Electoral reform won’t save the Republicans or the Democrats (David L. Leal, 05/16/26, The Hill)
Decades of research have found that socioeconomic status, and particularly education, is key to explaining voter turnout. To understand why, consider this formula: Voting likelihood equals benefits minus costs, plus duty. The benefits of voting are small for individuals, but so is the cost. While few have cast the deciding ballot in an election, voting usually requires minimal effort.
However, in “The Turnout Myth,” my Hoover Institution colleague Daron Shaw and his coauthors discuss a large “diploma gap” that has existed for decades. We see turnout differences across education levels, with the most educated about twice as likely to vote, at 80 percent, as the least, at 40 percent.
Scholars explain this in several ways: First, education reinforces the belief that voting is a civic obligation, or duty. Second, education increases knowledge about politics and government. Voting is easier when you’re familiar with the issues and parties. Third, education enhances civic skills such as public speaking, group organizing and managing paperwork that can make political participation easier.
People with more education therefore have lower costs and higher duty, which leads to greater turnout among them. Education is also associated with higher incomes and professional occupations, which allow individuals to better meet any financial or time costs of voting.
So, when voting is made more challenging, the more educated are, on average, more motivated and able to overcome the obstacles than are people with less education.
And in today’s politics, those individuals are increasingly likely to be Democrats.
