Representing the Will of the People

In the wake of the 2024 US presidential election, the “will of the people” becomes a curious concept when considering that 81 million eligible voters, out of 240 million, chose not to cast a ballot in 2020. Yet, Pew Research Center data offers a glimpse into prevailing public opinions that transcend the electoral silence:

• Gun Safety: A robust majority supports more stringent gun control measures. 61% of Americans say it’s too easy to obtain a gun, 58% favor stricter laws, and there’s significant backing for a federal gun sale database (66%), banning high-capacity magazines (64%), and assault-style weapons (63%).
• Women’s Reproductive Rights: Around 63% believe abortion should be legal in most cases, with strong support among Democrats and younger demographics.
• Immigration Policy Reform: Despite partisan divides, 59% support allowing undocumented immigrants to stay legally, with pathways to citizenship or permanent residency.

These insights reveal a public leaning towards progressive changes, even amid deep political divides. It’s a reminder that the collective voice, though sometimes unheard in elections, speaks volumes through research and public sentiment.

---

Approximately 240 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 presidential election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots, totaling 158,427,986 votes. Roughly 81 million eligible voters did not cast a ballot.

-Summarized by Wikipedia from
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2020.pdf

Sources:

• Wikipedia: Voter Turnout in United States Presidential Elections
• The American Presidency Project: Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections

---

The traditional method of calculating voter turnout uses the voting-age population (VAP) as the denominator. This includes all individuals of voting age, regardless of their eligibility to vote.  

However, a more accurate measure of voter turnout would use the voting-eligible population (VEP) as the denominator. Since the first U.S. election in 1789, various groups have been disenfranchised or excluded from voting at different times.

1. Early Restrictions (1789): Initially, voting was largely restricted to white male property owners. This excluded women, people of color, and men without property.
2. African Americans: Enslaved individuals were not allowed to vote. Even after the Civil War, discriminatory practices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses were used to disenfranchise Black voters, particularly in the South, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
3. Women: Women were generally denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, granting women’s suffrage.
4. Native Americans: Native Americans were not considered U.S. citizens and thus could not vote until 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. However, some states continued to restrict their voting rights for decades.
5. Asian Americans: Various laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prevented Asian immigrants from becoming citizens and voting. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these restrictions were lifted.
6. Young People: The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 with the 26th Amendment in 1971, largely in response to arguments that those old enough to be drafted for military service should be able to vote.
7. Felons: Many states have laws that disenfranchise individuals with felony convictions, either temporarily or permanently, depending on the state.
8. Noncitizens: Noncitizens, including legal residents, have generally been excluded from voting in federal elections, although some local jurisdictions have allowed noncitizen voting in local elections.

Felony disenfranchisement policies have a disproportionate impact on people of color, particularly African Americans, in the United States. This disparity is rooted in a combination of factors, including systemic racial biases in the criminal justice system, which result in higher rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration for African Americans compared to other racial groups.

---

Since 1980, a higher proportion of women have voted than men in each of the last nine presidential elections. The reversal of the voting gender gap since 1980 is a significant trend in U.S. electoral politics.

1. Higher Female Voter Turnout: Since 1980, a higher proportion of eligible women have voted compared to eligible men in every presidential election. This marks a shift from earlier trends where men had higher voter turnout rates.
2. Historical Context: Before 1980, men generally had higher voter turnout rates than women. This change reflects broader social and political shifts, including increased political engagement and advocacy for women’s rights.
3. Number of Voters: The number of female voters has surpassed the number of male voters in every presidential election since 1969. This is partly due to demographic factors, as women make up a slightly larger portion of the population, and partly due to their higher turnout rates.
4. Factors Contributing to the Shift: Several factors have contributed to this trend, including greater political mobilization among women, increased educational attainment, and targeted outreach by political parties and candidates.
5. Impact on Elections: The increased participation of women in elections has had significant implications for political campaigns and policy priorities, as candidates and parties seek to address issues that resonate with female voters.

---

Which begs the question, what is the “will of the people” represented by an election outcome in which roughly 81 million people out of 240 million eligible voters did not cast a ballot in 2020?

Regardless of the 2024 US presidential election outcome, and according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, registered voters favor:

Gun Safety:

1. Ease of Obtaining Guns: A majority of Americans (61%) believe it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in the U.S.
2. Stricter Gun Laws: About 58% of U.S. adults are in favor of implementing stricter gun laws.
3. Impact of More Guns: More than half of Americans feel that an increase in the number of guns is detrimental to society.
4. Support for Specific Measures: There is significant support for specific gun control measures, with 66% supporting a federal database to track all gun sales, 64% favoring bans on high-capacity magazines, and 63% supporting bans on assault-style weapons.

These statistics indicate a strong public inclination towards more stringent gun control measures, despite the divisive nature of gun policy debates in the U.S.

Women’s Reproductive Rights:

Approximately 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Support varies by religious affiliation, political party, and demographics, with higher support among Democrats and younger adults.

Immigration Policy Reform:

About 59% of registered voters in the U.S. support allowing undocumented immigrants currently living in the country to stay legally. This includes 36% who believe they should be able to apply for citizenship and 22% who think they should be able to apply for permanent residency. This indicates a majority of the electorate supports some form of legislative reform to address immigration policies, despite the partisan divides on specific approaches.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlights that U.S. immigration policy is often seen as chaotic and resistant to reform, with a significant portion of the public desiring decreased immigration levels. However, there is a growing focus on innovative solutions to improve immigration processes, such as algorithmic tools for refugee placement and expanded labor pathways. Despite the challenges, these innovations aim to demonstrate the benefits of immigration and address labor market needs, suggesting a complex landscape where public opinion may support specific reforms even amid broader calls for reduced immigration.

---

The concept of the “will of the people” in an election where a significant portion of eligible voters do not participate is complex and multifaceted. Here are some considerations:

1. Voter Turnout: In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, about 159 million people voted, which was a record turnout but still left a substantial number of eligible voters who did not participate. This raises questions about how representative the election results are of the entire population’s preferences.
2. Reasons for Non-Participation: People may choose not to vote for various reasons, including disillusionment with the political system (e.g., Gerrymandering, Electoral College vs. popular vote, unregulated PAC funding), feeling that their vote doesn’t matter, barriers to voting, or simply a lack of interest. The overwhelming presence of PAC-funded advertisements can both mobilize and demobilize voters. While some voters may be motivated by the issues highlighted in these campaigns, others may feel disillusioned by the perceived influence of money in politics, potentially reducing voter turnout. Understanding these reasons is crucial to interpreting the election outcome.
3. Majority Rule: Elections are typically decided by those who do vote, meaning the “will of the people” is expressed through the majority of participating voters. However, this does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire eligible population.
4. Implications for Democracy: High levels of non-participation can indicate challenges within the democratic system, such as voter suppression, lack of engagement, or dissatisfaction with available choices. It suggests a need for efforts to increase voter participation and address barriers to voting.
5. Policy and Representation: Elected officials are tasked with representing all constituents, not just those who voted for them. This means they must consider the needs and preferences of the broader population, including non-voters, in their policymaking.

Ultimately, while the election results reflect the choices of those who voted, they may not fully capture the broader “will of the people” if a large segment of the population remains unengaged or unable to participate.

Current public sentiment on critical issues such as gun safety, women’s reproductive rights, and immigration policy reform offers a compelling narrative of the national mood despite the electoral silence of a significant segment of the vote-eligible population in the United States.

In embracing these perspectives, the U.S. can move towards a more inclusive and responsive political system. The challenge lies in translating public sentiment into actionable policy, bridging the divide between political rhetoric and the genuine needs of the American people. As the country looks ahead, understanding and integrating the voices of the unheard majority will be crucial in shaping a future that reflects the “will of the people.”

---

Post Script

Super PACs can influence election outcomes by strategically targeting non-representative segments of the vote-eligible but regularly non-voting population in several ways:

1. Micro-Targeting: Using sophisticated data analytics, Super PACs can identify specific demographics or communities that typically do not vote but might be swayed by particular issues. By tailoring messages that resonate with these groups, they can mobilize them to vote in a way that aligns with the Super PAC’s agenda.
2. Issue-Based Campaigns: By focusing on niche issues that are highly relevant to certain non-voting segments, Super PACs can create a sense of urgency or importance around voting. This might involve highlighting local concerns or specific policy changes that directly impact these communities.
3. Emotional Appeals: Super PACs can use emotionally charged advertisements to evoke strong reactions, such as fear or hope, which can motivate previously apathetic voters to participate. These ads often focus on controversial or polarizing topics to drive engagement.
4. Disinformation Campaigns: In some cases, Super PACs might spread misleading or false information to confuse or mislead certain voter segments. This can either mobilize them to vote based on incorrect information or demobilize them by creating distrust in the electoral process.
5. Voter Suppression Tactics: While not directly a method of mobilizing non-voters, Super PACs might support efforts that indirectly suppress the vote of opposing demographics, thereby amplifying the impact of newly mobilized voters.

By focusing on these strategies, money (Super PACs) can skew election outcomes by activating specific segments of the population that do not typically participate, thereby altering the representative nature of the election results.

---