issues facing their country and their willingness to contribute to finding solutions.

Importance of Voting in Increasing Participation in the Political Process

Voting increases participation in the political process. When citizens vote, they engage with the political process and become more aware of the issues facing their country. This increased awareness can encourage citizens to become more politically active and engage in other ways, such as volunteering, advocating for causes, and contacting their elected officials. Through voting, citizens can become more involved in the political process and help to shape the future of their country.

Importance of Voting in Protecting Human Rights

Voting is also important for protecting human rights. In a democratic society, citizens have the right to participate in the political process and to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. When citizens vote, they help to protect these rights and ensure that they are upheld by the government. By participating in the democratic process, citizens can also help to prevent the violation of human rights by holding their leaders accountable.

In conclusion, voting is an essential aspect of democracy that every citizen should exercise. Through voting, citizens can promote democracy, ensure equal representation, encourage civic responsibility, empower themselves, shape the future of their country, and protect their fundamental rights. It is essential for citizens to take their civic duty seriously and participate in the democratic process by voting in every election and make free and fair election. By doing so, citizens can contribute to building a better and more equitable society for all.

Restraint is the Formula of Solution Essay Writing

Essay on Perfection: A Journey of Excellence and Growth

Raksha Bandhan Essay in English for Students

You may have missed.

Entrance Exam

IIT JAM 2024 Admit Card Out: Download Here

Latest Jobs
Recruitment

Indian Airforce Agniveer Online Form 2024

UPPSC Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination 2024 Online Form

UP Police Constable Recruitment 60244 Post Online Form

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Variation
Language Families
Language Acquisition
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Media
Music and Culture
Music and Religion
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Society
Law and Politics
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Medical Ethics
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Games
Computer Security
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Ethics
Business History
Business Strategy
Business and Technology
Business and Government
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Methodology
Economic Systems
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Theory
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Politics and Law
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

Learning How to Hope: Reviving Democracy through our Schools and Civil Society

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

4 Hope and Democracy

Published: December 2019
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter explains why hope matters for democracy. It offers insight into both what Americans hope for and how they hope together. It shows how democracy and hope are mutually supportive of one another. This chapter considers how Americans work toward goals they set through hoping—a verb, a practice, rather than a noun or object we possess. It demonstrates how hoping connects us to other people and how our aims are best realized by working together with others. It describes how Americans might work together to tell new stories about our country and to set new goals for democracy and bring them into fruition. In part, this is done through harnessing democratic dissent—converting citizens’ frustrations into social movements that bring about change.

Now that we have a working definition of what hope is, I want to explain why it matters for democracy, before turning to how we might learn how to hope to round out the book. Facing despair and a struggling democracy, many Americans are asking, “How can I hope?” and “What should I hope for?” Focusing on the relationship between hope and democracy, which I articulate in this chapter, offers not only an enriched understanding of how we hope together but also particular content of what we might hope for within our country. And it offers insight into how democracy and hope are mutually supportive of one another. Given the current struggles faced by our citizens and our democracy, this relationship suggests that valuing and nurturing hope may be one important way to sustain and strengthen our democracy today and, especially, over time and into the future.

Recall that hope functions as a verb—the active process of hoping—but hope also may have particular objects or objectives that serve as ends-in-view. The objects are things (sometimes public things like parks and clean water) 195 Close we desire and the objectives are events or states of affairs that we want to bring to fruition (such as enjoyable employment that brings financial stability). 196 Close Those objects and objectives may help us make our way out of indeterminate situations, satisfying our needs or resolving our problems so that we can grow and move forward. 197 Close While these examples might sound quite large or ambitious, objects and objectives as ends-in-view are often smaller aims that may string together with others across time toward larger outcomes. For example, my husband and I might first reflect on our frustrating experience of detachment from others and consider ways to create opportunities to get to know and interact with families in our community. Then we might gather with a neighbor to discuss our desire to get to know others in our area better and brainstorm potential ways to do so. Next, we might set up a designated play space for children on our street to see if other families are looking for recreation or opportunities for engaging with neighbors, and so on. Each of these smaller ends-in-view occurs long before we might set our sights on building a public park as our larger object of hope. Objects and objectives are what we hope for in our lives, our communities, and our democratic nation.

Hoping Together

To delineate how we may hope together, let’s begin with five approaches described by philosopher Titus Stahl. 198 Close First, he presents “distributively shared hope” (1), where each individual in a group hopes for something. Even though they hope for different things, they share the property of hoping. Second, he describes “minimally shared hope” (2), where every person in a group hopes for the same thing, but may not know that the others also hope for that thing or may not approve of them doing so. While these are potential starting points to hoping as I see it, they aren’t sustainable because they don’t provide a climate that acknowledges and supports hope or a disposition to exert effort in the face of struggle. They can also fall prey to some of the problems of privatized hope that I discussed in chapter 1 , preventing the effective identification of social problems and the collective work needed to address them. Focusing on these versions of hope might help individuals personally or for a short while, but they aren’t likely to bring about the significant and lasting improvements in our lives or in democracy that hoping together can. These approaches also fail to recognize that working with others on problems that hinder our own personal futures is a way to improve our own prospects as well as those of others. We need forms of hope that better link one’s future possibilities to the well-being of the country as a whole.

Third, Stahl describes “cooperatively shared hope” (3), where each member of a group hopes for some thing and is aware of and supportive of the others also hoping for other things. This form of hoping together is the minimum foundation for which I am calling. Here, people are enacting hope and acknowledging the importance of others who are also enacting hope, even if their particular objects or objectives may vary.

Fourth is “fully shared hope” (4), where each member of a group knows about and supports each other in hoping for the same collective outcome. And fifth is “collective hope” (5), where all members of a group jointly hope for the same collective outcome. In this case, “the group acts on joint commitments, but each individual also has derivative commitments from the group that are distinct from their own personal commitments. 199 Close Both 4 and 5 are more desirable for the overall well-being of democracy because they entail not just the practice of each individual citizen hoping, but also those citizens hoping separately or together for some outcome that is mutually beneficial. When those outcomes are public goods or conditions that lead to the flourishing of collective life, the shared content and hopers are brought together in a situation that is particularly ripe for reviving democracy. Options 4 and, especially, 5 may also involve creating an imaginative space where members creatively work together toward their collective outcome. Such a space not only can generate new ideas but also can be a sandbox for experiments in shared living, where citizens are mutually recognized and no one feels left behind or slighted. Versions 4 and 5 also differ from privatized hope; they entail us inviting others into our hoping action, potentially revealing the sources of problems, and providing a space for social problem-solving. These options assert the value and importance of shared and collective work. Let’s consider how 3, 4, and 5 might play out as hoping together.

When hope is understood as pragmatist habits, with their deep connections to social and political life, hope transitions from the individual to the community. Hoping involves reflection, action, and consequences that concern and impact other people in one’s environment. Hoping together is a process that is more than just the sum of each individual’s hope; rather, hoping together takes place in a community that shapes the objects and practices of hoping. Hoping together may start with or build off of the particular hopes of individuals, but through dialogue they become collectively held when others also desire them and are willing to work toward them. 200 Close Each individual may hold the same object of hope, as in minimally shared hope (2), but may be unaware that others are concerned with the same object of hope. Thus, they feel no affiliation to others as a result. Here, we have a mere aggregation, a summing up of each individual’s hope, rather than an association of hopers. This gives us only a superficial identity as merely being concerned with the same object and fails to provide the richer social identity needed to bind people together in America through times of struggle. However, when we hold a joint commitment to that object, it binds us with others, and in some cases, we cannot dissolve that commitment without the community’s agreement. This sort of hoping together provides a more substantial sense of social unity.

In hoping together, the community becomes a source for hoping, producing indeterminate situations and shared experiences that trigger inquiry and imagination. And the community becomes a concrete location for hoping, where the people around us influence our attitudes, emotions, and actions. Sometimes we build solidarity by sharing our similar experiences and reactions. Within the community, we identify shared social problems as well as individual struggles, all the while discussing why they are problems worthy of address. We then craft desired outcomes, keeping in mind what we find to be feasible, all the while maintaining a spirit of possibility. In many cases, we work together through the process of inquiry to imaginatively propose solutions to those problems. We then try out those hypotheses together, seeking to determine whether they have increased our ability to lead flourishing lives so that we can grow as individuals and together. When our hypotheses fail, we must come together to deliberate, to seek out alternative views and ideas from beyond our initial community, and to once again creatively envision new approaches to try. With each reiteration, we shape our new objects and objectives critically, checking to see whether evidence supports them and whether they reflect what we truly want or need. 201 Close

Hope matters to democracy because shared hoping, and the content of such hope, ties communities together. Hoping with others for the same objects and objectives entails a joint commitment that binds us beyond being a “we” of hopers. It gives our connections substance and direction. Hoping together can help support an individual’s persistence in pursuing a goal because it enhances our obligations to others and our reasons to pursue the object or objective. As a result of being connected to other people and to shared ends, this hoping together is more sustainable than individual hope because it entails more resources for problem-solving and persistence. 202 Close It may also nurture our sense of responsibility to follow through on our commitments to those we hope with. Finally, the experience of solidarity can affirm the worthwhileness of action with others and move us beyond more fleeting individualized hope undertaken without regard for others. While despair often isolates us and cynicism distances us from each other, hope builds solidarity in one’s commitment to and interaction with other citizens. Commitment to each other and action on each other’s behalf builds the trust and involvement entailed in self-government necessary for democracy to thrive.

The practice of hoping together and determining the content of our significant shared hopes shapes our identity; it becomes who we are and how we see ourselves. And when that identity is geared toward future-driven action and betterment of our collective living, that identity leads us to work together as a public. As a result, hope is not just instrumentally useful because it is aligned with specific outcomes but also is intrinsically valuable in constituting our identity. In such a community, our habits of hope are nurtured to keep us disposed toward hopeful action even as our ends-in-view vary. This proclivity keeps us adaptive to novel situations and actively seeking new and better ways of living. Our community is also strengthened when its members understand themselves in terms not only of their shared commitments and aims but also as hopers—as the type of people who flexibly adapt to challenging situations and engage in effort to improve them. Such an identity can help to unify citizens from an array of demographic backgrounds, political parties, and experiences. Even if the content of our hopes differs significantly or we believe that others are mistaken about their vision of a better future, perhaps some of our divisions can be at least partially mitigated by recognizing the shared role of hope in our lives and our shared identity as hopers.

William James was clear that pragmatism “does not stand for any special results. It is a method only.” 203 Close As such, the emphasis should remain on the action, methods of inquiry, and proclivities of hoping. 204 Close Indeed, it is these practices that sustain our commitment and enable us to achieve the content of our hoping, whatever that may be. Shared hoping binds us together and adapts us to our changing environment. Through hoping together, we build our resolve and bolster our courage to improve the world. When we face disappointment, obstacles, and failures, our fellow hopers buoy us.

Inviting others to engage in the imaginative parts of hope may help break down some walls between citizens prevalent in our currently polarized society. Part of our polarization stems from stereotypes of competing political parties, such as assumptions that Republicans are racist or uneducated and Democrats are elitist and out of touch with reality. When we imagine and problem-solve with others across party lines, we have firsthand experiences that may confront those stereotypes with examples of intelligence, care, creativity, resourcefulness, and more. When we do this sort of work together and our focus is on our shared fate in the future, we are pushed to see the humanity and value of those we may disagree with politically. This may enable us to set aside those differences, even if only temporarily or partially, and perhaps put first the strong collective identity of doing common work together.

Working together also helps us build our trust in the intentions and capabilities of our fellow citizens. We may see firsthand that those different from us can exert effort in the world and can have positive impact that benefits themselves and others, including ourselves. Moreover, we may recognize our own limitations in achieving our goals and come to enlist or rely on others to help us, or we may recognize that a particular problem requires an “all hands on deck” approach. Unlike the self-segregation and echo chambers that many citizens seek today to shore up themselves with only like-minded people, when we hope with others who differ from us, we open ourselves up to them. This may create a space for new relationships and learning across differences. Those relationships may then lead to further identification of shared problems and new endeavors of hope.

Ultimately, the process of hoping with others is important to reviving democracy because it binds us with them, pushes us to take action together to solve our shared problems, and builds an identity based on hopeful effort and commitment to common work. Working across differences can help to combat increasing disengagement and distrust. It can help us confront despair and offer a pathway out of that state, thereby releasing us from paralysis. Such hoping creates and improves some of the conditions needed for democracy to thrive that have struggled most in recent years. As social and political, hoping is a practice immersed in webs of power, where power varies in form, degree, and impact among the people hoping together. And the goals of hope are often shaped by power structures and inequities. Whereas viewing hope as individualist or confined to one’s emotions or spiritual beliefs hides power and inequities at play, pragmatist hope enables such power to be better identified, harnessed, and challenged in varying circumstances according to what is needed for citizens to flourish.

Objects and Objectives of Hoping Together

For Dewey, the overarching goal of hoping is a democratic society that supports the growth of individuals and flourishing life for all. He does not describe individual citizens as pursuing this goal explicitly or directly in particular ways, but rather as a spirit that guides our action and reflection so that we are alert to opportunities where we can improve democratic living. 205 Close It focuses our activities by employing our intelligence to clarify and direct our desires and using our imagination to help us construct means to pursue them. 206 Close Shade describes this process well:

Committing to a hope indicates our willingness to promote actively, in whatever way we can, realization of its end. Because it is not within our reach, some degree of patience is needed. But in hoping, patience is coupled with an active orientation toward the end, an orientation which includes acting as if —testing our beliefs about the end and its means—to see what we can contribute to its determination. 207 Close

Here he brings together the act of hoping via habits and inquiry with the content of such hoping.

Our shared conditions, including the current problems faced in America that I’ve noted throughout this book, can give rise to shared objects and objectives of hoping. Those shared ends may be for the things and practices of democracy, whether those be formal principles such as justice and equality, things such as public libraries and schools, or ways of life that support and engage democratic living, such as cooperation and deliberation. They may also be values, like respect for persons, and practices, such as listening. They may also be small and specific outcomes a community needs to satisfy some need or solve a problem. Citizens work together to determine that those objects and objectives are realizable and desirable (in that they fulfill present needs but also do not block other, perhaps larger, aims). 208 Close When the shared hopes arise from people, publics form where people work together to solve social problems and achieve common goals. The content of such hoping comes to compose a vision of our shared life together within American democracy, one that springs from the people and is enacted by them, and one that is, importantly, revisable.

While obvious to many, it needs to be said that not all publics can fairly pursue or achieve their objects of desire due to power imbalances, white supremacy, and more. Some communities have more resources and more cultural and political capital to bring their objects of hope into fruition. A country that substantially celebrates the role of hope would recognize the need to level the playing field so that all publics can more fairly pursue their desired aims. That is not to say it would guarantee their desired outcomes. But at the very least, elected officials could use the sway of their offices to seek out, listen to, and support the efforts and aims of minority, underprivileged, or marginalized groups. In this way, they could affirm, when appropriate, the legitimacy of the problems identified by those groups and bring additional resources, attention, and people power to bear on them, thereby supporting hoping and objects of hope.

A pragmatist is always leery of narrowly defining the shared content of hoping in advance, for it would not arise out of real conditions, inquiry, and the changing needs of citizens. And objects and objectives that do arise should always be held tentatively, open to criticism and revision as needs and environments change. Those objects and objectives should be assessed to make sure that they “work for us” and help our lives flourish without harming others and, ideally, bring benefits to others. Even democratic principles should not be held as unchanging dogma, but rather can only be reasonable and responsible when subject to revision. 209 Close With that in mind, I will only briefly note here some of the shared content of hoping that might arise in light of our current struggles. These include: a healthy economy, gainful employment, healing of political divisiveness, trustworthy media, and consistent demonstration that each individual has equal value in our society.

While objects and objectives of hopes must be fluid, resulting from deliberations together and inquiry into our environment, there are some elements of democratic life that have stood the tests of ongoing experimentation and remained significant to ensuring the flourishing of American people and may be worthy to continue. These include: liberty, justice, opportunity, tolerance of an array of lifestyles that do not harm others, reduction of suffering, a system of checks and balances that prevents abuses of power, and citizens viewing each other as political equals entitled to the same civil participation, rights, and responsibilities. Often those ends are best achieved or sustained through democratic means: inclusion, participation, compassion, deliberation, and access to citizenship education that prepares one to be an active and effective citizen.

Some of these democratic ideals have long been wrapped up with practices of white supremacy that have denied those ideals to many Americans of color. Moreover, many of those democratic ideals were crafted and determined by only a sliver of the population, namely propertied white men, and therefore not only lack the voice and input of others but also fail to encapsulate the experiences of those for whom the founding ideals have rarely been achievable or equitably provided. Those objects of hope, then, have been shaped by agendas of power that must be acknowledged, analyzed, called out, and challenged when needed. I am not suggesting that we just need to work harder at providing or ensuring those long-standing objects and objectives of democracy, but rather that we need to recognize their connections to injustice and rework them in broader and more inclusive practices as part of our hoping. But I’m also urging citizens to consider how some of these ideals have sometimes served us well in the past and how they can be revised and improved to continue to serve us well now and in the future. Note that some of these are enshrined in the Constitution and yet the Constitution has flexibility so that we can continue to revise how democratic principles and practices look as our environment changes.

Throughout history, the American ideal premised on principles of equality, rights, and opportunities has guided and reunited America through troubling times, such as Abraham Lincoln’s invocation of it during the Gettysburg Address. Indeed, following the war, some of our citizens and leaders recognized the need to revise the Constitution to further ensure those principles through new amendments aimed to provide equality to former slaves. And today, frustrated citizens who feel that they are denied equality (because of racism and a host of other things) or opportunity (due to lack of upward economic mobility) should come forward to reassert their importance. They can show the ways those ideals have been distorted by racism and other forms of injustice. For example, concerns with equality for many people of color have been less about receiving resources from the state and more about how racism has systematically led others not to recognize them as persons worthy of equal respect, yet many whites struggle to see this, sometimes choosing to focus on supposedly unjust distributions of welfare, affirmative action, and other state programs that aim to distribute goods rather than acknowledge practices of moral disregard between citizens. Citizens might then expose when those ideals have been contradicted by competing actions, and work toward their improvement, rather than become complacent or throw in the towel on the American experiment out of a sense of disillusionment with its ideals. 210 Close Such expectations should not fall only on citizens of color and others who are struggling, but also those who are well served currently. Through inclusive listening and inquiry, they should also identify and act on those problems and shortcomings of our ideals.

The importance of America’s guiding principles was recently reasserted in the final letter written by Senator John McCain to America. In the midst of an environment where many Americans have bred hatred by reducing patriotism to exclusive acts of culture, he reminded his peers that those principles can bring sustainable happiness and argued that we should turn to them now. In his final lines, he entreated, “Do not despair of our present difficulties. We believe always in the promise and greatness of America because nothing is inevitable here.” 211 Close While pessimism may make bad outcomes seem inevitable, McCain asserted the power of our effort and our employment of the guiding principles that have been central to the promise of our country and its ability to be refashioned.

Shared objects and objectives of hope may help us build a new conception of America that we can rally around—a sense of who we are and what we stand for that we can take pride in, defend, and advance. This may be hard to imagine within such a politically divisive society, but surely there is content to our hopes and our shared fate that we can identify or create together. And some of that content may already be well established within our history, principles, laws, and cultural practices, even if it has become more hidden or has not been fairly distributed in past and recent times. Some of the primary values held by members of certain political parties or civil groups may conflict with the shared hopes of the larger citizenry. Indeed, we can celebrate such conflicts as part of living in a democracy that enables a diversity of views and the freedom to pursue them. But our task is figuring out how to enable all citizens to balance those conflicts while still pursuing their own version of the good life and shared well-being. In part, that requires focusing on the overarching needs and unity of our country as we determine and pursue our objects and objectives of hope.

And, while the continual creation of shared hopes via flexible habits suggests the need for adaptability in one’s political views, I recognize that some citizens hold strong views and their ideologies fixedly. While that approach may not be as conducive to a flourishing democracy that is responding to changing needs and environments, I recognize that our democracy has a long history of valuing tolerance, including tolerance of those whose views are fixed. 212 Close Again, we must work together to figure out how to balance those fixed minority views within a wider society that is flexible, all the while demonstrating the benefits of adaptability and the unifying practice of discussion and engagement with each other. Perhaps we might harness strong views to push and challenge our more flexible ones in productive ways, as we stop to try to listen to and understand the beliefs that some citizens adhere to so tightly. Through such listening and adaptability, we might also model ways that our staunch peers may come to question or change their views in time.

Considering how shared content relates to hoping is worthwhile and may indicate things, values, and ways of living that educators and institutions might specifically nurture in citizens. That shared content may then guide us in our future choices and actions so that we continue to enable individuals and groups to actualize their hopes down the road. 213 Close And shared content may mutually reinforce the solidarity of hoping together I described earlier. Philosopher Adam Kadlac explains,

solidarity seems to require a measure of specificity in the goal being pursued, since genuine solidarity is more than a vague togetherness. It is most clearly present when we face challenges together with others as we work toward something we all care about: winning the game; defeating the enemy; fighting poverty, oppression, and disease. As a result, the content of our hope matters and we are able to develop greater solidarity with those who want the same future as we do and who are motivated to work toward bringing that future about. 214 Close

I’m also reminded of Bill Clinton’s claim that “priorities without a clear plan of action are just empty words.” 215 Close The content of our hopes, then, may be goals, values, and ways of life, but they cannot be separated from our actions to realize and sustain them. Those actions play out as the effort, imagination, inquiry, and experimentation that is hoping. How we hope and what we hope go hand-in-hand, and both matter to democracy.

Democracy Supports Hope/Hope Supports Democracy

Democracy and hope have a reciprocal relationship where each supports the other. Democracy in our republic is aligned with the spirit of change that enables hope for new and different things and ways of life. Our democracy enables peaceful and frequent transitions of power, which not only help to prevent violent revolutions but also provide formal conditions for change. The ability to run for elected office allows one to take a guiding role in shaping government, society, and daily life. With each election cycle, there is the opportunity for new leadership and new ideas to come into power and, at minimum, for current leadership to be reassessed and alternative ideas to be discussed during the campaign season. Those conversations open the sort of space where the inquiry, imagination, and experimentation of hope are fostered at both local and national levels. For example, during the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders introduced some rather radical new ideas regarding free college tuition and universal healthcare in America. While ambitious and difficult to achieve, these ideas generated discussions among citizens. Supporters greeted the proposals with a spirit of possibility and began to imagine how those ideas might look as actual policies, while others criticized their desirability and exposed constraints on their feasibility. Both were important to the process of hoping together. 216 Close One woman who was inspired by his platform, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined Sanders’s staff. Then fueled by passion for Medicare for all, she developed and expanded her own platform, which attracted considerable support. She went on to a surprising upset over a longtime congressman in New York in 2018, exhibiting how hoping and objects of hope can continue and expand well beyond one presidential candidate or election. 217 Close

Democracy is designed to prevent ideas and ways of life from being crystalized as dogma; rather, they are always open for discussion and challenge, at the very least, during elections. 218 Close Unlike other some other forms of government, our frequent elections allow us opportunities to reevaluate our priorities and our leadership as our needs and desires change from one election season to the next. Citizens who increasingly champion authoritarian or military rule today may feel currently aligned with the aims and approaches of such rule, but perhaps have lost sight of how our democracy’s frequent elections offer opportunities for reassessment and realignment when such leadership no longer reflects the will or needs of the people. In other words, while authoritarian leadership may suit them well now, those citizens are overlooking the benefits of changing leaders offered within a representative democracy. Moreover, those alternative leadership styles squelch spaces for expressing dissatisfaction and imagining improved approaches, thereby inhibiting hope. Given that military rule is supported more by citizens with less education, it may be important for schools and communities to more strongly affirm these benefits of democracy, including through the use of historical examples that demonstrate the benefits of democracy for ordinary Americans. 219 Close Military and authoritarian leadership arrangements may seem appealing when hope is low or when one is seeking security and order, but they limit the ability to enact hope and restrict peaceful ways of proposing changes in the future, which may actually breed resentment and disorder in response.

Some long-standing democratic conditions and principles bolster hope because they enable the creative pursuit of one’s desired life through providing the freedom and power needed to pursue that life without the hindrance of dictators or unwarranted constraints on liberty. The laws and institutions of the state (including schools) can help protect and ensure those conditions of liberty, equality, and justice that are conducive to hope. But it can be hard to have faith in the principles and institutions of democracy when they have failed in the past, when participating in them has been out of reach, or when they appear increasingly controlled by political and economic elites. As a result, it is worthwhile to turn our attention to hoping together and to build resolve by studying the stories of successful efforts of social movements and organizations.

Civil society provides what Peter Berger calls “the plausibility structure” for hope. 220 Close Civil society, with its clubs and groups, is composed of people who can identify shared problems and exert collective effort to alleviate them. It provides tools, including networks of people, histories of past success of “average Joes,” and more, that motivate and make it feasible for individuals and groups to pursue hoping and to fulfill the content of their hopes. In the midst of the increasing privatization of hope, civil society offers a space where citizens can try out hoping together and experience how shared hoping can foster one’s habits of hope and the flourishing of the group. 221 Close

Finally, within accounts of democracy, we often find beliefs that bolster our practice of hoping, such as the belief that the system can ensure the freedom of individuals, provide political equality, and offer opportunities for meaningful participation. 222 Close In other words, democracy promises desirable outcomes that may motivate us to work toward them and, when achieved, those outcomes are often, in turn, supportive of hopeful endeavors. Democracy is appealing because it aims to treat each person as equal to every other, despite their many differences. That political equality provides a more level playing field for pursuing our hopes, even if our personal hopes may be hindered by other factors such as poverty. When that equality is not achieved, habits of hope kick in to help us identify and speak out against practices that inhibit it and to envision better ways of achieving it. When that equality is achieved, we have greater justification for continuing to enact our habits of hope because we believe there is a fair opportunity for us to pursue our desires. As more Americans increasingly support autocratic and military rule, it is worthwhile to showcase the benefits of democracy here. It enables the conditions for a freer and imaginative space of shared hoping, which can pull us out of despair and improve our lives.

At the same time, hope also supports democracy. Both the practice of hoping, which unites citizens in public work, and the content of hoping, which sometimes is aligned with democratic aims or public goods, engage and enhance democracy. Sometimes hoping brings together diverse groups of citizens, requiring deliberation that breaks down boundaries and builds a sense of e pluribus unum . Citizens inquire and experiment together, leading to the discovery of new, more efficient, and more effective ways of living together in our growing country. Because democracy often provides conditions for hope, enacting hope can affirm our commitment to and appreciation of democracy. Pursuing our hopes can also lead to adapting the practices and principles of democracy to meet new situations and needs, demonstrating the flexibility and usefulness of this governmental structure and way of life. Hope also gives citizens democratic resolve, and persistence to withstand the many types of struggles that democracy faces without foregoing the formal or cultural components of democracy.

Being hopeful, though, doesn’t necessarily mean being happy with all aspects of our democracy or having a rosy demeanor overall. One can still hope, even when deeply frustrated by the way things are. Perhaps counterintuitively, “Hope often creates discontent, inasmuch as a person’s hopes for the future may make them very dissatisfied with things as they are presently.” 223 Close Envisioning possibility can lead us to helpfully critique current constraints on those possibilities. In Dewey’s words, “a sense of possibilities that are unrealized and that might be realized are, when they are put in contrast with actual conditions, the most penetrating ‘criticism’ of the latter that can be made. It is by a sense of possibilities opening before us that we become aware of constrictions that hem us in and of burdens that oppress.” 224 Close That discontent can be used proactively as democratic dissent, which can lead to improvement in the formal structures and culture of democracy. In dissenting, one expresses dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, helps others to see the problem, and then puts forward solutions for discussion and testing. This discontent becomes an important part of cultural criticism, critique, and inquiry geared toward improving social living.

Unlike cynicism, which fails to suggest solutions for the source of frustration, hope-based dissent mobilizes action and engages democracy to imagine and work toward a better future with knowledge of the past and previous fulfilled visions. In similar spirit, philosopher Michael Walzer adds, “[Criticism] is founded in hope; it cannot be carried on without some sense of historical possibility.” 225 Close It is sometimes those who are most frustrated with the world as it is that, through their scathing depictions of that world, provoke hoping in themselves and others that ignites alternatives. As they do, some of the most effective dissenters recount stories of previous dissent that has led to positive change, thereby bolstering hope and suggesting possibility for our actions now.

Importantly, hoping can occasionally resist elements of change and reassert past ways of life that are being left behind back into the vision of the future. Often, however, dissent is important to a healthy democracy because it generates conversation about the typical ways of doing things and provokes change when those standard ways are no longer effective or when they cause harm to some group. 226 Close Dissent works against stagnation by bringing forward new ideas and more perspectives on an issue. Our democracy requires the consent of the governed. In order for the laws and practices of a democracy to be upheld, they must be found legitimate by the citizens so that those citizens can consent to them. Through dissent, we expose laws and practices to be illegitimate, out of line with the needs of our society, unjust, or otherwise unacceptable. It then propels us into better ways of living by suggesting alternatives to replace the problematic laws and practices.

One recent example of this sort of dissent is the #MeToo movement, which began by women sharing traumatic stories of suffering caused by sexual harassment and assault, including some stories of being in despair as a result. 227 Close While crafting a vision of equality and safety for all people, especially in the workplace, #MeToo raised awareness of the pervasiveness of the problem, and encouraged people to share and discuss their related experiences. Consequently, both structural and cultural changes have taken place. New bills to ensure protection and due process have been passed in states and workplaces, new worksite trainings have been instituted about sexual harassment, and the larger population has a new understanding of the pervasiveness of sexual assault and inequity. Even in schools, approximately 14% of surveyed teachers reported changes to their professional development, curriculum, and classroom discussions in response to #MeToo. 228 Close Many Americans have joined in the hope for making our streets and workplaces safer and more just for all, an aim aligned with equality and opportunity in our society. 229 Close Most recently, the movement has shifted toward providing resources for survivors and focusing on stories of how people have coped with trauma and moved forward. 230 Close

Many citizens in America are deeply troubled by aspects of their lives and our society, especially by economic struggles and feelings of being cheated or left behind by others. 231 Close Despair sometimes manifests as wallowing in those troubles, driven deeper down by experiencing them as overwhelming and perhaps unalterable. The only possible solution may seem to be turning those problems over to messianic leaders or strongman rulers who claim to have simple solutions. But a messianic leader carries the weight of others’ expectations of being saved and a strongman leader focuses on what he is going to do for us, rather than drawing attention to what we might do for ourselves and others. Because of this, such a leader may build individualized hope that we may benefit from his action, but does not build our resolve to participate with others in making life better. And sometimes, a strongman campaigns on the impression that he will fulfill everything desired by others, but once in power, actually focuses on his own narrow agenda. Turning to an authoritarian strongman may be something we resort to when we don’t feel personally effective in achieving the world we want; yet, it’s another way that we resign our agency and turn over our power to someone else. Instead, dissent is a way to take the struggles and frustrations of our citizens seriously and to give citizens agency in addressing them. Dissent enables those struggling citizens to name problems, call for collective work, and engage in action, rather than resigning to the negativity and paralysis of despair. Hope can spark dissent, which in turn, can lead to inquiry and experimentation that fulfills the objects of hope so that people can flourish once again. This suggests that we should seek leaders who are open and receptive to citizen dissent, not those who squelch it or shy away from it. Those are leaders who invite their critics to the table, try hard to understand their alternative views, and act on them when found worthy.

Practicing dissent and forming publics around problems can lead to building social movements. Whereas many citizens feel unheard by current leaders, or cynical about their ability to influence public life, social movements can showcase citizens’ voices and attract the attention of leaders. Being a part of such a movement can reaffirm the power and impact of citizens in democracy (even those who may lack money or connections), especially when that movement is able to demonstrate impact. They can also show participants the power of engaging in imaginative problem-solving and experimentation together. 232 Close

When citizens engage in such hope and experience meaningful improvement as a result of their effort, their agency grows, they recognize their own political power, and they experience increased confidence that may lead them to ongoing effort. In other words, habits of hope provide us the support structure and intelligent direction that enable us to become agents capable of changing ourselves and our world. Political agency—one’s ability to participate in and impact democratic life—not only is important to the functioning of democracy but also is a useful way to counter current complacency, apathy, and cynicism. Many citizens today don’t feel that they can participate in or have an impact on political life. But the experience of hoping with others and achieving the objects and objectives of hope can showcase the agency citizens do have and nurture it. Or, in the words of Shade, “the very activity of hoping both requires and enables us to transcend antecedent limitations of agency.” 233 Close Experiencing such transcendence can be an eye-opening moment for citizens, helping them to see themselves, their abilities, and their impact in new ways. It can also shift the characteristics they desire and expectations they hold for political leaders, as they become supporters of and coproducers of hope, rather than proponents of a mere “campaign-style” hope.

The agency of individuals is bound up with that of others, as hope often pushes us into trusting in others, and because one’s agency can be enhanced and magnified by others. When individuals are encouraged to connect to the work of others, movements and political force can result. On the other end, we know, via the efficacy principle, that individuals will become demoralized if their efforts consistently don’t make a difference. The collective nature of hoping, which engages us in structures of support and civil affiliation, can help to stave off such demoralization and buoy us as we continue to try. Hoping improves democratic living because it cultivates an awareness of mutual dependence and builds desirable attitudes, like trust, toward others. These outcomes are significant for the health of democracy even if the goals of our hope are not achieved.

Another way in which hope supports democracy is through the building of culture and identity. Culture, including democratic culture, is often thought of as in the past—memorialized in traditions and statues. But culture is also about the future for which we hope and the shared identity that results from being a part of that vision and its formation. One of the primary ways that we convey our vision of the future, and thereby build democratic culture and identity, is through storytelling. Stories give us accounts of how problems can be solved and how life can be better. Stories can provide evidence that shows people that when democracy is thriving, each citizen has greater likelihood of achieving equality, liberty, and opportunity, which can then help them achieve their own desired possibilities. Stories can also depict the value of the objects and objectives of hope.

Sometimes we create fictional stories about a future we envision and sometimes we retell true stories of the past. Stories of the past can help us to identify social problems, see how people came together around them, how objectives of hope were crafted, and how they were achieved. For example, stories of African American families during the Reconstruction Era exhibit the significant efforts put forward to achieve quality education as a pathway to greater opportunity on the heels of slavery. For a long time, the stories of many of those involved were unknown by people outside of those communities and yet their narrative of hard work and gradual success sustained ongoing efforts within the community and extended beyond it through trickle-down impact on civil rights initiatives in the mid-twentieth century. 234 Close Similarly, stories of women’s suffrage activism highlighted injustice and shared work toward providing American ideals of opportunity and political equality. These examples showcase the powerful impact of individuals and groups, some of whom lived rather ordinary lives, thereby suggesting, through their telling, that other citizens may see their own potential in a new light today. 235 Close

As I said earlier, Walt Whitman declared that democracy is “a great word whose history remains unwritten.” 236 Close Part of hoping is writing a new history and future together. That future must reasonably account for past injustices (such as structural inequality, racism, and sexism), attend to current struggles, and make feasible predictions, but, to some extent, it can also transcend and transform them via the alternatives it proposes. The future we construct must remain fluid and revisable. Even as such, a “hope narrative” can sustain and unite us. 237 Close That narrative may depict shared objects and objectives of hope, perhaps helping us to rally around them, justifying their role in improving our lives, and building our collective resolve to pursue them.

PlaceBase Productions is one interesting example of storytelling. On the heels of the 2016 election, the organization recognized the rifts between rural and urban people, the negative image of rural people, and struggles within rural communities that were significant but often overlooked. PlaceBase Productions reached out to rural communities, inviting residents to tell their stories so that they could share their problems, connect to others, develop pride in their communities, and put forward a vision of a better life together. In some cases, these stories demonstrate moving from despair to hope. Through interviews and story circles, those individual stories are heard and gathered. Eventually they are coalesced into a narrative that is performed as a play within the community, thereby serving as fodder for continued dialogue and action. 238 Close

Notably, politicians often evoke stories of the America they envision. But unless those stories arise from the expressed visions of citizens themselves or motivate citizens to action as a result, such stories fall short and are not capable of sustaining citizens through difficult times. Stories build on personal and shared imagination to give us illustrations of possibility. But storytelling is not just about telling (this is especially true when it comes to politicians), rather it is also about listening to the needs and experiences of others so that we can reshape and improve our vision for the future in light of their insight. Too often politicians and citizens filter what we hear through our own assumptions or confirm what is heard to fit talking points, thereby failing to truly hear the stories being told.

Although it did not address past injustice, and while it takes a different format than many stories, one example of such a narrative was the 1994 Contract with America. In response to polling data and surveys about the frustrations of the American people, Republican leaders crafted this document to outline the values and vision to which they were committed, as well as an action plan of legislation aimed at fulfilling those goals. It was intended to unify voters around an increasingly widespread conservative spirit and give details about what that spirit might specifically entail and produce. It was widely publicized and many Americans considered it a narrative shaping the country, the laws, and the leadership they sought. It became a rallying point for creating a new culture that preserved elements of the past within its vision for the future, and it called for leaders and citizens to get involved in that future. It shaped their voting and their actions.

Hope also supports democracy by developing our identity. From a pragmatist perspective, our identities are based in our habits, including our habits of hope. A pragmatist understanding of hope urges us to see hope as not merely instrumental toward achieving something else, but rather constitutive of our own identities. Our identities influence how we interpret our past and our future. 239 Close Enacting habits of hope may then impact how we understand ourselves, how we interpret our part in democracy, and how we act on both. They are “conducive to an increased self-understanding [because] we structure our hopes by reflecting on what it is that we truly want and what is attainable in our lives.” 240 Close Cheshire Calhoun further explains, “Hopers, by contrast, do not treat their hopefully imagined future as merely a strategically rational hypothesis that it might periodically be useful to adopt for planning purposes. Hopers inhabit their hoped for future. Imaginative projection of themselves into the hoped for future is constitutive of the way they pursue their ends.” 241 Close When we form a vision for the future, we come to engage in behaviors aligned with that future, thereby shaping ourselves.

Hope, then, isn’t delayed or just perpetually held off toward the future, but rather is of value in the moment. This pragmatist view of hope composes us now, rather than just moving us toward something else. And, over time, our identity—who we are and how we see ourselves—can become that of a hoper, one who engages habits of hope. Such a person is well aligned with the spirit of action and adaptability at the heart of American democracy. Growing and asserting such an identity, as an important part of what it means to be an American, may offer sustainable and flexible support for our struggling country.

Finally, an identity grounded in hope may lead to a more flourishing democracy, in part because of its role in publics. These are at the heart of a vibrant democracy and are in contrast to the “complacent class.” Whereas we tend to think of democracies as being composed of a single collection of citizens we call “the public,” publics are plural and active subsets of people who rally together around some shared problem or interest. They tend to form when people are united through some similar experience and have a need for their shared elements to be addressed. Dewey explains, “The public consists of all those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for.” 242 Close These publics openly discuss their shared consequences, often by forming organizations or movements, and by seeking a breadth of perspectives on the issue at hand. There, they name their struggles and chart paths to improvement, sometimes through developing shared content for their hopes. These activities build a sense of belonging and mutual concern that counters the individualism, self-interested behavior, and distancing of cynicism we frequently see today.

It is possible for those publics to develop provincial identities around particular aspects of their local experiences or desires. Or, publics may uphold objects or objectives of hope that conflict with one another. Sometimes those identities or aims clash with our national identity as Americans or with other publics across the country. For example, a growing group of libertarians has formed in New Hampshire, calling themselves “Free Staters.” They are seeking to maximize individual liberty and reduce government oversight, laws, and intervention. Their vision of expanded freedom shapes the content of their hopes and the political community they are crafting together. Yet, just to their south, a sizable portion of Massachusetts residents celebrate the role of government oversight and protection in enabling equality, which led them to be the first state to legalize gay marriage in a move to secure equality of state-sanctioned marriage for all residents. These citizens rally around the notion of equality that often competes with liberty in a democracy, where pursuing one’s personal freedom may infringe on the rights of others. In such cases of localized conflict, we must try to achieve a justified balance between our provincial affiliations and our larger national setting. Sometimes that means finding points of common ground, perhaps in this case, the freedom to love whomever one chooses. Sometimes that requires turning to the history of compromise and enduring principles within our democracy to model a path forward. Sometimes that entails creating a new story that enables those local groups to coexist peacefully under an overarching American identity that tolerates many different ways of pursuing the good life.

Strengthening democracy by supporting and enhancing scattered and fledgling publics requires deep and ongoing collaboration and communication that works to determine, solve, and implement solutions to problems. To meet their needs, they envision alternative futures and construct public goods, including public things, rather than mere material goods for personal consumption. Such is the work of habits of hope. Hope, then, is much more than a mere feeling or a political slogan. It’s relationship with and impact on democracy is significant. Hope matters to democracy. Insofar as habits of hope can be cultivated and nurtured formally through schools and informally within families and civil organizations, they offer a pathway out of current problems that is sustainable and itself deeply hopeful.

Reasons to Hope

In light of the many social and economic problems that are causing widespread cynicism and despair, one may be led to ask, “Are there reasons to hope?” Sometimes this question is posed because people are looking for reasons to take action and some assurance that their action would be productive. 243 Close This chapter answers affirmatively by drawing attention to the citizens themselves as hopers. When the pragmatist worldview of meliorism shapes our orientation to the world and our actions within it, we can engage in hoping with others in ways that increase our agency, achieve our objects and objectives of hope, and improve our democracy. We are the reason to hope. This is specially the case when our identity is based in hope, as philosophers Claudia Blöser and Titus Stahl explain: “When hopeful activities and attitudes form an essential part of a person’s identity, that person has reason to engage in such activities.” 244 Close We have the ability to create and engage hope through our habits. And, as I will explain in the final two chapters, those habits can be taught and learned. We don’t have to develop hope on our own and we don’t have to go about enacting hope without support. We can nurture the hope of children in schools and develop a larger culture that aids the hope of adults.

Bonnie Honig rightly describes real public things. She warns, “without them democratic life is not just impoverished but unsustainable. If democratic theorists neglect public things, we end up theorizing the demos or proceduralism without the things that give them purpose and whose adhesive and integrative powers are necessary to the perpetual reformation of democratic collectivity.” Bonnie Honig, Public Things: Democracy in Disrepair. New York: Fordham University Press, 2017.

I follow J. J. Godfrey in A Philosophy of Human Hope ; Jayne Waterworth in A Philosophical Analysis of Hope ; and others in using this distinction between objects and objectives of hope.

197. For details on how Dewey links indeterminate situations, desire, and objects of hope, see John Dewey , “Desire and Intelligence,” John Dewey, The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Volume 14: 1922 , edited by J. A. Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983), 172.

Personal communication July 6, 2016, regarding handout distributed at the Templeton Foundation Hope Conference in Estes Park, Colorado, in June 2016.

199. For more on joint commitments, see Margaret Gilbert , Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

McGreet, Victoria. “The Art of Good Hope,” The Annals of the American Academy , March 2004: 100–137.

Note how this differs from the sort of hope often demonstrated by politicians, where they assert objects that the public may not actually endorse or understand then uphold them beyond question. See Peter Drahos, “Trading in Public Hope,” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 592, no. 1 (2004).

202. For more see Margaret Gilbert , “Rationality in Collective Action,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 36, no. 1 (2006): 3–17, 11.

203. William James , Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking , lecture 2 (New York: Longmans, 1907).

See similar concerns expressed by Hannah Arendt in Alan Mittleman, Hope in a Democratic Age , 197; and by Aronson, Reviving Social Hope , 157; and by Sullivan, Pragmatism and Justice , 3.

205. For more about this interpretation of Dewey, see Stephen M. Fishman and L. McCarthy , John Dewey and the Philosophy and Practice of Hope (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007), 21, 51, 83.

Shade, “Habits of Hope,” 31.

207. Ibid. , 71.

208. Ibid. , 19, 36.

Kloppenberg, James. Reading Obama (Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 163, and Dauenhauer, Elements of Responsible Politics , 136, 139.

This paragraph is heavily aligned with the ideas expressed by Yone Appelbaum, “Is the American Idea Doomed?” The Atlantic , November 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/is-the-american-idea-over/540651/ .

Olivia Paschal, “Read John McCain’s Final Letter to America,” The Atlantic , September 4, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/john-mccains-final-letter-to-america/568669/?utm_source=fbb .

Note here that I’m not saying we must tolerate all views or all ways of life; certainly there are some that should be squelched. I’m speaking of tolerance of a wide array of ways of living in general.

Green, Pragmatism and Social Hope , 105.

214. Adam Kadlac , “The Virtue of Hope,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18 (2015): 337–354, 350.

Clinton: “Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination.”

It should not be lost in this discussion that these sorts of ideas also fed a lot of political divisiveness during the election, as Melissa Knueven reminded me.

I recognize that she was received in quite a polarizing way once elected, but my focus here is more on what led to her run and the movement that build around it.

For more defending this aspect of democracy, see Paul Fairchild, Why Democracy? Albany, NY: State University Press, 2008.

I am aware that this suggestion may seem to border on indoctrination, which feels anathema to democracy. I don’t mean for it to be done in a straightforward and unquestioning way, but rather to highlight its benefits more, while also talking about its weaknesses.

220. Peter Berger , The Many Altars of Modernity: Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralist Age (Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2014).

221. For more, see Michael Lamb , “Aquinas and the Virtues of Hope: Theological and Democratic,” Journal of Religious Ethics , 44, no. 2 (2016): 300–332.

These compose what Oliver Bennett calls the “democratic promise.” Bennett, Cultures of Optimism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

223. David Halpin , Hope and Education: The Role of the Utopian Imagination (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2003), 15.

224. John Dewey , Art as Experience (New York: Penguin Books, 1932), 360.

225. Michael Walzer , Toward a Global Civil Society (Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1998), 239.

226. For more on the importance, practice, and development of political dissent, see Sarah M. Stitzlein , Teaching for Dissent: Citizenship Education and Political Activism (New York: Routledge, 2014).

I also want to note the example of Ferguson protest leader, Deray McKesson, who not only exhibited hope but also described a similar pragmatist spirit in On the Other Side of Freedom: The Case for Hope (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018).

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Smart Brief Survey, March 7, 2019.

Marley Jay, “Six Months of #MeToo: Hopes Are High for Lasting Impact,” The Mercury News , March 31, 2018, accessed August 15, 2018, https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/31/six-months-of-metoo-hopes-are-high-for-lasting-impact/ .

Aisha Harris, “She Founded Me Too: Now She Wants to Move Past the Trauma,” New York Times , October 15, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/arts/tarana-burke-metoo-anniversary.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&fbclid=IwAR0zoh6C9hC0IsHk751PVHBLqiq3_ynWtwuVGqCJuJpAGRs0EXnIUHmm4cc .

For an account of the experience of being cheated and left behind, see Arlie Russell Hoschschild, Strangers in Their Own Land .

For more along these lines, see Woodly, “#BlackLivesMatter and the Democratic Necessity of Social Movements.”

Shade, Habits of Hope , x.

James D. Anderson has been significant in the unearthing and retelling of these stories in multiple contexts and outlets.

James W. Fraser highlights the story of women’s suffrage in A History of Hope .

236. Walt Whitman , “Democratic Vistas,” in Two Rivulets (Camden, NJ: New Republic Print, 1876), 37.

I’m drawing here on Cheshire Calhoun’s notion of hope narratives. Cheshire Calhoun, “Hope,” 25, available at http://cheshirecalhoun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ch5Hope.doc.pdf .

PlaceBase Productions, accessed August 15, 2018, http://placebaseproductions.com/ .

I’m drawing here on Josiah Royce, whom John Kaag nicely summarizes in American Philosophy: A Love Story (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016).

240. Luc Bovens , “The Value of Hope,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 59 (1999): 676.

Calhoun, “Hope,” 23.

Dewey, The Public and Its Problems , 15–16.

Aronson, We: Reviving Social Hope , 156.

244. Claudia Blöser and Titus Stahl , “Fundamental Hope and Practical Identity,” Philosophical Papers , 46, no. 3 (2017): 345–371.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The One Idea That Could Save American Democracy

By Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

These days, we often hear that democracy is on the ballot. And there’s a truth to that: Winning elections is critical, especially as liberal and progressive forces try to fend off radical right-wing movements. But the democratic crisis that our society faces will not be solved by voting alone. We need to do more than defeat Donald Trump and his allies — we need to make cultivating solidarity a national priority.

For years, solidarity’s strongest associations have been with the left and the labor movement — a term invoked at protests and on picket lines. But its roots are much deeper, and its potential implications far more profound, than we typically assume. Though we rarely speak about it as such, solidarity is a concept as fundamental to democracy as its better-known cousins: equality, freedom and justice. Solidarity is simultaneously a bond that holds society together and a force that propels it forward. After all, when people feel connected, they are more willing to work together, to share resources and to have one another’s backs. Solidarity weaves us into a larger and more resilient “we” through the precious and powerful sense that even though we are different, our lives and our fates are connected.

We have both spent years working as organizers and activists . If our experience has taught us anything, it is that a sense of connection and mutualism is rarely spontaneous. It must be nurtured and sustained. Without robust and effective organizations and institutions to cultivate and maintain solidarity, it weakens and democracy falters. We become more atomized and isolated, suspicious and susceptible to misinformation, more disengaged and cynical, and easily pitted against one another.

Democracy’s opponents know this. That’s why they invest huge amounts of energy and resources to sabotage transformative, democratic solidarity and to nurture exclusionary and reactionary forms of group identity. Enraged at a decade of social movements and the long-overdue revival of organized labor, right-wing strategists and their corporate backers have redoubled their efforts to divide and conquer the American public, inflaming group resentments in order to restore traditional social hierarchies and ensure that plutocrats maintain their hold on wealth and power. In white papers, stump speeches and podcasts, conservative ideologues have laid out their vision for capturing the state and using it as a tool to remake our country in their image.

If we do not prioritize solidarity, this dangerous and anti-democratic project will succeed. Far more than just a slogan or hashtag, solidarity can orient us toward a future worth fighting for, providing the basis of a credible and galvanizing plan for democratic renewal. Instead of the 20th-century ideal of a welfare state, we should try to imagine a solidarity state.

We urgently need a countervision of what government can and should be, and how public resources and infrastructure can be deployed to foster social connection and repair the social fabric so that democracy can have a chance not just to limp along, but to flourish. Solidarity, here, is both a goal worth reaching toward and the method of building the power to achieve it. It is both means and ends, the forging of social bonds so that we can become strong enough to shift policy together.

Historically, the question of solidarity has been raised during volatile junctures like the one we are living through. Contemporary conceptions of solidarity first took form after the democratic revolutions of the 18th century and over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As kings were deposed and the church’s role as a moral authority waned, philosophers and citizens wondered how society could cohere without a monarch or god. What could bind people in a secular, pluralistic age?

The 19th-century thinkers who began seriously contemplating and writing about the idea of solidarity often used the image of the human body, where different parts work in tandem. Most famously, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim put solidarity at the center of his inquiry, arguing that as society increased in complexity, social bonds between people would strengthen, each person playing a specialized role while connected to a larger whole. Solidarity and social cohesion, he argued, would be the natural result of increasing social and economic interdependence. But as Durkheim himself would eventually recognize, the industrial economy that he initially imagined would generate solidarity would actually serve to weaken its fragile ties, fostering what he called anomie, the corrosive hopelessness that accompanied growing inequality.

In the United States, solidarity never achieved the same intellectual cachet as in Europe. Since this nation’s founding, the concept has generally been neglected, and the practice actively suppressed and even criminalized. Attempts to forge cross-racial solidarity have met with violent suppression time and again, and labor organizing, effectively outlawed until the New Deal era, still occupies hostile legal ground. Decades of market-friendly policies, promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike, have undermined solidarity in ways both subtle and overt, from encouraging us to see ourselves as individual consumers rather than citizens to fostering individualism and competition over collectivity and cooperation.

As our profit-driven economy has made us more insecure and atomized — and more susceptible to authoritarian appeals — the far right has seized its opportunity. A furious backlash now rises to cut down the shoots of solidarity that sprung up as a result of recent movements pushing for economic, racial, environmental and gender justice. In response, programs that encourage diversity and inclusion are being targeted by billionaire investors, while small acts of solidarity — like helping someone get an abortion or bailing protesters out of jail — have been criminalized.

Awaiting the return of Mr. Trump, the Heritage Foundation has mapped out a plan to remake government and society, using the full power of the state to roll back what it calls “the Great Awokening” and restore a Judeo-Christian, capitalist “culture of life” and “blessedness.” “Woke” has been turned into a pejorative so that the word can be wielded to tarnish and break the solidarity that people have only just begun to experience.

Our vision of a solidarity state offers a pointed rejoinder to this project. Social democrats and socialists have been right to emphasize the need for redistribution and robust public investment in goods and services. We must restructure our economy so that it works for the many and not the few. But unlike conservatives — think, for example, of Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of Britain who in 1981 said, “Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul” — liberals and leftists have tended to downplay the role of policy in shaping public sensibilities. This is a mistake.

Laws and social programs not only shape material outcomes; they also shape us, informing public perceptions and preferences, and generating what scholars call policy feedback loops. There is no neutral state to aspire to. Policies can either foster solidarity and help repair the divides that separate us or deepen the fissures.

Today, the American welfare state too often does the latter. As sociologists including Suzanne Mettler and Matthew Desmond have detailed, lower-income people tend to be stigmatized for needing assistance, while more-affluent citizens reap a range of benefits that are comparatively invisible, mainly through tax credits and tax breaks. Both arrangements — the highly visible and stigmatized aid to the poor and the more invisible and socially acceptable aid to the affluent — serve to foster resentment and obscure how we are all dependent on the state in various ways.

Instead of treating citizens as passive and isolated recipients of services delivered from on high, a solidarity state would experiment with creative ways of fostering connection and participation at every opportunity for more Americans. What if we had basic guarantees that were universal rather than means-tested programs that distinguish between the deserving and undeserving, stigmatizing some and setting groups apart? What if, following the model of a widely admired program in Canada, the government aided groups of private citizens who want to sponsor and subsidize migrants and refugees? What if public schools, post offices, transit systems, parks, public utilities and jobs programs were explicitly designed to facilitate social connection and solidarity in addition to providing essential support and services?

We’ll get there only if we take up the challenge of building solidarity from wherever we happen to sit. Both means and end, solidarity can be a source of power, built through the day-to-day work of organizing, and our shared purpose. Solidarity is the essential and too often missing ingredient of today’s most important political project: not just saving democracy but creating an egalitarian, multiracial society that can guarantee each of us a dignified life.

Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Compititive exams CTET, State TET, KVS, DSSSB, CUCET

Essay on My vote My right 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 words

Essay on my vote my right 1000 words.

Introduction: Essay on My vote My right: Voting is not merely a civic duty; it is a fundamental right and a powerful tool for shaping the future of a nation. The ability to cast a vote is the cornerstone of a democratic society, allowing citizens to express their opinions, select their representatives and influence the course of their country. In this essay, we will explore the significance of the phrase “my vote, my right” and delve into the reasons why voting is crucial for upholding democracy, promoting social change and ensuring a government that reflects the will of the people.

1. Safeguarding Democracy:

2. expressing political voice:, 3. fostering social change:, 4. strengthening public policy:, 5. protection of civil liberties:, 6. enhancing representation and diversity, 7. combating authoritarianism and extremism:, 8. encouraging civic engagement and education:, 9. influence at all levels, 10. setting an example for future generations, essay on my vote my right 500 words, essay my vote my right 300 words, essay on my vote my right 200 words, tags: essay on my vote my right, my vote my right, essay on my vote my right 1000 words.

Voting serves as a bedrock of democracy, providing citizens with a peaceful and inclusive means to participate in the decision-making process. It enables individuals to choose their leaders, voice their concerns and hold their elected officials accountable. By exercising our right to vote, we contribute to the democratic principles of equality, freedom and justice, ensuring that power remains in the hands of the people rather than being concentrated in a select few.

Every citizen possesses unique perspectives, values and aspirations that deserve to be heard. Voting empowers individuals to express their political voice, irrespective of their background or social status. It is a platform for marginalized communities, allowing them to advocate for their rights and interests. By casting our vote, we become active participants in the democratic process, shaping policies that affect our lives and our society as a whole.

History has shown that voting has been a catalyst for significant social change. From the suffragette movement to the civil rights struggle, marginalized groups have fought tirelessly to secure the right to vote and ensure their voices are heard. By exercising our voting rights, we honor their legacy and contribute to ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable society. Every vote has the power to challenge the status quo, advocate for positive reforms, and address the pressing issues of our time, such as climate change, inequality and human rights.

Voting enables citizens to shape public policy and influence the direction of their nation. Elected officials are responsible for making decisions that affect education, healthcare, economy and many other critical areas. By participating in elections, we can elect representatives who align with our values and priorities, ensuring that our concerns are represented in the policymaking process. Furthermore, by voting consistently and staying engaged beyond election cycles, we can hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and work towards a government that is responsive to the needs of its citizens.

Voting is an important means of protecting our civil liberties and protecting the rights enshrined in constitutions and legal frameworks. Elected officials have the power to shape laws and policies that affect our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and various other individual rights. By exercising our vote, we can elect representatives who prioritize the protection of civil liberties, while ensuring that our fundamental rights are upheld and protected.

A diverse and representative government is essential to a thriving democracy. Voting allows us to contribute to the structure of legislative bodies and executive offices, ensuring that they reflect the rich tapestry of our society. By voting for candidates from diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and ideologies, we promote a government that is more inclusive, sensitive to diverse viewpoints and able to address the diverse needs and concerns of populations.

Voting is a powerful tool for combating authoritarianism and extremism within a society. By actively participating in elections, we can prevent the rise of repressive regimes or extremist groups that threaten democratic values. Our votes can contribute to the establishment of checks and balances, foster a system of accountability and protect democratic institutions from erosion.

The act of voting encourages civic engagement and fosters a sense of responsibility among citizens. It serves as a catalyst for increased political awareness and encourages individuals to become informed about issues, policies and candidates. Voting requires us to stay engaged with current events, research different viewpoints, and make informed choices. This engagement leads to a more informed electorate, which strengthens the overall democratic process.

Voting is not limited to national elections; This is equally important at the local and regional levels. Local elections for mayors, council members and other officials directly affect our communities, determining policies related to infrastructure, education, public safety and more. By participating in these elections, we can shape our immediate environment and contribute to the well-being of our neighborhoods and cities.

Voting is not only about the present but also about the future. By exercising our right to vote, we set a powerful example for future generations by emphasizing the importance of active citizenship and democratic participation. Our commitment to voting inspires young people to engage in the political process, empowers them to be agents of change and ensures the longevity of democratic principles.

Finally, voting is a fundamental right that empowers individuals to shape the course of their nation, protect their rights and contribute to positive social change. By recognizing the importance of “my vote, my right,” we can collectively strengthen democracy, promote representation and build a more just and inclusive society. Let us accept our responsibility to vote and fulfill our role as active and engaged citizens.

Conclusion: “My vote, my right” encapsulates the essence of democracy—an individual’s ability to contribute to the collective decisions that shape a nation’s destiny. Voting is not only a right but also a responsibility bestowed upon us as citizens. It is an opportunity to have a say in the governance of our country, safeguard our rights and advocate for positive change. By embracing the power of our vote, we can foster an inclusive society, protect democratic principles and build a better future for generations to come. Let us never underestimate the impact of our vote and exercise our right to vote with dedication, knowledge and conviction.

Essay on My Vote My Right : Empowering Democracy

Voting is a powerful expression of citizenship and an essential right in any democratic society. The phrase “My vote, my right” reflects the importance of this fundamental act. It highlights the individual’s ownership and agency over their vote, emphasizing the important role it plays in shaping a nation’s future.

First, voting is a cornerstone of democracy. It allows citizens to actively participate in the decision-making process and choose their representatives. By casting our vote, we contribute to the principles of equality and fairness, ensuring that power remains with the people rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. By exercising our right to vote, we actively defend the democratic values on which our society is built.

Second, voting provides a platform for our political voices to be heard. Every citizen has unique viewpoints and interests that deserve to be represented. By participating in elections, we ensure that our concerns, values and aspirations find a place in the policy making process. Regardless of our background or social status, voting empowers us to advocate for our rights and contribute to the diverse tapestry of opinion within a democracy.

Furthermore, voting is a catalyst for social change. Marginalized groups throughout history have fought for the right to vote, recognizing its transformative potential. By casting our vote, we honor his struggle and continue his legacy. Voting enables us to challenge the status quo, advocate for positive reforms, and address issues such as inequality, human rights, and environmental sustainability. Every vote has the power to accelerate progress and shape a more just and equitable society.

Furthermore, voting reinforces public policy. Elected officials are responsible for making decisions that affect important aspects of our lives, including education, health care, and the economy. By participating in elections, we ensure that the people who represent us are in line with our values and priorities. Through our votes, we can elect leaders who are committed to serving the needs of the people and holding them accountable for their actions.

Ultimately, “My Vote, My Right” encapsulates the essence of democratic citizenship. Voting is not just a privilege; It is a responsibility and a powerful tool for change. By exercising our right to vote, we contribute to preserving democracy, amplifying our political voice and driving positive change in our society. Let us recognize the importance of our vote and actively engage in the democratic process, knowing that our actions today can shape the future of our country for generations to come.

Voting is a fundamental right and the cornerstone of democracy. The phrase “My vote, my right” sums up the essence of the importance of this act. It emphasizes the ownership and agency of individuals over their vote, highlighting its important role in shaping the future of a nation.

The right to vote is the essence of democracy. It enables citizens to actively participate in the decision-making process and elect their representatives. By voting, we contribute to the principles of equality and fairness, ensuring that power remains in the hands of the people. “My Vote, My Right” reminds us of our responsibility to uphold the democratic values on which our society is built.

Voting is a symbol of political expression. It allows individuals to have a voice in the governance of their country. Regardless of our background or social status, voting empowers us to advocate for our interests and values. It ensures that our concerns are represented and addressed by those in power. By exercising our right to vote, we contribute to a diversity of viewpoints within a democracy.

Furthermore, voting is a catalyst for social change. It has been instrumental in the struggle for civil rights and equality throughout history. By casting our vote, we honor the legacy of those who fought for this right. Our votes have the power to challenge the status quo, spur positive reforms, and address important issues like inequality and human rights.

Conclusion, “My vote, my right” is the essence of democratic participation. Voting is not only a privilege but also a responsibility. It empowers us to shape the future of our country, raise our voice and bring positive change in the society. Knowing that our votes have the potential to make a lasting impact on the democratic fabric of our nation, let us cherish and exercise our right to vote.

Introduction:

Essay on My vote My right: The right to vote is a fundamental pillar of democracy, serving as the cornerstone of civic participation. It empowers citizens to voice their opinions, select their leaders, and shape the future of their nation. “My vote, my right” encapsulates the essence of this democratic privilege, emphasizing that the act of voting is not merely a choice but a duty, an assertion of one’s rights and responsibilities.

A Pillar of Democracy: The act of voting is central to the functioning of any democratic society. It is through this action that individuals play a crucial role in the governance of their nation. Their vote ensures that the government remains accountable and responsive to the needs of its citizens.
A Voice in Decision-Making: “My vote, my right” signifies that every citizen’s voice matters. It is the tool that empowers people to influence the course of their country, advocate for their values, and bring about change. In a democracy, no one’s opinion should be marginalized and voting ensures equal participation.
Responsibility and Accountability: With the right to vote comes the responsibility to make informed choices. “My vote, my right” highlights the obligation to be aware of the issues and candidates, ensuring that one’s vote contributes to the greater good. It also holds elected officials accountable for their actions.
Protecting Liberties: Voting is not just a right but a means to protect all other rights and freedoms. It safeguards against the erosion of democratic principles and ensures that the government respects the rule of law, individual rights and social justice.

Conclusion:

“My vote, my right” underscores the significance of voting in a democracy. It is the vehicle through which citizens actively participate in shaping their nation’s future, upholding their rights and fostering accountability. To fully appreciate the privilege of voting, we must exercise this right with informed decisions, commitment and a keen sense of responsibility, thereby preserving and strengthening our democratic institutions.

Essay on My Vote My Right 100 words

The right to vote is a fundamental cornerstone of any democracy. It represents the voice and will of the people, ensuring that their concerns, hopes and values are represented in the government. “My vote, my right” encapsulates this vital democratic principle.

Voting empowers citizens to influence the direction of their nation, elect representatives and hold leaders accountable. It transcends individual choices, symbolizing collective responsibility. The exercise of this right is a testament to the hard-fought battles for suffrage, a privilege not to be taken for granted.

“My vote, my right” underscores the importance of civic engagement, reminding us that each ballot cast is a step towards shaping a more just and equitable society. It is not just a right; it is a duty and a privilege that should be exercised with care and consideration for the betterment of our communities and our nation.

IMAGES

Essay on Election and Democracy
Essay competition 2018 winner: "The cornerstone of democracy rests on
Democracy and Education
Democracy Heals
Essay on Election and Democracy
write any five features of democratic government

VIDEO

essay on democracy in english/democracy essay/essay on democracy
Change via Democracy? #podcast #sahiladeem #vote
"Why can’t we live a normal life?": Terrified 13-year-old Nadin in Gaza

COMMENTS

Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy for Students
500 Words Essay on Importance of Voting in Democracy Introduction. Democracy is a system of governance where citizens participate directly or indirectly in the decision-making process. At the heart of this system lies the act of voting, an essential tool through which citizens express their will, choose their leaders, and influence public policy.
The importance of democracy
Democracy has endured in part due to its ability to accommodate change from below through expansion of voting rights, and greater protection of civil liberties. By contrast authoritarianism is, by its nature, centralized and limiting of free thought and expression. ... Positive changes to bring about or protect democracy in Malawi and Sudan for ...
Voting is Still One of Our Most Powerful Tools For Change
September 29, 2020. A vote is the difference between a citizen and a subject. The powerful used to be able to say to all and sundry, You must; a vote says to the powerful, No, you must listen. Thus begins, in many places, the modern world. For a long time the powers that be have turned an ear toward the people—because every two to four years ...
What Can Improve Democracy?
Ideas from people in 24 countries, in their own words. By Laura Silver, Moira Fagan, Christine Huang and Laura Clancy. Flags representing various political parties wave along a street in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Jan. 23, 2024, a few weeks ahead of a massive general election. Candidates from 18 national parties participated.
How People in 24 Countries Think Democracy Can Improve
Overhauling the system. For some, fundamental changes are needed to improve democracy. These can be very country-specific changes, like abolishing the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, changing the power of autonomous regions in Spain or revising Article 49.3 in France.Others focus on the need to change the size of certain institutions (such as the legislature), balance power between ...
The surprising benefits of voting for change
Our main research question is simple: we ask whether 'voting for change', namely voting incumbent candidates or parties out of office, delivers improvements in governance, economic performance, and other measures of societal welfare. This research question is central to the study of all elections. Short of staging a revolution, casting ...
A Powerful Model to Strengthen U.S. Democracy
Unlike in many other cities, roughly 15% of the annual investment budget is allocated through the process, and voter turnout is exceptionally high. One year, more people voted in the participatory ...
Why is voting important if you care about social impact?
Written out as a number it looks like $17,500,000,000,000. That's $53,000 for each American, or $129,000 for each vote cast in 2016. If you multiply all that spending through a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the outcome, in a swing state like New Hampshire, it comes to $1.75 million.
Voting Rights, Reforms, and the Democracy Crisis
Nationally, the 2020 U.S. election was a major success for democracy -- 61% of people voted ahead of election day (which is permitted in 43 states) versus 41% in 2016 . Turnout was terrific by historic standards, particularly notable as a lot more youth voted -- 50% of the voters aged 18-29 voted versus 39% of this age group in 2016 .
What Can Voting Do for Democracy?
The For the People Act, first introduced as H.R. 1 in 2019, aimed to symbolize the party's commitment to tackling discriminatory election laws, money in politics, and pervasive gerrymandering. Among its boosters, the bill's death by filibuster in 2021 only underscored the minoritarian problems it aimed to solve. 3.
The Importance of Voting for Strengthening Democracy
Voting is the bedrock of democracy, playing a pivotal role in shaping government policies, promoting representation, and fostering civic engagement. It empowers citizens to influence the direction of their country, contribute to a diverse and inclusive government, and actively participate in the democratic dialogue.
To Increase the Youth Vote, Address the Why and the How
First, we need to address the larger systematic issue of why young people don't think voting is important and, second, we must provide guidance to young voters through peer-to peer-contact about how to vote. This new generation—Generation Z—is more outspoken and politically conscious than ever. Yet as I continually speak with people my ...
Democracy Reform, One Ballot at a Time
Democracy Blog Essay October 15, 2018. Democracy Reform, One Ballot at a Time ... however, can change that on November 6 through Amendment 4, which would restore the right to vote for all felons—except those convicted of murder or sexual offense—who have completed their sentence, parole, and probation. Enacting this state constitutional ...
Democracy and "We the People"
Archon Fung is the Director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He serves as the co-chair of the Advanced Leadership Initiative Deep Dive on Democracy, which took place on September 15, 2023. Fung's research explores policies, practices, and institutional designs ...
5. Electoral reform and direct democracy
Electoral reform and direct democracy. Free and fair elections are a critical element of a healthy democratic system. And in many of the 24 countries surveyed, reforming how elections and the electoral system work is a key priority. People want both large-scale, systemic changes - such as switching from first-past-the-post to proportional ...
Engagement in a Democracy
People can become civically engaged in many ways, either as individuals or as members of groups. Some forms of individual engagement require very little effort. One of the simplest ways is to stay informed about debates and events in the community, in the state, and in the nation. Awareness is the first step toward engagement.
America Should Embrace a Parliamentary Democracy
There is a genuine pathway forward: transform the U.S. into a thriving multiparty parliamentary democracy. The solution demands changing two features of how we do the business of democracy in the U.S.
The future of U.S. democracy hangs in the balance as states ...
In 2021, inspired by the big lie of a stolen election, we saw 19 states pass 34 new laws that in one way or another made it harder for people to vote. And not all of them are as bad as others ...
Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic ...
Abstract. Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Here we present evidence that this behaviour is driven in part by the belief that their opponents will ...
Importance of Voting Essay: Why Every Citizen Should Exercise Their
Voting is a fundamental right and it must be protected. In many countries, individuals have had to fight for their right to vote. This is because the right to vote is closely linked to the right to self-determination and freedom. By exercising their right to vote, citizens can help to preserve and strengthen their democracy.
Importance of Voting Essay
Long and Short Essays on Importance of Voting for Students and Kids in English. Voting can be defined as a way of expressing one's own preference or opinion. This is important as everyone can get a say in the crazy political world we live in and that is what makes up a democracy. Short Essay on Importance of Voting 150 Words in English
Hope and Democracy
This chapter explains why hope matters for democracy. It offers insight into both what Americans hope for and how they hope together. It shows how democracy and hope are mutually supportive of one another. This chapter considers how Americans work toward goals they set through hoping—a verb, a practice, rather than a noun or object we possess.
Electoral backsliding? Democratic divergence and trajectories in the
Do changes in electoral quality bring 'changes in other aspects of democracy, such as the observance of rights, accountability, rule of law, and so on … or whether changes in these other variables are a prelude to changes in electoral practices' (p.8). ... It has become a major source of news and information, but also the platform through ...
Here's How Democrats' Sweeping Voting Rights Law Would Work
The measure makes it much easier to register to vote. All voters would be able to register, designate party affiliations, change addresses and de-register online; 40 states and the District of ...
Opinion
Ms. Taylor and Ms. Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book "Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea." These days, we often hear that ...
Essay on My vote My right 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 words
A Voice in Decision-Making: "My vote, my right" signifies that every citizen's voice matters. It is the tool that empowers people to influence the course of their country, advocate for their values, and bring about change. In a democracy, no one's opinion should be marginalized and voting ensures equal participation.