essay about responsible voting

Why Voting Is Important

“Voting is your civic duty.” This is a pretty common sentiment, especially each November as Election Day approaches. But what does it really mean? And what does it mean for Americans in particular?

Social Studies, Civics, U.S. History

Americans Voting

Typically in the United States, national elections draw large numbers of voters compared to local elections.

Hill Street Studios

A History of Voting in the United States Today, most American citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to vote in federal and state elections , but voting was not always a default right for all Americans. The United States Constitution, as originally written, did not define specifically who could or could not vote—but it did establish how the new country would vote. Article 1 of the Constitution determined that members of the Senate and House of Representatives would both be elected directly by popular vote . The president, however, would be elected not by direct vote, but rather by the Electoral College . The Electoral College assigns a number of representative votes per state, typically based on the state’s population. This indirect election method was seen as a balance between the popular vote and using a state’s representatives in Congress to elect a president. Because the Constitution did not specifically say who could vote, this question was largely left to the states into the 1800s. In most cases, landowning white men were eligible to vote, while white women, black people, and other disadvantaged groups of the time were excluded from voting (known as disenfranchisement ).

While no longer explicitly excluded, voter suppression is a problem in many parts of the country. Some politicians try to win re election by making it harder for certain populations and demographics to vote. These politicians may use strategies such as reducing polling locations in predominantly African American or Lantinx neighborhoods, or only having polling stations open during business hours, when many disenfranchised populations are working and unable to take time off. It was not until the 15th Amendment was passed in 1869 that black men were allowed to vote. But even so, many would-be voters faced artificial hurdles like poll taxes , literacy tests, and other measures meant to discourage them from exercising their voting right. This would continue until the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated the poll tax , and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which ended Jim Crow laws. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, when the long efforts of the women’s suffrage movement resulted in the 19th Amendment. With these amendments removing the previous barriers to voting (particularly sex and race), theoretically all American citizens over the age of 21 could vote by the mid 1960s. Later, in 1971, the American voting age was lowered to 18, building on the idea that if a person was old enough to serve their country in the military, they should be allowed to vote. With these constitutional amendments and legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the struggle for widespread voting rights evolved from the Founding Fathers’ era to the late 20th century. Why Your Vote Matters If you ever think that just one vote in a sea of millions cannot make much of a difference, consider some of the closest elections in U.S. history. In 2000, Al Gore narrowly lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. The election came down to a recount in Florida, where Bush had won the popular vote by such a small margin that it triggered an automatic recount and a Supreme Court case ( Bush v. Gore ). In the end, Bush won Florida by 0.009 percent of the votes cast in the state, or 537 votes. Had 600 more pro-Gore voters gone to the polls in Florida that November, there may have been an entirely different president from 2000–2008. More recently, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 by securing a close Electoral College win. Although the election did not come down to a handful of votes in one state, Trump’s votes in the Electoral College decided a tight race. Clinton had won the national popular vote by nearly three million votes, but the concentration of Trump voters in key districts in “swing” states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan helped seal enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Your vote may not directly elect the president, but if your vote joins enough others in your voting district or county, your vote undoubtedly matters when it comes to electoral results. Most states have a “winner take all” system where the popular vote winner gets the state’s electoral votes. There are also local and state elections to consider. While presidential or other national elections usually get a significant voter turnout, local elections are typically decided by a much smaller group of voters. A Portland State University study found that fewer than 15 percent of eligible voters were turning out to vote for mayors, council members, and other local offices. Low turnout means that important local issues are determined by a limited group of voters, making a single vote even more statistically meaningful. How You Can Make Your Voice Heard If you are not yet 18, or are not a U.S. citizen, you can still participate in the election process. You may not be able to walk into a voting booth, but there are things you can do to get involved:

• Be informed! Read up on political issues (both local and national) and figure out where you stand.
• Get out and talk to people. Even if you cannot vote, you can still voice opinions on social media, in your school or local newspaper, or other public forums. You never know who might be listening.
• Volunteer. If you support a particular candidate, you can work on their campaign by participating in phone banks, doing door-to-door outreach, writing postcards, or volunteering at campaign headquarters. Your work can help get candidates elected, even if you are not able to vote yourself.

Participating in elections is one of the key freedoms of American life. Many people in countries around the world do not have the same freedom, nor did many Americans in centuries past. No matter what you believe or whom you support, it is important to exercise your rights.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Voting as a Civic Responsibility, Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Voting is a process whereby individuals, such as an electorate or gathering, come together to make a choice or convey an opinion, typically after debates, discussions, or election campaigns. Like paying taxes, jury duty, and obeying the law, voting is also considered a civic responsibility. Voting ensures that one actively participates in the wider life of the community in a knowledgeable, caring, and productive manner with an emphasis on the greater good by electing responsible leaders. Voting protects the democratic rights of every citizen as the leaders will be motivated to represent their interests. Moreover, voting enhances the economy, social agendas, environmental policies, foreign policies, accountability, and human rights through fair representation by elected leaders. Voting also enables the citizens to be part of the country’s decision-making on issues affecting them.

Failing to vote is a sign of giving up on an individual’s constitutional rights. The Constitution of the United States recommends voting as a fundamental human right to ensure accountability in representation. Failing to vote shall lead to incompetent leaders being elected, thus derailing the development of the community. Voter education will be critical to ensure high voter turnout during elections. The sanitization should entail providing non-partisan and unbiased information to convince the citizens to register as voters and learn about the ballot regulations and their candidates. Candidates should lead the education as they conduct their political campaigns.

Moreover, advertisements, stump speeches, and theme songs should be emphasized on all media platforms. Companies should take at least two hours weekly to educate their workers on the election procedures and the importance of participation in the general election. Lastly, the government should make the voting periods public holidays and even allow voting during weekends to ensure a high turnout.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Risk of Teenagers Smoking, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Utilitarianism and its applications, essay example.

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Media and the Idea of Italy, Essay Example

Pages: 9

Words: 2549

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

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

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

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.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Importance of Voting Essay | Essay on Importance of Voting for Students and Children in English

February 14, 2024 by Prasanna

Importance of Voting Essay: A concept is well known by all democratic nations since most of the things are decided with elections. Different governors, mayors, judges, and presidents are all selected by the general population through the voting system, or else they are decided upon by the elected officials.

I personally believe that everyone should vote as everyone has a different opinion and in our Indian democracy we have the ability to choose who can preside over in the office, this also gives us an opportunity to have a say in this political world. The entire purpose of a democracy is to be able to have a say in the political scenario and this is to make sure everyone’s voice is heard and this is what makes up a democracy with everyone participating in it.

From a lot of the statistics, it is a known fact that young people don’t vote especially from the age ranging from 18 to 24. We can have different beliefs but this doesn’t mean you remove yourself from the electoral process. On hearing these statistics I was completely shocked because naturally, people tend to assume that everyone votes but that is not the case.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

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

Short Essay on Importance of Voting is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Citizens of the country constantly complain about how our political climate is bad and worsening day by day and the honest truth is we have a chance to change it for the better. To make these changes we must vote by taking an informed vote and casting it as you should remember every vote counts.

It is mostly the youth of the country from age of 18 to 24 that tend to not vote and this causes a huge backlash in the system as these are the votes that we need. If you don’t like the way your country is running then change that by voting and don’t just complain.

“Voting is not just our right but our duty as well”, this saying goes a long way as it tells us clearly we have responsibilities as citizens of the country. To make sure we citizens run and take good care of our country we must put in our votes. A lot of the time people choose to believe that a single vote won’t make much of a difference but that is far from the truth and people must realize it as soon as possible.

Your choice of voting can have extreme consequences on the people from around the world who mostly do not have the right to vote. We must realize that a lot of the lawmakers are responsible for the various policies, laws, and infrastructure of the country for the future years and we are responsible for how these policies, law, and infrastructure is to turn out by voting.

A lot of people in other countries like Afghanistan cannot vote and some even die fighting for this very right. Most war-stricken countries have had their first elections in recent years even though most of the time they are threatened by the Taliban and certain terrorists. Superpower nation like America set certain policies which can have far-reaching impacts on countries that don’t have the same freedom as freedom of expression or the right to votes.

Citizens of the country constantly complain about how our political climate is bad and worsening day by day and the honest truth is we have a chance to change it for the better. To make these changes we must vote by taking an informed vote and casting it as you should remember every vote counts. It is the youth of the nation that does not vote and we have to change that as quickly as possible.

Long Essay on Importance of Voting 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Importance of Voting is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

The process by which people can express their political opinion is known as voting. Citizens of the country express their political opinion by choosing the desired political leader. This political leader, if he is a lawmaker, will have a huge impact on the way the country will presently run and also in the future, so to make sure we choose the right leader in a time when the political climate is constantly changing and we should be responsible citizens and cast our vote.

It is important to understand that election acts as a pillar for democracy because when all else fails we can still choose the right person to run the country. By not choosing the right leader a lot of people can be affected in the sense it can have far-reaching consequences on people who have nothing to do with our country. So we must understand that voting for the right person can have an impact all around us and can affect our country for a very long time. An election makes sure that the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.

In an election, it is important to have suffrage which is the right to vote in elections. In India, the age of voting is attainable only at the age of 18, and in most countries where people have the right to vote have almost the same age limit. The electorate usually never includes the entire population. This question of how to have the privilege of voting is quite important. A very notable characteristic of elections is the nomination of a person. The nomination is the process of officially suggesting somebody for the public office and after the testimonials and endorsements are the various public statements that can help support a candidate’s nomination.

The electoral systems play a very vital role in the election. The electoral system includes the voting system and constitution arrangements. This is the process that converts a voting system into a proper political decision which can have long term effects on the country and its people.

In the process of voting the first step is the tally of votes. This is the use of the different ballot and counting systems. After this step, the result is determined based on the tally. Usually, the categorization of these systems can be majoritarian or proportional. Once the tally is over the person with the most tally wins the election. Elected officials are responsible to the people of the country so during different periods they must return to their voters, this is done so the elected officials can seek mandate so they can continue in office. Elections are conducted during fixed intervals of time. Elections can have far-reaching impacts on different parts of the world.

Over the recent past, it has become quite common to talk bad about the current elected leader of any legislative assembly or parliament. At the end of the day, the fault-finding comes down to what’s wrong with the system and how democracy isn’t functioning how it should. However, when speculating all the problems it never really bottles down to what the people can do to strengthen the system and bring change to it. Just as it is the responsibility of the elected leader to provide for the people of the country, we need the people to do our job and correct the leader by making sure he represents the right things and this can be done so by selecting the right candidate.

The right to vote is one of the few pillars of democracy. Therefore it is important that one must vote if he is able to and contribute to the country. A citizen shouldn’t find a reason as to not vote as it must be a compulsive duty and must come from within. Citizens of the country constantly complain about how our political climate is bad and worsening day by day and the honest truth is we have a chance to change it for the better.

To make these changes we must vote by taking an informed vote and casting it as you should remember every vote counts. I personally believe that everyone should vote as everyone has a different opinion and in our Indian democracy we have the ability to choose who can preside over in the office, this also gives us an opportunity to have a say in this political world.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

• New releases
• All articles
• Work with us
• Introduction
• Meet the team
• Take our survey
• Donate to 80,000 Hours
• Stay updated
• Acknowledgements
• Evaluations
• Our mistakes
• Research process and principles
• What others say about us
• Translations of our content

If you care about social impact, why is voting important?

Your civic duty isn't the only reason your vote matters.

By Robert Wiblin · Published October 2020

• Like (opens in new window)
• Tweet (opens in new window)
• Share (opens in new window)
• Save to Pocket Pocket (opens in new window)

If   you   care   about   social   impact,   why   is   voting important?  

On this page:.

• 1 Why is voting important? It’s not just about civic duty.
• 2 The probability of one vote changing an election
• 3 Governments are so large which raises the expected value of voting
• 4 What if you’re wrong?
• 5 Is deciding how to vote too much effort?
• 6 How much does it cost to drive one extra vote?
• 7 Overall, is it altruistic to vote?

Could one vote — your vote — swing an entire election? Most of us abandoned this seeming fantasy not too long after we learned how elections work.

But the chances are higher than you might think. If you’re in a competitive district in a competitive election, the odds that your vote will flip a national election often fall between 1 in 1 million and 1 in 10 million.

That’s a very small probability, but it’s big compared to your chances of winning the lottery, and it’s big relative to the enormous impact governments can have on the world.

Each four years the United States federal government allocates $17,500,000,000,000, so a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the outcome of a US national election gives an average American some degree of influence over $1.75 million.

That means the expected importance of voting — the probability of changing an election’s result multiplied by the impact if you do — might, depending on your personal circumstances, be very high.

This could, in itself, be a good argument for voting.

Fortunately there is a significant amount of academic research on the importance of elections and how likely one vote is to change the outcome, so I’ve pulled it together to estimate the average value of one vote for the right person.

The answer, as you might expect, depends a great deal on the circumstances of any given election, and indeed most votes predictably have no impact.

But there are common situations in which the expected value of casting a vote will be far higher than anything else you could hope to do in the same amount of time.

Why exactly? Let me explain.

Table of Contents

Why is voting important? It’s not just about civic duty.

In this article, we’ll demonstrate that, for many people, voting is important, but not (or at least not only) because of the normal arguments about it being your civic duty.

Your vote could actually change the world for the better, and if you’re in a competitive race the chances are high enough that you should think hard about hitting the voting booth.

First I’ll investigate the two key things that determine the impact of your vote:

• The chances of your vote changing an election’s outcome in a range of different situations
• How much better some candidates are for the world as a whole, compared to others

Then I’ll discuss what I think are the best arguments against the importance of voting elections:

• If an election is competitive, that means other people disagree about which option is better, and you’re at some risk of voting for the worse candidate by mistake.
• While voting itself doesn’t take long, knowing enough to accurately pick which candidate is better for the world actually does take substantial effort — effort that could be better allocated elsewhere.

Finally we’ll look into the impact of donating to campaigns or working to ‘get out the vote’, which can be effective ways to generate additional votes for your preferred candidate.

We’ll use figures for United States presidential elections, because they have an unusually large impact on our priority problems , more of our readers are American citizens than any other single nationality, and more work has been done to model them than other kinds of elections. However, similar reasoning can be applied to elections in other countries.

The probability of one vote changing an election

Given how infrequently national elections are won by one vote, we can’t just look at the historical record and observe the fraction for which that’s true. While we do have examples of large tied elections , there’ll never be enough real-life elections to accurately determine their frequency empirically.

We need a different approach: statistical modelling.

To see how the method works, we can start small. Imagine that you’re on a small committee making a decision. The odds that you’ll change the outcome of a vote like that — assuming 2 options and 4 other voters, each 50% likely to vote for either option — is about 19% . We could confirm that empirically if we liked.

We can then work upwards to the size of national elections: with 8 voters it’s 14% , with 16 voters it’s about 10%, with 32 voters about 7%, and so on. In fact, the likelihood you’ll change the outcome ends up being roughly proportional to one over the square root of the number of voters.

Statisticians who specialise in politics add real polling data to the mix, and compare it to actual election results to figure out how accurately polling predicts how people will vote. This gives them a ‘probability distribution’ for the likelihood that each elector will choose to vote for each candidate.

With all of this information in hand, we can go ahead and model tens of billions of elections to estimate how often the entire result will be changed by a single vote.

The famous statistician Andrew Gelman of Columbia University has done just this for US presidential elections, which are broken down into states, and has published several papers outlining the results. 1 2

He found that if you’re in a ‘safe state’ like California, the odds of your vote changing the outcome of a presidential election really is effectively zero (the model spits out 1 in 100 trillion, but it’s very hard to assign meaningful probabilities to something so unlikely). Something similar would be true for voters in ‘very safe seats’ in the UK or Australia.

By contrast, in a small US state polling around 50/50 in a close election nationally — for instance New Mexico, Iowa, or New Hampshire in the 2000 elections — the probability could get as high as 1 in 3 million. (The article Vote for Charity’s Sake offers a nice overview of this research, and we’ve stuck some details in this footnote.)

In a wider range of ‘tipping point states’ in reasonably close elections, the probability is lower, and closer to 1 in 10 million.

(Note that what matters isn’t the state in which polling is closest, but rather the states that might put someone over the edge of winning the election as a whole — the ‘tipping point state’. If one candidate is ahead nationally then they’ll probably be ahead in the ‘tipping point state’ too.)

As of October 14 2020, Joe Biden’s substantial lead in public opinion polls means Gelman’s modelling indicates that there are only four states where the odds of one vote changing the outcome is greater than 1 in 10 million: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 3

However, a perhaps unexpected finding is that even when an election doesn’t look that close, the probability of one vote changing the outcome in a potential ‘tipping point state’ rarely falls to less than half of what it would be in a close-seeming election. This is shown visually in the figure below from FiveThirtyEight’s election modelling. The underlying reason is that opinion polls are often off by a large margin, so when an election is close on election day we can’t rule out that it will be a blow-out for one side — and, similarly, even when a candidate seems to be substantially ahead, we can’t confidently rule out the election being close.

In the UK or Australia, an equivalent analysis would look at the likelihood that a party gains a majority in parliament by one seat, and that that seat is won by one vote.

The factors that push up the leverage of each voter are:

• An election being close to 50/50 nationally
• An election being close to 50/50 in a given ‘tipping point’ seat or voting region
• Being able to accurately determine which elections are closest
• Being able to accurately identify which seats or regions are closest (in which case expected influence becomes concentrated in those places)
• Fewer total voters

Australia has a tenth as many voters as the US, and the UK has a fifth — which, all else equal, would make each vote 2-3x more likely to flip the outcome of a close election. 4 Polling is similarly precise in all of these different countries. And the likely ‘tipping point’ seats in US, UK and Australian elections all contain a similar fraction of the population — 10 to 20% — so power is concentrated in a similarly-sized subset of voters.

So from the above we can anticipate that in a similarly tight election, in a ‘tipping point seat’, the odds of a vote changing the outcome would be a few times higher in those countries than in the US.

A similar analysis can be applied to any sort of election.

A common objection to this line of reasoning is that if an election is as close as one vote, it will be re-run or decided by the courts anyway, and so a single vote can never actually make a difference.

To see how this is mistaken, you need to conceptualise the vote margin in large elections as shifting the probability of each candidate winning. If you’re ahead, each extra vote makes you more likely to win without a court battle or a re-run. And if you’re narrowly behind, each extra vote increases your chances of successfully disputing the result. So long as we’re unsure what the vote margin will be, the expected impact of each extra vote remains the same as it would be if all its impact were entirely concentrated on a perfectly tied election.

Finally, there’s another quite different way one can model the impact that each vote has, but it won’t much change our conclusion, so for simplicity I’ll leave it in this footnote. 5

Alright, now that we have a sense of the likelihood of swinging an election, we need to know how valuable it would be to do so.

Governments are so large which raises the expected value of voting

Compared to the likelihood of a vote changing the outcome of an election, how much it matters who wins i) is harder to quantify, ii) depends more on your values, and iii) varies widely depending on the candidates running for office. But a quick scan of the numbers and issues at stake suggests that the impact will often be substantial.

In most rich countries, governments tax and spend 25-55% of a country’s GDP. As a rule of thumb, you can roughly think of them as directing a third of a country’s income.

That’s enough money per person, and per vote, that positively influencing how it’s spent can be important enough to offset the low chances of any given vote swinging an election.

Again using US to illustrate, over the next four years 6 the US federal government will spend about $17.5 trillion .

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. That’s the fraction of the budget you might ‘expect’ to influence by voting in a swing state, in the statistical sense of expectation .

If that number sounds unexpectedly large, remember that we’re shifting around roughly a third of the economy’s output, over several years, and we’re concentrating on the impact a voter can have if they’re among the privileged 20% of the country that lives in a state which can plausibly determine the election outcome.

In the US’s state-based system, 80% of eligible voters can’t hope to change the outcome — but that leaves the remaining 20% with 5 times the leverage they’d have otherwise.

Of course, much of the US federal budget is quite stable, but keep in mind that stickiness in how money gets spent cuts both ways: it makes it harder to shift the budget, but if you do, it means those changes will probably stay around for longer.

It’s common for parties to want to shift how several percent of GDP gets spent. But the budget doesn’t even have to be that flexible for your impact to matter.

For example, if one party will spend 0.5% of GDP on foreign aid, and the other will spend 0.3%, a vote with a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the outcome would shift — in expectation — $17,800 into foreign aid.

There are other kinds of government spending that can have huge impacts as well: R&D into new clean energy technologies is probably one of the most cost-effective ways to limit climate change, and think about the enormous return the world is getting from countries like the UK that decided, years ago, to fund preliminary research into coronavirus vaccines.

But choosing which taxes to impose and how to spend the money raised is just one thing the government does, one which happens to be easy to quantify in dollar terms.

There are major non-budgetary impacts as well, which include:

• Foreign policy: Elected governments decide things such as how much to trade with foreigners (which can affect their wellbeing too), how much to raise tensions with other countries in pursuit of foreign policy goals, and ultimately whether to go to war. Foreign policy is often determined without a lot of input from legislatures, which means a few elected officials have substantial discretion — and that’s especially important for countries with large militaries or nuclear weapons.
• Stabilising the business cycle: Governments work to raise total spending during recessions and decrease total spending when inflation is too high, in order to limit excessive ups and downs in the economy.
• Regulations: Elected governments make decisions about all sorts of regulations, for instance on consumer products, workplace conditions, environmental standards, and so on.
• Immigration: Elected governments decide how many foreigners can come live in a country and on what basis, ranging from skilled migrants, to economic migrants, to political refugees.
• Social freedoms: Elected governments can influence whether LGBTQ+ people can be public about their sexual orientation and whether they can get married, which recreational drugs people are free to use, how police go about enforcing laws, whether voluntary euthanasia is permitted, and so on.
• Political freedom: Elected governments can try to entrench themselves, or reduce the ability of the public to reflect on political questions, by harassing political opponents, being generally misleading, shutting down hostile media outlets, or making it harder for people to vote.

Measuring the social impact of the different approaches governments might take to these issues is difficult. But it could easily be more important than the shifts in spending that result from a change in government.

To illustrate, imagine that you think the chance of a nuclear war over four years under one presidential candidate is 1 in 1,000, and the chance with the other is 1 in 500. While highly uncertain, these probabilities are both figures nuclear security specialists might give if you asked them about the likelihood of nuclear war. How valuable would it be to vote for the safer leader?

To answer this, we can think about how much society would be willing to pay to avoid a nuclear war. It’s really hard to estimate, but let’s spitball it and say that each US resident would be willing to pay $1 million to avoid dying in a nuclear war, on average. (For comparison, the US government will spend about $7 million or so to save a life.) A total nuclear war would kill around 80% of the US population. 7 If you do the math, then a vote with a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the election outcome would be worth $25,000 to your fellow citizens through its effects on the likelihood of a nuclear war alone. And a nuclear war would obviously also affect people overseas, as well as untold future generations.

The policies which are most impactful are not always the most salient. George W. Bush’s famous choice to pursue the Iraq War resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein, though at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and trillions of dollars in spending. 8 But President Bush also dramatically raised US spending on antiviral drugs for impoverished victims of HIV in Africa. This ‘PEPFAR’ program probably would not have been pursued in his absence, and likely prevented several million deaths .

Though the above is not a systematic survey, and some examples are atypical, to me they suggest that the outcome of elections will often have significant consequences.

Of course, not every election is that important. Sometimes all the candidates likely to win an election are similarly good overall, or if one of them is better it’s hard to figure out which it is.

In particular, within some electoral systems — for instance those with compulsory voting and electoral candidates chosen by politicians or party professionals — the tendency for parties to strategically bunch together in the middle of the political spectrum is strong.

More stark differences tend to arise in places with low voter turnout, few checks on executive power, plurality voting along with more than 2 viable candidates, and party primaries in which only the most motivated voters participate. In those elections the differences between candidates tend to be larger, meaning it’s more often important for the right group to win, and it’s easier to tell which group that is.

What if you’re wrong?

So far I’ve argued that voting can represent a great opportunity for social impact if:

• You’re in a close district in a close election
• There is a noticeable difference in the desirability of different candidates winning

But there’s a sophisticated argument against this view:

You can only swing an election if roughly as many people are voting for the outcome you prefer as the outcome you oppose. But if the public as a whole is roughly split down the middle, why should you trust your own judgement on the matter? Sure, you’ve looked into it and think that your view is right. But so have many other voters and about half of them still disagree with you. So because there’s no principled reason to trust your judgement over that of others, even after doing your political research you should still think you’re only about 50% likely to be voting the right way.

This is an application of the case for epistemic modesty , and it has some bite. If you think half of your fellow voters are getting things wrong, why should you think you’re getting it right?

This uncertainty about whether you’re truly voting the right way reduces the expected value of voting. If you had no confidence at all in your judgement — in other words, if you thought you were as likely to be wrong as you were to be right — the expected value would fall all the way to zero.

However, to go as far as that this case for intellectual modesty requires that other voters be your ‘epistemic peers’ — basically that they be as smart, informed, honest, and motivated as you. And there are a number of reasons you might think you can cast a ballot more wisely and altruistically than average.

First, the level of information most voters have about politics and policy is quite low. Some typical examples in the US, taken from Ilya Somin’s 2013 book Democracy and Political Ignorance include:

• “A survey before the 2014 election … found that only 38 percent of Americans knew that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives at the time, and the same number knew that the Democrats had a majority in the Senate. Not knowing which party controls these institutions makes it difficult for voters to assign credit or blame for their performance.”

“For years, there has been an ongoing debate over the future of federal spending… Yet a 2014 survey found that only 20 percent of Americans realize that the federal government spends more money on Social Security than on foreign aid, transportation, and interest on the government debt. Some 33 percent believe that foreign aid is the biggest item on this list, even though it is actually the smallest, amounting to about one percent of the federal budget, compared with 17 percent for Social Security.”

“In 1964, in the midst of the Cold War, only 38 percent were aware that the Soviet Union was not a member of the U.S-led NATO alliance.”

This should not be surprising and in my view is no reason to think poorly of your fellow citizens. People have jobs to do, family members to take care of, and personal projects to pursue. For most folks, following the ins and outs of policy debates is neither easy nor rewarding, and because they don’t live in close districts it’s not the best way for them to improve the world, either. On top of that, following the news can be bad for people’s focus and mental health .

While the polling above appears dismal, there is an active academic debate about how problematic it really is for voters to lack the basic knowledge they would seemingly need to vote wisely. The damage is partly reduced by uninformed voters making different random errors that cancel out, people using heuristics like ‘am I better off than I was four years ago’, and politicians paying attention to things voters are more likely to know (e.g. ‘I want better healthcare’) while ignoring their views on things they won’t (e.g. how best to organise a healthcare system).

Nonetheless, for our purposes the fact remains that simply looking up basic background information — like who is in government, where different parties or people stand on the issues, what experts say about those issues when surveyed, and so on — will give you a big edge over others when it comes to determining which candidate will produce better outcomes.

If you’re trying to figure out how best to treat a disease you have, it’s one thing to think you can do better than your doctor, and quite another to think you can do better than a random stranger.

Secondly, if you’ve read this article to this point, you’re likely unusually interested in figuring out which election outcome is best for the world as a whole.

But not all voters focus on that question. Some always vote for the same party as a matter of habit, without giving much thought to the expected impact on the world. Others care about which outcome is best for them and their family, or the country in which they live. Others vote to express their ideals, or their loyalty to a group, or just for fun.

If you truly aspire to vote for the outcome that is ideal for the whole world, considering everyone’s wellbeing in an impartial way, you are more likely to succeed at that goal than the many other voters who aren’t even trying.

Finally, even if it were individually rational to decide there’s no value in trying to figure out the right way to vote because of ‘epistemic modesty’, the approach would foster collective laziness — leading all voters to be less informed than they otherwise would be, and likely worsening political outcomes. That would make it strange to recommend it to you all as a general policy.

Overall, while the risk of mistakenly voting for the wrong candidate reduces the value of voting, I don’t think it reduces it dramatically — at least not in the most important cases, where the difference between your options is a stark one.

If you think your research can get you to be 75% confident about which candidate is better, that is half as valuable as being 100% confident you’re making the right decision.

Is deciding how to vote too much effort?

While we haven’t been able to place a clear dollar value on a vote in a close district in a close election, we saw that in the United States each of those votes influences more than a million dollars worth of government spending, and could have the same or greater impact in other ways.

This suggests that a vote for someone who substantially increases the value of that spending — or otherwise improves government policy — could be worth the equivalent of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to your fellow citizens.

If you divide that by the time it takes to vote — minutes in some countries, hours in others — this looks like a great opportunity to do good.

Compare it to earning money to give to the very best charity you can find: even if you assume that the organisation can turn $1 into something as valuable as giving other people in your country $100, you’d need to be able to give ~$1,000 in an hour to make it as valuable as a vote worth $100,000.

But the true cost of voting is much more than the time it takes to vote. In practice you need to do the research described above to figure out who is best to vote for. This additional effort substantially reduces the good you can do per hour.

Some people will follow politics and policy and form views about who it is best to vote for regardless. For them, figuring out how to vote is not an additional cost beyond what they are doing anyway. They may even find the process fun or energising.

But others don’t like politics and wouldn’t spend any time on it unless they felt it was their responsibility to do so. For them we can think of each hour spent deciding who to vote for as substituting for an hour of work or study that they could have otherwise directed towards improving the world.

How long does it take to decide how to vote? That will depend a lot on the election and how difficult it is to analyse the issues at stake. In some countries one party is clearly far more focused on the wellbeing of the world as a whole, or simply far more competent, than the other. But in other countries it’s legitimately hard to tell what outcome will be best.

Hypothetically, we can imagine someone who doesn’t follow politics at all between elections, and then tunes in to make a decision on who to vote for, and starts reading to try to make an informed choice. If this would require them to do the equivalent of a week’s work, it would increase the effective cost of voting 10-100 fold.

If they’re in a high-impact job already, working to solve a pressing global problem, it would be easy to see how it could be better for them to remain focused on the work in which they’re most specialised, and leave politics to others. Depending on someone’s salary, working for a week and donating the money to an effective charity could also easily be more impactful than doing research and then casting a vote.

If you’re short of time, I can think of two shortcuts you could use to quickly cast a vote that’s more likely to be for the right person than the wrong one.

The first is just to find someone you think is bright, shares your values, and follows politics more than you do, and ask them who to vote for.

The second is to look at opinion polling globally. Even if your country is split down the middle, the world as a whole might very strongly prefer one candidate, 9 which is a very important piece of information from an ‘epistemic modesty’ perspective. Foreigners don’t get to vote in other countries’ elections, but they too have preferences about the outcome, are affected by the results, and their outside perspective might even give them insights that locals are missing.

Regardless, one thing to remember is that it will be easiest to tell which candidate is best to vote for in an election in which the difference is large — and these are also the elections in which a vote is of greatest value.

Another is that political participation is open to anyone who, for one reason or another, doesn’t have an especially impactful job at the time.

It’s hard to give general advice here, because in addition to all the variables like election closeness discussed above, individual voter’s opportunity costs vary a great deal. But if I had to give a rule I would say:

• If you already follow politics well enough to vote wisely (and you’d vote in a close election, etc.), it will often make sense to vote.

If you wouldn’t follow politics except in order to have a social impact, and you have the opportunity to instead spend the requisite time specialising in a high-impact job working on a pressing problem , or earning to give for effective charities, or something similar, that will often be the better option.

How much does it cost to drive one extra vote?

What if you think the outcome of an election is important enough that you want to do more than just vote yourself?

For most of us, the low hanging fruit is to contact friends and family in competitive districts, encourage them to vote, and make the case for our preferred candidate. Unsurprisingly research shows that personal appeals from friends and family have a big impact, and have 10 times or more than the effect of an appeal from a stranger.

But having exhausted your friends, you might decide you want to give money to a campaign as well. How much do you have to give to get your candidate one extra vote?

With billions of dollars spent on political advocacy in the US each year, this has been the focus of substantial research. Campaigns can randomly target ‘get out the vote’ efforts on some voters and not others, and then see how much more likely those voters are to show up.

This table from the 2015 edition of Get Out The Vote summarises the results of those sort of experiments, with the cost per vote in the final column:

According to these studies, for those methods shown to work — such as door-knocking or phone-banking — persuading one stranger to vote for your preferred candidate costs $30-100, or a few hours of work as a volunteer.

If, having compared the candidates and the closeness of the election, you think a vote for the right person is in some sense worth thousands of dollars, that sounds pretty good. However, it has to be compared to the best alternative ways to use your money to improve the world, which may also offer a huge return on investment.

On top of that I’ve been advised by researchers I trust, who have investigated the topic in detail, that these figures are underestimates, at least for the big elections you’re most likely to follow.

That’s for multiple reasons. One is that all results in social science tend to look weaker over time as they’re scrutinised and people attempt to replicate them.

Another is that political campaigns, at least in the US, have more money for each voter they’re chasing than they did in the past. New technologies also make them better at targeting the voters most likely to be convinced. As a result, swing voters in swing states are already contacted with campaign messages again and again, reducing the impact of any further prompts.

For instance, a 2020 paper looking at TV ads in recent US presidential elections suggested a cost per vote of $100-1,000, which is probably now more typical.

However, not all campaigns are as well resourced, and the less funding they have the cheaper it’s likely to be for them to find additional supporters.

The campaigns for Joe Biden and Donald Trump, along with allied groups, are likely to have about $30 per voter in potential tipping point states. Both have set new fundraising records for presidential campaigns. 10

But the Biden campaign had just a tenth as much — $3 per voter — in the 2020 Democratic primaries through Super Tuesday (after which the primaries began to wind down).

That difference is even starker when you consider that a much larger fraction of voters are open to switching their support in primary elections than in general elections (though keep in mind the differences between candidates within a party are less than the differences between parties).

This level of funding in general elections is somewhat unique to the US. Different campaign finance arrangements mean that parties in the UK and Australia both have closer to $10 per voter in a marginal seat. 11 12

In these circumstances the experiments suggesting a cost of $40-100 per vote could even be overestimates, but I haven’t yet investigated the research on the impact of campaign spending outside the US.

The question of when political campaigns are the best use of someone’s charitable giving is also beyond the scope of this article, and seems likely to hinge on how well funded the campaigns are and how large the difference is between candidates.

But if you can encourage someone to vote for <$100, while you think the social value of an extra vote is >$10,000, then it should be possible to make a case that it’s competitive with other options. That is something I hope to investigate in more detail in future.

And if voting yourself is worthwhile, contacting friends and family to encourage them to do the same will also usually be above the bar.

Overall, is it altruistic to vote?

The answer is clearly yes, under the following conditions:

• The election concerns important issues, such as the allocation of large amounts of money, or the foreign policy of a country with a large military
• One candidate is substantially better than the other, and you’re in a position to know which one that is
• The election is somewhat competitive, and you’re able to vote in a competitive seat, or district, or state

In a situation like that, the hour you spend voting is likely to be the most impactful one in your entire year, and could on average get you some influence over how hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are spent. For this reason I vote whenever I get the chance.

When they vote, some of my friends feel very nervous about whether they’re voting for the right person. While there’s a lot they don’t know, surveys how much the public knows about policy issues suggest that they’re a lot more informed than the average voter, and so their input should increase the odds of the better candidate winning. We shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

All of that said, I respect people who consciously opt out of following politics, in order to preserve their focus on other important work that improves the world. Following politics and developing informed views can absorb a great deal of time. While spending one hour voting is highly impactful, spending hundreds of hours tracking politics in between elections isn’t — at least if you aren’t regularly taking action based on what you’re learning.

Finally, while persuading other people to vote takes more time or money than simply voting yourself, in elections where you’re confident one candidate is much better for the world than another, joining or donating to a political campaign may also represent a high-impact way of improving the world.

Has this article helped you better estimate how important it is to vote?

As we noted above, appeals from people they know are much more likely to influence people’s behaviour than TV ads or impersonal mail. Some experiments suggest a personal appeal from a friend could increase someone’s likelihood of voting by as much as 10 percentage points. So consider sharing this article with your friends.

Notes and references

i. Probability of Events that Have Never Occurred: When Is Your Vote Decisive? ii. What is the probability that your vote will make a difference? iii. Empirically investigating the electoral college

In these papers the authors look at various historical presidential elections from the perspective of someone who has access to polling data a few weeks ahead of the vote. With what likelihood should they have expected that one vote would change the outcome?

The first found a probability of 1 in 10 million of a typical single vote being decisive in 1992, with a chance of 1 in 3.5 million for a swing state such as Vermont. The second found a probability of 1 in 60 million for a single vote in a random state, and 1 in 10 million for swing states such as New Mexico or Virginia. That compares to an electorate of around 120 million voters.

As they put it:

‘A probability of 1 in 10 million is tiny but, as discussed by Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan (2007), can provide a rational reason for voting; in this perspective, a vote is like a lottery ticket with a 1 in 10 million chance of winning, but the payoff is the chance to change national policy and improve (one hopes) the lives of hundreds of millions, compared to the alternative if the other candidate were to win.’

The third paper also looks at the presidential election in 2000, the closest in modern history, and (using a rougher methodology) found that the probability of an average vote changing the outcome was around 1 in 6 million in 2000. If we take the same range from an average to swing state proposed in the second paper, that suggests that voters in the key swing states could have a 1 in 2 million chance of swinging the election.

The reality is that in most states, including California, New York or Texas, an additional vote has no ability to swing the outcome, because these states are not close themselves. Even if they were close, they couldn’t swing the electoral college from one candidate to another, because a close election in California implies an incredibly unbalanced election in the rest of the country. Almost all of their influence instead becomes concentrated on a handful of swing states. ↩

• This piece also builds upon previous articles from the rationality community such as Politics as Charity by Carl Shulman and Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity . ↩
• You can see a current and easy-to-read version of the model here , updated figures here , and the numbers we used from October 14 here . ↩
• The chance of a tie in an election with perfectly even polling is proportional to 1 over the square root of the number of voters, and note that sqrt(10) = 3.2 and sqrt(5) = 2.2. ↩

Political parties and candidates know they’re in a competitive and strategic race to get the most votes. If they can’t get elected they can’t achieve anything, so they constantly adapt their positions, and add or remove interest groups from their coalition, to ensure they have a decent chance of winning.

If young voters in the US suddenly started voting at the same rate as seniors — 70% rather than 42% — any political party that didn’t adjust its positions to increase its appeal to those voters would quickly become irrelevant.

So rather than thinking of your vote as having a tiny chance of completely swinging an election outcome, you can instead think of it as having a high chance of nudging every party just a little bit in the direction of the political views held by you and people like you. This is one reason there’s still value in voting, even if this year’s election doesn’t happen to be especially close: by indicating you’ll vote in future years you give politicians much more reason to appeal to you.

I’ll also just add that in multi-party systems, such as those involving proportional representation, rather than completely flip an election result your vote is more likely to change which grouping of parties forms a coalition government, and their relative influence within the coalition.

What both of these alternative analyses have in common is that they replace a very small chance of a hugely valuable outcome, with a higher chance of a somewhat less valuable outcome.

While formalising either of these models is going to be more challenging, I expect that these two changes will usually roughly cancel out, leaving the overall expected value about the same. ↩

As you can vote in all of these elections simultaneously (and often state and local election too!), and on average their terms are four years each, for simplicity I’ll treat them though they were all elected simultaneously each four years.

As you might expect, if you can vote in marginal elections for two of these bodies at once the case for voting will be about twice as strong as if you can only do so for one. ↩

• See this book on the likely deaths from a nuclear war. ↩
• From Wikipedia : “Body counts counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 185,000 – 208,000 violent civilian deaths through Feb 2020 in their table.” ↩
• Ipsos: A global view of the 2020 US presidential election
• YouGov: Europe wants Joe Biden
• Pew Research Center: Merkel and Macron trusted globally
• Pew Research Center: Trump’s International Ratings Remain Low, Especially Among Key Allies
• YouGov 2016: How other countries would vote in the American election . ↩
• The most extreme case I could find was the Senate campaign of Al Gross in Alaska who has raised $57 for each person who voted in Alaska in 2016. ↩
• In 2017 the Conservative party spent £18.6m contesting about 10% of the actual seats. Across the whole election 32 million votes were cast. This comes to about $8 USD per voter. ↩

Voting Awareness Essay

The voting awareness essay is an article that discusses voting and its importance. It provides information about voting and how to be a responsible voter. A lot of people want to vote, but many are not aware of its need and how to cast it. This is where voting awareness comes into play. The idea of voting awareness is to help people understand the importance of voting. Voting is an important way for voters to control their government. It is a method for citizens to express what they want from their leaders by raising awareness about voting. This will lead to better governance and what everyone wants – a democracy that is free, fair and representative.

Voting helps citizens become more involved in their government and keep it accountable. To vote, you must meet specific requirements. In addition to voting, there are a few laws that ensure fair elections around the world. BYJU’S short essay on voting awareness helps us understand the vote’s significance.

Importance of Voting

Voting is an integral part of democracy, and it is necessary for people to have a voice. Everyone has the right to vote, which means that all Indians can vote for the Prime Minister of their choice. By voting, you can create change and make a difference in your community. It is also important to vote because you can only repeal a law if most citizens agree with it.

Voting is one way to be more civically engaged with your government. It is vital to make a difference in the world by having your voice heard and representing the views of people who don’t have a voice. If you want to create change, voting is an excellent way. Voting in election helps citizens ensure that the country is granted better rights and protection.

Voting is an important civic duty that can significantly impact the future of our country. Voting helps keep politicians accountable for their actions and creates the framework for our democracy. Voting also ensures that public officials are paid with the tax amount from the people who can afford to pay them. The most consequential decision of all is how to spend tax – voting ensures that there is accountability for what goes into our government’s budget. The last thing we want is for politicians to be able to spend public money without being held accountable by the public’s vote.

To conclude, this is BYJU’S voting awareness essay for kids to help them understand the significance of voting in a democracy. Voting gives citizens a voice and an opportunity to participate in the democratic process. Voting also allows everyone to contribute to the shared democracy and make the government more representative of the people. For more kids learning activities like worksheets , poems etc., visit BYJU’S website.

Frequently Asked Questions on Voting Awareness Essay

At what age can a person vote in india.

In India, a person can start voting once they turn 18.

Why should we vote?

We should vote to let our voices be heard and ensure that what we want is put into effect. Voting is one of the fundamental rights our country offers us.

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

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.

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.

Related posts:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting

• Download the full PDF report

Subscribe to Governance Weekly

July 20, 2020

• 16 min read

The following is the preamble to “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting,” a report from the Working Group on Universal Voting convened by The Brookings Institution and The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School. Download the full PDF report here.

Imagine an American democracy remade by its citizens in the very image of its promise, a society where the election system is designed to allow citizens to perform their most basic civic duty with ease. Imagine that all could vote without obstruction or suppression. Imagine Americans who now solemnly accept their responsibilities to sit on juries and to defend our country in a time of war taking their obligations to the work of self-government just as seriously. Imagine elections in which 80 percent or more of our people cast their ballots—broad participation in our great democratic undertaking by citizens of every race, heritage and class, by those with strongly-held ideological beliefs, and those with more moderate or less settled views. And imagine how all of this could instill confidence in our capacity for common action.

This report is offered with these aspirations in mind and is rooted in the history of American movements to expand voting rights. Our purpose is to propose universal civic duty voting as an indispensable and transformative step toward full electoral participation. Our nation’s current crisis of governance has focused unprecedented public attention on intolerable inequities and demands that Americans think boldly and consider reforms that until now seemed beyond our reach.

“Our purpose is to propose universal civic duty voting as an indispensable and transformative step toward full electoral participation.”

We see voting as a civic responsibility no less important than jury duty. If every American citizen is required to participate as a matter of civic duty, the representativeness of our elections would increase significantly and those those responsible for organizing elections will be required to resist all efforts at voter suppression and remove barriers to the ballot box. Civic duty voting would necessarily be accompanied by a variety of legislative and administrative changes aimed at making it easier for citizens to meet their obligation to participate in the enterprise of self-rule.

Our intervention reflects a sense of alarm and moral urgency, but also a spirit of hope and patriotism. Members of our working group undertook this work to fight back against legal assaults on voting rights guarantees and the proliferation of new techniques and laws to keep citizens from casting ballots. We did so mindful of the public’s declining trust in our democratic institutions. We joined together to end a vicious cycle in which declining trust breeds citizen withdrawal which, in turn, only further increases the sense of distance between citizens and our governing institutions.

It would, however, be a great mistake to see only negative portents in our current situation. If some states have engaged in voter suppression, others have enhanced voting rights through automatic voter registration, same day voting, increased opportunities for early voting, and mail ballots. These reforms have had a measurable and positive impact on participation—and enjoyed enthusiastic citizen support.

Related Content

Online-only

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EDT

Vanessa Williamson

November 8, 2016

Vanessa Williamson, Jackson Gode

June 11, 2019

Our nation’s struggle to realize the fullness of the franchise began in the battles for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War that constituted our nation’s Second Founding. 1 It continued with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Native Americans were not granted full citizenship until the passage of the Snyder Act in 1924 and were not fully granted voting rights until Utah did so in 1962, the last state to formally guarantee the franchise to indigenous peoples. Nearly a decade later, amidst the Vietnam War in which the youngest Americans were drafted but could not vote, the 26th Amendment extended the franchise to 18-year-olds.

In calling for what has been known as mandatory attendance at the polls (the phrase makes clear that no citizen would be forced to vote for anyone against his or her will), and might now, with the spread of mail voting, be called mandatory participation in elections, we hope to underscore that rights and duties are intimately related. During Reconstruction and the Civil Rights eras, few reforms were more important or more empowering than the right of Black Americans to sit on juries. They demanded that they be included in the pool of those who might be required to sit through trials because their own liberties depended upon being included in the process of judging whether a fellow citizen would be jailed, fined, or set free. In the case of jury service, the right and the duty are one in the same. The same can be said of voting. The franchise, said a voting rights advocate of the Reconstruction era, is “an essential and inseparable part of self-government, and therefore natural and inalienable.” W.E.B. Du Bois saw voting as central to the larger aspiration of being treated as an equal, “a co-worker in the kingdom of culture.” 2

We also believe our proposals would pass constitutional scrutiny. Our report includes a careful and detailed legal analysis because the issue of the constitutionality has regularly arisen in debates over the idea. Knowing that it would face legal challenge if adopted, we examine the constitutional implications of various implementation and enforcement policies at every level of government. Universal civic duty voting, we argue, should survive legal challenges. It is consistent with our Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, robust forms of collective action, and effective government.

“A large majority of Americans share our view that voting is both a right and a duty.”

In the course of our report, we present public opinion data, gathered explicitly for this study by the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project. We freely acknowledge that—for now—there is far more opposition than support for the idea of requiring everyone to vote. At the same time, a large majority of Americans share our view that voting is both a right and a duty. Our conclusion from the data is that while nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose mandatory electoral participation, about half the country is at least open to persuasion, a significant opening for a novel concept that has never been advanced in an organized and energetic way. To begin this process, this report seeks to answer legitimate criticisms and practical objections. We propose, for example, that all who have a conscientious objection to voting and all who present any reasonable excuse for not doing so would be exempted from the obligation and any penalty. Voters would be free to return a blank or spoiled ballot, and a ‘None of the Above’ option would also be included.

We also address equity concerns related to penalties. Even small fines could be discriminatory against poor people, and immigrants’ rights activists raise legitimate concerns that inadvertent voting by noncitizens could subject them to unfair penalties. These concerns shaped our recommendations which make clear that the fine for not voting be very small and be set aside for those willing to meet a very modest community service requirement. The fine would be limited to no more than $20, it could not be compounded over time, nor would civil or criminal penalties be imposed for not paying the fine. If the experience in Australia and other nations with versions of compulsory voting can be taken as a guide, most nonvoters would never face a fine. We also detail protections for noncitizens to prevent exploitation of the system by public officials hostile to immigrants.

Our emphasis is not on imposing sanctions but on sending a strong message that voting is a legitimate expectation of citizenship. Nations that have embraced carefully implemented versions of universal civic duty voting have enjoyed dramatic increases in participation. “Compulsory voting makes democracy work better,” concluded Lisa Hill of the University of Adelaide, “enabling it to function as a social activity engaged in by all affected interests, not just a privileged elite.” 3

“Nations that have embraced carefully implemented versions of universal civic duty voting have enjoyed dramatic increases in participation.”

The country’s politics typically places the interests of older Americans over the interests of the younger generations—which, by definition, makes our system less forward-looking. This problem is aggravated by the under-representation of the young in the voting process. Their participation is held down by rules and requirements that are easier for older and more geographically settled Americans to follow and to meet. As part of our proposal to declare that all adults are required to vote, we propose many ideas, beginning with election day registration and an expansion of voting opportunities, that would welcome the young into full participation. Since the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is placing particular burdens on young Americans, especially those just entering the workforce, their engagement in the democratic project is more vital than ever.

Universal civic duty voting would also help ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted exclusion from our democracy. With the reforms that would necessarily accompany it, civic duty voting would permanently block voter suppression measures. The reprehensible police killing of George Floyd shocked the conscience of the nation and forced its attention to entrenched racial injustice. Floyd’s death, and those of Rayshard Brooks and Breonna Taylor, called forth large-scale protests around the country against police violence that has long been an enraging fact-of-life in Black neighborhoods. The new movement is demanding a thoroughgoing overhaul of policing but also a larger confrontation with racism. The demand for equal treatment has been reinforced by unequal suffering during a pandemic whose costs to health, life, and economic well-being have been borne disproportionately by communities of color. Voting rights, equal participation, and an end to exclusion from the tables of power are essential not only for securing reform, but also for creating the democratic conditions that would make social change durable. Police brutality, as an expression of systemic racism, is not merely about how Americans are policed but whose voices are heard on policing. Universal voting could amplify long voter-suppressed voices so that long-denied solutions to systemic racism are represented in the voting booth and enacted in legislatures.

“Universal civic duty voting would also help ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted exclusion from our democracy.”

“Give us the ballot,” Martin Luther King Jr. declared in 1957, “and we will transform the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens.” 4 As our nation opens its mind and its heart to forms of social reconstruction that were far removed from the public agenda only months ago, we believe that transformative adjustments to our voting system are now in order.

The new activism points to the need for a renewed civic life, and universal voting would assist in its rebirth. Citizens, political campaigns and civil rights and community organizations could move resources now spent on protecting the right to vote and increasing voter turnout to the task of persuading and educating citizens. Media consultants would no longer have an incentive to drive down the other side’s turnout, which only increases the already powerful forces working to make our campaigns highly negative in character. Candidates would be pushed to appeal beyond their own voter bases. This imperative would raise the political costs of invoking divisive rhetoric and vilifying particular groups. Low turnout is aggravated by the hyper-polarization in our political life that is so widely and routinely denounced. Intense partisans are drawn to the polls while those who are less ideologically committed and less fervent about specific issues are more likely to stay away. Of course, democratic politics will always involve clashes of interests and battles between competing, deeply held worldviews. But by magnifying the importance of persuasion, universal voting could begin to alter the tenor of our campaigns and encourage a politics that places greater stress on dialogue, empathy, and the common good. 5 And some citizens, initially empowered by their votes, would be drawn to deepen their participation in other aspects of civic life.

To say that everyone should vote is the surest guarantee that everyone will be enabled to vote. Stressing the obligation to participate will, we believe, expand the freedom to participate. As we will detail in these pages, civic duty voting must be accompanied by other voting reforms. They include automatic voter registration at state agencies; restoration of voting rights for citizens with felony convictions; early voting; expanded mail-in voting; and no-excuse absentee voting.

But we also need to recognize the disparities in American society that affect participation. This has been put in sharp focus in the 2020 primaries. The high turnout and willingness of voters to adapt to the changes in elections in the face of the pandemic deserves to be celebrated. But we must also recognize that barriers to voting were often concentrated in lower income and Black or Latinx communities, where turnout was suppressed by dramatically curtailed opportunities for in-person voting and distrust of voting by mail. “Long lines are voter suppression in action,” election lawyer Marc Elias observed—one reason the 2014 bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration insisted that no voter should have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot. 6

And while the polemics around easier voting have often taken on a partisan cast—the recriminations around the April 2020 primary and State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin in the midst of the pandemic are an unfortunate example—we would note that a number of Republican secretaries of state and many conservatives support mail ballots and other reforms to ease access to voting. Writing in National Review in support of broad participation through no-excuse absentee and drive-through voting during the pandemic, Rachel Kleinfeld and Joshua Kleinfeld warned: “The United States is already at high levels of polarization and historically low levels of trust in government and fellow citizens. We cannot afford an election our people don’t believe in.” 7 This captures the spirit behind our proposals.

“[Civic duty voting is] a full embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nation’s public life and in constructing our future.”

Essential as these various enhancements and repairs to our system are, we believe that civic duty voting itself is the necessary prod to the changes we need because it would clarify the priorities of election officials at every point in the process: Their primary task is to allow citizens to embrace their duties, not to block their participation. We see it as a message to political leaders: It will encourage them to understand that their obligations extend to all Americans, not just to those they deem to be “likely voters.” And we see it as a full embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nation’s public life and in constructing our future.

Our hope is that this report will spur national discussion in two spheres: the need to make our system more voter-friendly, and the obligation of citizens themselves to embrace the tasks of self-government. Ultimately, we hope our country as a whole can embrace this idea as a decisive step in our long struggle to ensure that all Americans are included in our Constitution’s most resonant phrase, “We, the people.”

This report was authored by the Universal Voting Working Group. The members of our Working Group have participated in meetings, conference calls, drafting, and editing in an 18-month path to this final report. While we may not all agree on every word in the report or every item in the recommendations section, we are all in agreement that the concept of making voting a universal civic duty in the United States would significantly enhance our democracy by broadening civic participation in all communities. We believe it is worthy of a broad public discussion, which we hope to initiate with this report. (Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.)

• E.J. Dionne Jr., The Brookings Institution
• Miles Rapoport, The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School

Working group members:

• Michelle Bishop, National Disability Rights Network
• Cornell William Brooks, Harvard Kennedy School
• Nick Chedli Carter, Resilient Democracy Fund*
• Allegra Chapman, Chapman Consulting and Common Cause
• Cheryl Clyburn Crawford, Mass VOTE
• Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law
• Anthony Fowler, The University of Chicago
• Archon Fung, The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School
• William A. Galston, The Brookings Institution
• Amber Herrle, The Brookings Institution
• Cecily Hines, The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School
• María Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino
• Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer, National Institute for Civil Discourse
• Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings Institution
• Terry Ao Minnis, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
• Janai Nelson, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
• Nick Nyhart, Nyhart Consulting
• Norman J. Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
• Andre M. Perry, The Brookings Institution
• Whitney Quesenbery, Center for Civic Design
• Ian Simmons, Blue Haven Initiative*
• Shane P. Singh, University of Georgia
• Tova Wang, The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School
• Dorian Warren, Community Change
• Brenda Wright, Demos

An asterisk denotes organizations that contributed financial support.

Brookings, Harvard, and the working group members are grateful for the financial support provided for this project by the Carnegie Corporation, the Resilient Democracy Fund, and the Blue Haven Initiative. This report reflects the views of its authors and not those of the Brookings Institution, the Ash Center, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or Harvard University.

• See Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (New York: Norton, 2019).
• Foner, p. 94-95.
• Lisa Hill, “Compulsory Voting Defended,” in Jason Brennan and Lisa Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 197.
• King quoted in Barbara Arnwine and John Nichols, “Martin Luther King’s Call to ‘Give Us the Ballot’ Is As Relevant Today as It was in 1957,” The Nation, January, 15, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/martin-luther-kings-call-to-give-us-the-ballot-is-as-relevant-today-as-it-was-in-1957/tnamp/.
• This section draws on William A. Galston and E. J. Dionne Jr., “The case for universal voting: Why making voting a duty would enhance our elections and improve our government,” The Brookings Institution Center for Effective Public Management (September 2015).
• Marc Elias tweet is available here: https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1273616769706602496?s=21.
• Joshua Kleinfeld and Rachel Kleinfeld, “How to Hold Elections during a Pandemic,” April 7, 2020, https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-holding-elections-during-pandemic/.

Campaigns & Elections

Governance Studies

Elaine Kamarck

July 23, 2024

E.J. Dionne, Jr., Fred Dews

Roxana Muenster

July 22, 2024

Voting is a civic duty

Our right to vote is hard-won. It took centuries of struggle to establish this right — for property-less men, for women, for African Americans, and, in 1971, for all US citizens over the age of 18.  The right to vote is fundamental to protecting, asserting and defining many of our other rights. Almost all of the social and economic rights Americans enjoy today — from Medicare and Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Clean Air Act — exist because citizens elected public officials who voted to enact them.

But low numbers of American citizens exercise their right to vote, and, unfortunately, Stanford students are no exception. According to the National Study of Learning, Voting and Engagement (NSLVE), only 48.1% of eligible Stanford undergraduates, graduates and post-doctoral fellows voted in the 2016 Presidential election. NSLVE calculated that less than 20% voted in the 2014 mid-term elections.

As the three deans responsible for overseeing the education of the largest number of Stanford’s students, including all of its undergraduates, we write to urge you, regardless of your political affiliation , to register and to exercise your right to vote.

Here, we offer 5 main reasons for voting:

• We build our democracy with votes. Through our votes, we express what we as citizens think is in our collective interests; we empower officials to act in our name to promote those interests.
• It’s the power of the vote that keeps our elected officials accountable.
• If only some people vote, elected officials are likely to give less weight to the interests and views of non-participants. Studies show that young voters, along with citizens with lower levels of income and education, are less likely to vote.
• It is sometimes said that no one’s vote makes a decisive difference. But each person’s vote makes our democracy more representative of the will of its citizens. In close local elections, small numbers of votes can be decisive.
• Our country (and our world) face significant challenges that require the action of government: climate change, inequality, global conflict, terrorism and poverty. Individual action, however well motivated, cannot compare to what can be accomplished by the actions of large state institutions. As a citizen it is essential for you to vote on the basis of your informed views about those candidates who offer the best public policy responses to these challenges.

It is easy to register, in whichever state you are entitled to vote: stanford.turbovote.org

Of course, you can certainly do more — along with others, including U.S. immigrants who do not have the right to vote — to help to make our society and our world better. We do not mean to suggest that the only way for you to be involved in questions of public concern is by means of a vote. But it is a way, and perhaps the most important way.

So, vote for the party and candidate of your choice, but by all means vote.

—  Debra Satz , Dean of Humanities and Sciences,  Jennifer Widom , Dean of Engineering,  Stephan Graham , Dean of Earth, Energy and Environmental Resources

The Daily is committed to publishing a diversity of op-eds and letters to the editor. We’d love to hear your thoughts. Email letters to the editor to eic ‘at’ stanforddaily.com and op-ed submissions to opinions ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.

Login or create an account

Top of page

Collection Civil Rights History Project

Voting rights.

When Reconstruction ended in 1877, states across the South implemented new laws to restrict the voting rights of African Americans. These included onerous requirements of owning property, paying poll taxes, and passing literacy or civics exams. Many African Americans who attempted to vote were also threatened physically or feared losing their jobs. One of the major goals of the Civil Rights Movement was to register voters across the South in order for African Americans to gain political power. Most of the interviewees in the Civil Rights History Project were involved in voter registration drives, driving voters to the polls, teaching literacy classes for the purposes of voter registration, or encouraging local African Americans to run as candidates.

Robert G. Clark, Jr. , explained the retaliation against those who dared to register voters in his interview. When Clark worked as a teacher in Belzoni, Mississippi, a local minister named Reverend Lee was shot and killed for registering voters in the mid-1950s. He also remembered the difficulties his father faced in his career for taking the same risk: “My father was a schoolteacher. He was fired in Holmes County because he was teaching voter registration classes… he could not get another job in Mississippi. See, what they would do, they would take your name and give your name to the Sovereignty Commission. That Sovereignty Commission would send those names to all of the superintendents of education.” The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission was created by an act of the Mississippi State Legislature in 1955 as a backlash against the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case and the perceived encroachment of the federal government’s power. The commission investigated activists across the state, using a network of informants, economic reprisals, and threats. Clark was later elected as the first black Representative elected to the Mississippi State House after Reconstruction, a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Rosie Head remembers her attempt to register to vote in Mississippi in 1964, when the local clerk used police dogs to try to intimidate her and other women. She says, “The chancellor clerk had said to me, ‘Now, I know you know better!’ He knew my grandparents. ‘I’ve known your people for years and years, and I know you know better. What are you doing out here anyway?’ And so, I told him what I wanted. And he said, ‘You go home and do like your mama and your grandmama did. You don’t need to come out here. This ain’t for black folk.’” The clerk would not approve her test and it was not until the Voting Rights Act passed the following year that federal registrars found her records and allowed her to vote.

Voter registration drives also brought African American communities together to work for a common cause. John Churchville was registering voters when he came across two rival teenage gangs fighting in Americus, Georgia. He stepped into the fight to stop it and recalls, “And they just stopped.  I said, ‘This is what white folks want you to do!  Why are you doing this?!  We’re here to help you to register so you can get some power for real and stop fighting each other.’ They stopped gang warring.  We were able to recruit them to first register themselves, and then to negotiate a peace treaty and help us go out and recruit people to register and vote.”

Voting was a lifelong dream for many older African Americans in the South. Charles Siler worked on a voter registration project in Baton Rouge in 1962. He remembers an elderly Mrs. Williams, whom he took to register, her third attempt. He took a gun with him, under his coat, for protection.  He remembers, “I was prepared to shoot somebody if they had decided to go that far. They didn’t, because when she walked in, she was in charge. They moved aside. She walked—and when she walked into the Registrar of Voters office, I was told, ‘You can’t go in there.’ I said, ‘No problem.’  I stood back against the wall… I was waiting. And I was standing there like this and I was pressing that little Beretta because I wanted—when she came out she had this smile on her face. Okay? That made all of it worth it. It was, you know, as good as it could get at that moment, because she got what she wanted and she got to vote before she died. And, you know, you think about being eighty-four in 1962. Her parents had been slaves… to her, it was important.”

The long struggle for African American voting rights was part of a centuries-old effort to ensure that the United States Constitution applied to all citizens, not just white male landowners. Despite the passage of many constitutional amendments, federal and state laws, and Supreme Court cases, the full participation of every American citizen in elections is an ideal that has never been reached. John Rosenberg worked in the 1960s as an attorney for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, primarily investigating voting rights violations and abuses in the South. He laments the 2013 Supreme Court case that repealed section IV of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided special protections for voters in states in the South with a history of violations. He advises, “Now whether it is congressional work or lawsuits that are going to be filed in some of the cases, you saw in a number of these states that they immediately started coming out with voter ID laws or other kinds of statutes, other laws that are obviously intended to turn the clock back and make it more difficult for people, minorities, to register to vote and that kind of thing. … I think the decision is wrong, but … that’s our system and we don’t go into the streets, we start working on trying to change it.”

Essay on Election for Students and Children

500+ words essay on election.

Election is the process through which people can express their political opinion. They express this opinion by public voting to choose a political leader . Furthermore, this political leader would have authority and responsibility. Most noteworthy, Election is a formal group decision making the process. Also, the selected political leader would hold public office. The election is certainly a vital pillar of democracy. This is because; Election ensures that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Characteristics of Election

First of all, suffrage is an important part of Election . Most noteworthy, suffrage refers to the right to vote in Elections. The question of who may vote is certainly an important issue. The electorate probably never includes the entire population. Almost all countries prohibit individuals under the age of majority from voting. For example, in India, the age of majority is attainable at the age of 18 years.

The nomination of a candidate is also an important characteristic of Election. This means to officially suggest someone for Election. Nomination refers to the process of selecting a candidate for election to a public office. Furthermore, endorsements or testimonials are public statements to support a candidate’s nomination.

Another essential characteristic of Election is electoral systems. Electoral systems refer to detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems. Furthermore, detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems convert the vote into a political decision.

The first step is the tally of votes. For this purpose, there is the use of various vote counting systems and ballot. Then comes the determination of the result on the basis of the tally. Also, the categorization of most systems is as either proportional or majoritarian.

Scheduling refers to arranging and controlling of Elections. Elected officials are accountable to the people. Therefore, they must return to the voters at regular intervals of time. Elected officials must do that so as to seek a mandate to continue in office. Above all, most countries arrange elections at fixed regular intervals.

An election campaign is also an integral part of Election. Election campaign refers to an organized effort to positively influence the decision making of a particular group. Consequently, politicians compete with each other by trying to woo more and more individuals.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Election

First of all, the Election is a peaceful and efficient way of choosing political leaders. Furthermore, citizens of a Nation choose a leader by casting their votes. In this way, the citizens are able to choose an individual whose views appeal to them most. Hence, people are able to exercise their will in political leadership.

An election is an excellent opportunity for people to express their resentment. Most noteworthy, if people are unhappy with a particular leadership, then they can remove it from power. People can certainly replace an undesirous leadership with a better alternative through Election.

The election is a handsome opportunity for political participation. Furthermore, it is a way by which new issues can be raised in public. In most democratic countries, common citizens are allowed to contest elections independently.

Consequently, a citizen could introduce reforms which are not any political party’s agenda. Also, in most democratic countries, a citizen could form a new political party to contest Election.

Election helps keep the power of political leaders in check. The ruling parties cannot afford to do any wrongdoing to the public due to the risk of losing Election. Hence, Election serves as an efficient power check and control for those in the ruling power.

To sum it up, Election is the symbol of political freedom. Most noteworthy, it is the tool which puts authority in the hands of common people. Democracy certainly would be non-functional without it. People must realize the value of Elections and come out in large numbers to vote.

Q1 What are electoral systems?

A1  Electoral systems are detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems. These detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems convert the vote into a political decision.

Q2 How Election helps keep the power of the political leaders in check?

A2 Elections certainly help keep the power of the political leaders in check. This is because political leaders cannot afford to do any wrongdoing to the public due to the risk of losing Election

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Civics-Online.org

Promoting civics education in America

Exercising the right to vote is essential to being a good citizen

More Voting Rights :

• Four important responsibilities of voters
• Reasons why you should vote
• The right to vote should not be taken for granted
• Voting rights you might not know about

Generally speaking, most Americans tend to take their hard-won voting rights as guaranteed givens that go with the territory of U.S. citizenship. Such a lackadaisical attitude is extremely dangerous and may backfire with permanent loss of a false sense of political security, however. The primary reason why that’s true is due to proverbial mice’s bent to begin playing whenever their space is free of human inhabitants. In practical real-world terms, such a scenario invariably leads to progressive devolution of life circumstances beyond the point of no return that could have been completely avoided by electing the right candidate for the job. This is precisely what non-voting citizens do by effectively surrendering to defeat by default.

True Democracy vs. total hypocrisy

There are many reasons why you should vote , but the first and most important thing that non-voting eligible U.S. citizens must fully comprehend and keep firmly in mind at all times is the basic purpose of casting a ballot in any election: Tacit expression of personal preference in a public representative. That basic rule holds true for U.S. Presidential campaigns and local court administrators alike: Selecting the best candidate to represent constituents’ special interests.

Therefore, failure to vote constitutes implied consent to governance by incumbent public officeholders. It further equates to forfeiture of any right to voice any complaint about current governmental officials – despite how inept or corrupt they may be. The combined truths of all foresaid facts of American political life amount to a singular conclusion: failure to vote equals inexcusable neglect of public and private affairs.

Voting rights are mandatory responsibilities for naturalized and native citizens alike

A popular school of thought exists that holds voting as a mandatory obligation for naturalized U.S. citizens. The official Guide to Naturalization contains the following verbatim passage:

“Citizens have a responsibility to participate in the political process by registering and voting in elections.”

As such, the standard naturalization oath requires pledgees to solemnly swear or affirm to support the U.S. Constitution, which entails voting as an integral part of that affirmation.

While native U.S. citizens currently have no legal compulsion to vote, many knowledgeable observers urge the passage of legislation to mandate that every eligible citizen participate in all popular elections.

Many benefits vs. major detriments of voting

Despite a lack of notoriety or fame, political activism by casting a ballot in all elections can impart many subtle indirect advantages to citizens that include but are not limited to:

1. Having the relatively rare opportunity to exercise one of the primary privileges of membership in a democratic society.

Public officials in the U.S. are handpicked by a majority vote of governed populists. Such a momentous privilege must never be taken lightly and always exercised rightly. Numerous wars have been fought and many lives were lost to build and preserve democratic governance. Anyone who doubts the gravity of that point merely need to ask a fresh foreign immigrant whose homeland is ruled by leaders that weren’t chosen by the people. Indeed, such social catastrophes are precisely what many immigrants seek to escape by taking up residence in the U. S. of A. Even more startling is the dawning realization that failure to vote by all eligible citizens would result in an identical situation for America. After all, if no one bothers to express their desired pick for public representation, the U.S. federal government will install somebody to fill open seats in Congress and elsewhere throughout Washington.

2. Enhanced political clout and personal credibility

Even the least informed people can readily appreciate and respect potential gains to be made via consistently high levels of political activism. Thus, voting on a regular basis garners greater respect and admiration of others who become inspired to do likewise on their own behalf. This positive trickle-down effect ultimately culminates as increased voter participation on a much larger scale that is more representative of the entire electorate.

3. Nobody wants, needs or appreciates taxation without representation

As taxpayers, most citizens want some say so in where and how their hard-earned money goes and the manner in which the nation is run. The only way to ensure having some say to hold major sway with delegated responsible decision makers is voting for those in whom you repose complete trust and confidence.

In the final analysis, voting offers a means of speaking your mind without ever talking loud enough to let your voice be heard! Your vote is your voice. When you vote, you actually tell elected reps what you want and where you stand on important issues pertaining to public safety, retirement benefits, affordable healthcare and other matters of vital import. If you don’t vote for your personal beliefs, others will and you probably won’t like the end outcome. Not to dare mention betraying children by tossing their futures to the whimsical Fates.

A prime example of proof that one man, one vote really works was the 1960s Civil Rights Movement whereby sweeping, far-reaching positive changes occurred solely due to political activism of African Americans fed up with generations of extreme deprivation and second-class citizenship to such an extent that even precluded entry into public places via the front door. A peculiar aspect of those major victories was having to fight for the right to vote before being able to vote for positive change. However, take heart! If those forbears of color did it while facing huge hurdles that had to be overcome, so can you!

• Features and Stories
• Extremist Files
• Year in Hate & Extremism
• Case Docket
• Publications
• Our Initiatives
• Preventing Youth Radicalization
• Whose Heritage?
• Learning for Justice
• Seeking Justice
• The Experience
• Hate & Extremism
• Children's Rights
• Family Separation
• Rights of Asylum Seekers
• Local Policing and Immigration Enforcement
• Workers’ Rights
• Conversion Therapy
• LGBTQ Youth Rights
• Request for Legal Assistance — Economic Justice
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Voting Rights - AL
• Voting Rights - FL
• Voting Rights - GA
• Voting Rights - LA
• Voting Rights - MS
• Federal Resources and Amicus Briefs
• The South's Got Now
• Hate Group Flyering Map
• Accessibility
• Press Center
• Ways to Give

A life-changing habit: Five reasons why you should vote in every election

Does voting matter? The clear answer is “yes!”

Voting is a key element of civic engagement and a critical part of the democratic process. As the late civil rights icon and U.S. Rep. John Lewis said, “The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.” 

Voting can change your life. Here are five reasons to vote: 

In a democracy, you get a say in things that are important to you. Your vote holds elected officials accountable for their actions. It forces them to listen to you and the issues that most concern you. Your vote is your report card on lawmakers. If you’re not content with the job an elected official has done, you can use your vote to remove that official from office.

The policies shaped by elected officials affect your life. While federal elections typically have the largest voter turnouts, voting in your state and local elections is just as important. What happens in your town, city and state will affect your everyday life. Laws at the local level affect taxes, health and public safety, education, recreation, economic development and more. States regulate issues like health care and tenants’ rights. They determine how long children stay in school, manage infrastructure, spur job creation and do much more.

You pay taxes. Your vote gives power to the people who will spend your tax money . Help ensure that money is used in a responsible and efficient way by voting.

Rights are not necessarily guaranteed . Voting is one of the many privileges of living in a democratic society. While every American citizen has the right to vote today, we are seeing attacks on voting equity , including gerrymandering, voting restrictions, misinformation and election intimidation. Voting is a critical right we must protect, and that begins by exercising our right to vote in elections at every level of government.

You matter. Young voters bring diverse points of view on issues affecting their generation. Engaging in the process early will help make it a habit throughout your life, providing you with the opportunity to shape the future.

Bernadette Kinlaw is a copy editor for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Year in Hate & Extremism 2023

We tracked 1,430 hate and extremist groups in 2023. Hate has no place in our country. Add your name to help us fight hate.

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

• Border Security
• Republican National Committee

Vice President Kamala Harris waves as she boards Air Force Two after a campaign event July 23, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP)

'Border czar'? Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration's causes, not border security

If your time is short.

In March 2021, President Joe Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working alongside officials in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to address the issues driving people to leave those countries and come to the United States.

The Biden-Harris administration said it would focus on five key issues: economic insecurity, corruption, human rights, criminal gang violence and gender-based violence.

Border security and management is the Homeland Security secretary’s responsibility.

Vice President Kamala Harris might soon get a new official title: 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. In the meantime, Republicans have revived a title they gave her in 2021: "border czar." 

Claims that President Joe Biden named Harris the "border czar" and that she is responsible for overseeing U.S. border enforcement gained prominence at the Republican National Convention as the party sought to link her to his immigration policy. 

The refrain intensified once Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris. It was echoed in ads and by Trump campaign surrogates, including Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance , the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"Here’s Biden appointing Kamala Harris to be his border czar to deal with illegal immigration," a narrator says in a video the Republican National Committee posted on its X account, @GOP. "And here are a record number of illegal immigrants — 10 million and counting — flooding over the border after Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration."

We’ve repeatedly fact-checked claims about the number of people entering the U.S. illegally under Biden. The federal data tracks how many times officials encountered a person trying to cross the southern border, but it doesn’t reflect the number of people let in. And if one person tries to cross the border multiple times, that counts as multiple encounters, even if it’s the same person. 

For this fact-check, we’re focused on the scope of Harris’ border responsibilities. 

"Border Czar Kamala Harris' reversal of President Trump's immigration policies has created an unprecedented and illegal immigration, humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border," Trump campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact in a statement. 

But Biden didn’t put Harris in charge of overseeing border security.

In a meeting with Harris in March 2021 , Biden said Harris would lead U.S. diplomatic efforts and work with officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stem migration to the U.S. Biden said that when he was vice president, he "got a similar assignment" and that the Obama administration secured $700 million to help countries in Central America.

"One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in country, it benefits everyone. It benefits us, it benefits the people, and it grows the economies there," Biden said then.

Biden asked Harris "to be the chief diplomatic officer with Central American countries" and address the root causes that make people leave their home countries, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. 

Managing the border "has always been" the Homeland Security secretary’s role, Mittelstadt said.

Biden tasked Harris with addressing the root causes influencing people’s decisions to migrate to the United States.

"I’ve asked her … to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border," Biden said in March 2021.

Biden held a similar role as vice president to former President Barack Obama. In a 2015 New York Times opinion piece, Biden said he would work with the Northern Triangle’s leaders on security, anti-corruption and investment efforts in the region.

"Donald Trump’s administration didn’t really sustain this strategy, but what Harris sought to revive in 2021 ran along the same lines," said Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, a group advocating for human rights in the Americas. 

Within weeks of Biden’s remarks about Harris’ role, Republicans including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., began calling Harris the " border czar " often in tandem with pointing out she had not yet been to the border.

In April 2021, when a reporter asked Harris whether she would visit the border, she said that her role is addressing the factors that make people leave their home countries, not managing the border.

Featured Fact-check

"The president has asked (Homeland Security) Secretary (Alejandro) Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border. And he has been working very hard at that, and it’s showing some progress because of his hard work," Harris said at an event . "I have been asked to lead the issue of dealing with root causes in the Northern Triangle, similar to what the then-vice president did many years ago."

Harris said she’d focus on economic struggles, violence, corruption and food insecurity in the countries. 

In June 2021, Harris visited El Paso, Texas, with Mayorkas. They outlined their responsibilities to reporters. Harris said she was addressing "the root causes of migration, predominantly out of Central America," and Mayorkas said, "It is my responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security to address the security and management of our border."

But this distinction didn’t stop critics from linking Harris with U.S.-Mexico border security. 

"The administration’s messaging on this in mid-2021 was not as clear as it should have been," Isacson said. "But at no time did Harris or the White House state that her duties included the U.S.-Mexico border, or border security."

Immigration experts said it’s hard to measure Harris’ success in her role, and that a "root causes" approach implies that the results will be seen long term, not immediately.

In July 2021, the administration published a strategy , with Harris writing the lead message, for confronting the factors that drive migration in Central America. The plan focused on economic insecurity, corruption, human rights, criminal gang violence and gender-based violence.

In March 2024, the administration said it secured more than $5.2 billion in private sector investments to the region. However, only about $1 billion has been distributed, the Partnership for Central America, a group working with the administration, reported .

The White House said the investments have generated more than 70,000 new jobs in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, provided job training to 1 million people and expanded digital access to 4.5 million people. 

"Still, her engagement on this issue has been sporadic," Isacson said. "She has not traveled very often to the region or otherwise sought to make ‘root causes in Central America’ a central theme of her vice presidency."

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador has dropped since 2021. Encounters with people from other countries, Venezuela, have risen . 

"But it’s hard to prove that U.S. assistance is a central reason" for the Northern Triangle countries’ decline, Isacson said.

The issues pushing people to leave Central American countries "are extremely complex and require deep restructuring of so much in those societies," said Cecilia Menjivar, a sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes on immigration. "So it’s very difficult for one person to change all that, even if it is a powerful person."

Immigration patterns at the U.S.-Mexico border have more to do with conditions in Latin American countries than "any U.S. policy," Mittelstadt said. 

For example, a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has displaced nearly 8 million people since 2014, according to the United Nations. Political, economic and security crises in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Ecuador have also led to more migration from these countries, Mittelstadt said. 

In contrast, immigration encounters with people from El Salvador have dropped in past years, partly because of the country’s crime crackdown .

The Republican National Committee said Biden appointed Harris "to be his border czar to deal with illegal immigration...Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration."

Biden tasked Harris with addressing the root causes that drive migration to the United States. He did not task her with controlling who and how many people enter the southern U.S. border. That's the Homeland Security secretary’s responsibility.

Experts say that seeing the results of addressing root causes driving people out of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras  — violence, economic insecurity and corruption — takes time.

The statement contains an element of truth, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Our Sources

Truth Social, post , July 22, 2024

The Hill, House Republicans tee up vote condemning Harris as ‘border czar’ , July 23, 2024

C-SPAN, Sen. J.D. Vance campaign rally in Radford, Virginia , July 22, 2024

GOP, post on X , July 21, 2024

PolitiFact, Francis Suarez’s misleading claim about millions of migrants getting free cellphones, plane tickets , July 28, 2024

PolitiFact, There aren’t 20 million to 30 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally, as Sen. Marco Rubio claimed , June 11, 2024

The White House, Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris in a meeting on immigration , March 24, 2021

PolitiFact, Central America and the root causes of migration to the US , June 7, 2021

The New York Times, Joe Biden: A Plan for Central America , Jan. 29, 2015

The White House, Remarks by Vice President Harris at virtual roundtable of experts on the Northern Triangle , April 14, 2021

The White House, Remarks by Vice President Harris, Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas, Chairman Durbin, and Representative Escobar in press gaggle , June 25, 2021

Fox News, Obama-era DHS secretary: 'There's a real problem' when you have 'bipartisan outrage' , July 23, 2024

The White House, FACT SHEET: Strategy to address the root causes of migration in Central America , July 29, 2021

The White House, FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris announces public-private partnership has generated more than $5.2 billion in private sector commitments for Northern Central America , March 25, 2024

Migration Policy Institute, Shifting patterns and policies reshape migration to U.S.-Mexico border in major ways in 2023 , October 2023

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Venezuela crisis explained , April 17, 2024

PolitiFact, Donald Trump fact-check: 2024 RNC speech in Milwaukee full of falsehoods about immigrants, economy , July 19, 2024

CBS News, The facts about Kamala Harris' role on immigration in the Biden administration , July 23, 2024

Email interview, Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Henry Ziemer, research associate for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Cecilia Menjivar, sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, July 22, 2024

Statement, Karoline Leavitt,  Trump campaign national press secretary, July 23, 2024

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by maria ramirez uribe.

'Border czar'? Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration's causes, not border security

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

Harris campaign requests vetting materials from several possible running mates

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign has requested vetting materials from five possible running mates, according to two sources familiar with the effort to review the backgrounds of those being considered.

The five Democratic vice presidential contenders are North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. Mark Kelly, of Arizona.

Another source familiar with the list said the Harris campaign is also actively considering Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are among the critical battleground states that Harris may need to win the Electoral College in November.

Two other possible names under discussion include Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and former Rep. Cedric Richmond, of Louisiana, who has served as a Biden-Harris campaign co-chair, one of the sources said. It's not clear if the two received vetting materials.

NBC News has reached out to all of the potential picks.

Kevin Munoz, spokesman for Harris' campaign, dismissed any speculation about who could be her pick.

“Any reporting on developments or updates in Vice President Harris’ running mate search are premature and speculative. Vice President Harris is considering a large pool of qualified candidates, and will choose a partner that shares her commitment to fighting for the middle class, protecting Americans’ freedoms, and protecting our democracy. And when that candidate is chosen, together, they will handily defeat the Trump-Vance ticket in November," he said in a statement.

Eric Holder, who was the attorney general in the Obama administration, has been tasked with leading the vetting process for Harris' potential running mates, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Holder and the law firm where he is a senior counsel, Covington & Burling LLP, will oversee the operation, which is taking place on a more compressed timeline compared to other election cycles given President Joe Biden’s late decision to exit the 2024 race. 

The goal is still to have a vice presidential nominee for Harris ahead of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, scheduled for Aug. 19 to 22.

The exact mechanism for how that person will be formally nominated is still being worked out and the process remains fluid. The Democratic National Committee is still expected to hold a virtual roll call around the first week of August to nominate Harris. The rules committee will meet Wednesday to discuss how that process will work. 

On her first full day as a presidential candidate Monday, a majority of pledged convention delegates endorsed Harris for the Democratic nomination.

Monica Alba is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

Yamiche Alcindor is an NBC News Washington correspondent.

Peter Alexander is chief White House correspondent for NBC News.

Rebecca Shabad is a politics reporter for NBC News based in Washington.

The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator

Violence stalks the president who has rejoiced in violence to others.

Listen to more stories on hark

When a madman hammered nearly to death the husband of then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump jeered and mocked . One of Trump’s sons and other close Trump supporters avidly promoted false claims that Paul Pelosi had somehow brought the onslaught upon himself through a sexual misadventure.

After authorities apprehended a right-wing-extremist plot to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump belittled the threat at a rally. He disparaged Whitmer as a political enemy. His supporters chanted “Lock her up.” Trump laughed and replied , “Lock them all up.”

Fascism feasts on violence. In the years since his own supporters attacked the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election—many of them threatening harm to Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence—Trump has championed the invaders, would-be kidnappers, and would-be murderers as martyrs and hostages. He has vowed to pardon them if returned to office. His own staffers have testified to the glee with which Trump watched the mayhem on television.

Now the bloodshed that Trump has done so much to incite against others has touched him as well. The attempted murder of Trump—and the killing of a person nearby—is a horror and an outrage. More will be learned about the man who committed this appalling act, and who was killed by the Secret Service. Whatever his mania or motive, the only important thing about him is the law-enforcement mistake that allowed him to bring a deadly weapon so close to a campaign event and gain a sight line of the presidential candidate. His name should otherwise be erased and forgotten.

It is sadly incorrect to say, as so many have, that political violence “has no place” in American society. Assassinations, lynchings, riots, and pogroms have stained every page of American political history. That has remained true to the present day. In 2016 , and even more in 2020, Trump supporters brought weapons to intimidate opponents and vote-counters. Trump and his supporters envision a new place for violence as their defining political message in the 2024 election. Fascist movements are secular religions. Like all religions, they offer martyrs as their proof of truth. The Mussolini movement in Italy built imposing monuments to its fallen comrades. The Trump movement now improves on that: The leader himself will be the martyr in chief, his own blood the basis for his bid for power and vengeance.

Christopher R. Browning: A new kind of fascism

The 2024 election was already shaping up as a symbolic contest between an elderly and weakening liberalism too frail and uncertain to protect itself and an authoritarian, reactionary movement ready to burst every barrier and trash every institution. To date, Trump has led only a minority of U.S. voters, but that minority’s passion and audacity have offset what it lacks in numbers. After the shooting, Trump and his backers hope to use the iconography of a bloody ear and face, raised fist, and call to “Fight!” to summon waverers to their cause of installing Trump as an anti-constitutional ruler, exempted from ordinary law by his allies on the Supreme Court.

Other societies have backslid to authoritarianism because of some extraordinary crisis: economic depression, hyperinflation, military defeat, civil strife. In 2024, U.S. troops are nowhere at war. The American economy is booming, providing spectacular and widely shared prosperity. A brief spasm of mild post-pandemic inflation has been overcome. Indicators of social health have abruptly turned positive since Trump left office after years of deterioration during his term. Crime and fatal drug overdoses are declining in 2024; marriages and births are rising. Even the country’s problems indirectly confirm the country’s success: Migrants are crossing the border in the hundreds of thousands, because they know, even if Americans don’t, that the U.S. job market is among the hottest on Earth.

Yet despite all of this success, Americans are considering a form of self-harm that in other countries has typically followed the darkest national failures: letting the author of a failed coup d’état return to office to try again.

One reason this self-harm is nearing consummation is that American society is poorly prepared to understand and respond to radical challenges, once those challenges gain a certain mass. For nearly a century, “radical” in U.S. politics has usually meant “fringe”: Communists, Ku Kluxers, Black Panthers, Branch Davidians, Islamist jihadists. Radicals could be marginalized by the weight of the great American consensus that stretches from social democrats to business conservatives. Sometimes, a Joe McCarthy or a George Wallace would throw a scare into that mighty consensus, but in the past such challengers rarely formed stable coalitions with accepted stakeholders in society. Never gaining an enduring grip on the institutions of state, they flared up and burned out.

Trump is different. His abuses have been ratified by powerful constituencies. He has conquered and colonized one of the two major parties. He has defeated—or is on the way to defeating—every impeachment and prosecution to hold him to account for his frauds and crimes. He has assembled a mass following that is larger, more permanent, and more national in reach than any previous American demagogue. He has dominated the scene for nine years already, and he and his supporters hope they can use yesterday’s appalling event to extend the Trump era to the end of his life and beyond.

The American political and social system cannot treat such a person as an alien. It inevitably accommodates and naturalizes him. His counselors, even the thugs and felons, join the point-counterpoint dialogue at the summit of the American elite. President Joe Biden nearly wrecked his campaign because he felt obliged to meet Trump in debate. How could Biden have done otherwise? Trump is the three-time nominee of the Republican Party; it’s awkward and strange to treat him as an insurrectionist against the American state—though that’s what Trump was and is.

David Frum: Biden’s heartbreaking press conference

The despicable shooting at Trump, which also caused death and injury to others, now secures his undeserved position as a partner in the protective rituals of the democracy he despises. The appropriate expressions of dismay and condemnation from every prominent voice in American life have the additional effect of habituating Americans to Trump’s legitimacy. In the face of such an outrage, the familiar and proper practice is to stress unity, to proclaim that Americans have more things in common than that divide them. Those soothing words, true in the past, are less true now.

Nobody seems to have language to say: We abhor, reject, repudiate, and punish all political violence, even as we maintain that Trump remains himself a promoter of such violence, a subverter of American institutions, and the very opposite of everything decent and patriotic in American life.

The Republican National Convention, which opens this week, will welcome to its stage apologists for Vladimir Putin’s Russia and its aggression against U.S. allies. Trump’s own infatuation with Russia and other dictatorships has not dimmed even slightly with age or experience. Yet all of these urgent and necessary truths must now be subordinated to the ritual invocation of “thoughts and prayers” for someone who never gave a thought or uttered a prayer for any of the victims of his own many incitements to bloodshed. The president who used his office to champion the rights of dangerous people to own military-type weapons says he was grazed by a bullet from one such assault rifle.

Conventional phrases and polite hypocrisy fill a useful function in social life. We say “Thank you for your service” both to the decorated hero and to the veteran who barely escaped dishonorable discharge. It’s easier than deciphering which was which. We wish “Happy New Year!” even when we dread the months ahead.

Adrienne LaFrance: Thoughts, prayers, and Facebook rants aren’t enough

But conventional phrases don’t go unheard. They carry meanings, meanings no less powerful for being rote and reflexive. In rightly denouncing violence, we are extending an implicit pardon to the most violent person in contemporary U.S. politics. In asserting unity, we are absolving a man who seeks power through the humiliation and subordination of disdained others.

Those conventional phrases are inscribing Trump into a place in American life that he should have forfeited beyond redemption on January 6, 2021. All decent people welcome the sparing of his life. Trump’s reckoning should be with the orderly process of law, not with the bloodshed he rejoiced in when it befell others. He and his allies will exploit a gunman’s vicious criminality as their path to exonerate past crimes and empower new ones. Those who stand against Trump and his allies must find the will and the language to explain why these crimes, past and planned, are all wrong, all intolerable—and how the gunman and Trump, at their opposite ends of a bullet’s trajectory, are nonetheless joined together as common enemies of law and democracy.

About the Author

More Stories

The Dramatic Contrast of Biden’s Last Act

The Harris Gamble

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Harris’ struggles with immigration policy expose political vulnerabilities

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán

Jasmine Garsd

A look at Vice President Kamala Harris’ record on immigration

Vice President Kamala Harris, center, along with Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from Texas, and Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, tour a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in El Paso, Texas, U.S., in June 2021. Bloomberg/via Getty Images hide caption

As Vice President Kamala Harris works to secure the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party next month, her role on immigration policy is now in the spotlight.

Minutes after the President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the race and was endorsing Harris, Republicans started attacking her record on immigration and border policy.

“Joe Biden has now endorsed and fully supports his ‘Borders Czar’ Kamala Harris to be the Democrat candidate for president,” Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, posted on X . “I think I will need to triple the border wall, razor wire barriers and National Guard on the border.”

Conservatives have often referred to Harris as the Biden administration’s "Border Czar," incorrectly claiming she was tasked with repairing the border.

“Kamala had one job,” said Nikki Haley earlier this month at the Republican National Convention. “One job. And that was to fix the border. Now imagine her in charge of the entire country.”

In reality, that was not Harris’ job.

She was tasked by Biden in 2021 to examine the root causes of migration from Central America, including poverty, violence, and corruption. At that time, unauthorized migration came primarily from Mexico and Central America.

She was never tapped to head immigration policy, which is the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who oversees all agencies in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws.

Three years later, this role could be Harris’ Achilles' heel. Her role in pushing for Biden’s immigration proposals have disenchanted Democrats and immigrant rights groups.

“I do think there is an opportunity here for Vice President Harris to have a more hopeful message around immigration than even the Biden administration has had in the past,” said Adriel Orozco, a senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Council.

Biden’s policy proposals have included severely restricting most asylum claims at the border and expediting the removal of unauthorized migrants, something immigrant rights groups have opposed.

Suyapa Portillo, a professor of Chicano/a-Latino/a Transnational Studies at Pitzer College, says Harris should try to separate herself from the Biden administration’s “slow move towards immigration reform,” and from the message of deterrence that “represents that conservatism from the Biden administration and the Democratic Party — the old guard.”

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Monday during an event with NCAA college athletes. This was her first public appearance since President Joe Biden endorsed her to be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption

A changed immigration landscape

If Harris secures the presidential nomination, she will be facing a very different immigration landscape than back in 2021, when she was tasked with addressing its root causes.

Last year, unauthorized crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border hit an all-time high. In December 2023, the number of encounters reached nearly 250,000, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

For the last four months, the number of migrants trying to cross illegally has dramatically dropped. That’s due in part due to Mexico’s enforcement, and Biden’s policies, which include severely restricting most asylum claims at the border .

But migration has diversified in the last few years. There is an unprecedented crisis of global displacement. When Harris was elected in 2020, 90% of immigration hailed from Mexico and Central America, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute .

In 2023, only 49 percent of the encounters were with migrants from those four countries.

Today, immigrants arriving at the US Mexico border are fleeing from the crisis in Venezuela, the war in Ukraine and cartel violence in Ecuador, just to name a few.

A mixed track record

Harris’ record on immigration has been marred by policy blunders.

Her first international trip as vice president made clear her approach on immigration: addressing root causes to stop illegal migration.

In the summer of 2021, she traveled to Guatemala to meet with then-President Alejandro Giammattei. In a speech, she said that the Biden administration was committed to helping Guatemalans find “hope at home.”

But she also warned prospective migrants.

“I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” Harris said. “Do not come. Do not come.”

Those three words: Do not come, were seen by many as a blunder . Latino advocates criticized the statement as paternalistic and tone-deaf, given the violent crises rattling the region.

For many immigrant advocates, that statement continues to haunt Harris’ candidacy.

“She needs to separate from Biden,” Portillo says. “She needs to speak to TPS holders and DACA holders for a plan for legalization, and a border plan that does not include throwing children in jail.”

But Harris has maintained that deterrence is essential: last year she announced $950 million in pledges from private companies to support Central American communities.

Judith Browne Dianis, the executive director of the D.C.-based civil rights organization Advancement Project, says Harris will now have to explain how she would tackle immigration if she were elected president.

“Is it a humanitarian response, or is there a criminalization response?” Dianis says. “We don’t need more criminalization. We don’t need a border wall. We need to get to the root causes. We need to make sure that people are taken care of.”

Criticism from GOP for not visiting the border enough

In early June 2021, Harris came under fire for not visiting the border. In an interview with NBC News , she was asked about Republican critiques.

“And I haven’t been to Europe,” Harris fired back. “I mean, I don’t understand the point that you are making.”

Her response was criticized by conservatives as disconnected and flippant towards border communities and agencies which have felt overwhelmed by the influx of migrants in recent years.

Harris’ first trip to the border came later that month, to El Paso, Texas. At a press conference there, she stated that migration “cannot be reduced to a political issue. We’re talking about children, we’re talking about families, we are talking about suffering.”

Earlier this year, Harris backed a Biden-endorsed bipartisan bill on border enforcement.

The measure would have added immigration detention beds, increased the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and asylum officers, and funded technology to detect fentanyl smuggling at the Southern border. It passed in the Senate but failed to move forward after former President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to kill it.

But for many immigration advocates, Harris is their candidate.

Kerri Talbot, the executive director of the national advocacy organization Immigration Hub, called Harris a “strong defender and champion of American families, including their immigrant family members” in a statement Sunday.

“We have no doubt that she can step up to the challenge, counter Trump and JD Vance’s rhetoric and dark vision for democracy, and protect the progress we’ve made while delivering transformative change for our immigration system,” Talbot said.

Before VP, Harris was already pushing for reform

But Harris involvement with immigration goes way beyond her vice presidency, and her actions show a shift in policies.

When she was the district attorney in San Francisco, she backed a city policy that turned over to federal immigration authorities migrant juveniles suspected of committing a felony. In 2019, Harris’ campaign told CNN “this policy could have been applied more fairly.”

But as California’s attorney general, she had a different stance. In a 2015 interview with CBS Los Angeles, Harris said, “Unfortunately, I know what crime looks like. I know what a criminal looks like who's committing a crime. An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

Harris became U.S. senator from California in 2017.

She was part of a Senate hearing on the Trump administration’s highly controversial separation policy, in which undocumented migrant children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as a form of immigration deterrence. She questioned Trump officials, and said separating families can cause “irreparable harm.”

In 2019, she and several other Democratic senators reintroduced the Reunite Every Unaccompanied Newborn Infant, Toddler and Other Children Expeditiously (REUNITE) Act , “to expedite the reunification of separated immigrant families and promote humane alternatives for asylum-seeking immigrant families.”

When she ran for president in 2019, Harris unveiled an immigration plan that called for a path to citizenship for recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, best known as DACA.

That’s similar to what the Biden-Harris campaign promised when they run in 2020. However, none of that has happened during the administration.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Voting — Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16

Should The Voting Age Be Lowered to 16

• Categories: Voting

About this sample

Words: 544 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 544 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Arguments in favor of lowering the voting age, concerns about lowering the voting age, comparisons with other age-related rights.

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

Dr. Heisenberg

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

2 pages / 853 words

4 pages / 1956 words

3 pages / 1143 words

1 pages / 432 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

The United States of America has been fighting throughout history for individual rights and freedoms, ever since 1792 when Kentucky was the first state in the US to ban felons from voting. Now, the only two states that one can [...]

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 [...]

The 2024 Republican primary is shaping up to be a pivotal moment in American politics, with far-reaching implications for the future of the Republican Party and the trajectory of the country as a whole. As candidates begin to [...]

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 [...]

Voting is a fundamental component of any democratic society, as it allows individuals to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. It is a right that has been fought for and protected by countless individuals [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

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

• Share full article

Opinion Guest Essay

Hillary Clinton: How Kamala Harris Can Win and Make History

Credit... Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Supported by

By Hillary Rodham Clinton

Mrs. Clinton was the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

• July 23, 2024

History has its eye on us. President Biden’s decision to end his campaign was as pure an act of patriotism as I have seen in my lifetime. It should also be a call to action to the rest of us to continue his fight for the soul of our nation. The next 15 weeks will be like nothing this country has ever experienced politically, but have no doubt: This is a race Democrats can and must win.

Mr. Biden has done a hard and rare thing. Serving as president was a lifelong dream. And when he finally got there, he was exceptionally good at it. To give that up, to accept that finishing the job meant passing the baton, took real moral clarity. The country mattered more. As one who shared that dream and has had to make peace with letting it go, I know this wasn’t easy. But it was the right thing to do.

Elections are about the future. That’s why I am excited about Vice President Kamala Harris. She represents a fresh start for American politics. She can offer a hopeful, unifying vision. She is talented, experienced and ready to be president. And I know she can defeat Donald Trump.

There is now an even sharper, clearer choice in this election. On one side is a convicted criminal who cares only about himself and is trying to turn back the clock on our rights and our country. On the other is a savvy former prosecutor and successful vice president who embodies our faith that America’s best days are still ahead. It’s old grievances versus new solutions.

Ms. Harris’s record and character will be distorted and disparaged by a flood of disinformation and the kind of ugly prejudice we’re already hearing from MAGA mouthpieces. She and the campaign will have to cut through the noise, and all of us as voters must be thoughtful about what we read, believe and share.

I know a thing or two about how hard it can be for strong women candidates to fight through the sexism and double standards of American politics. I’ve been called a witch, a “nasty woman” and much worse. I was even burned in effigy. As a candidate, I sometimes shied away from talking about making history. I wasn’t sure voters were ready for that. And I wasn’t running to break a barrier; I was running because I thought I was the most qualified to do the job. While it still pains me that I couldn’t break that highest, hardest glass ceiling, I’m proud that my two presidential campaigns made it seem normal to have a woman at the top of the ticket.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement