Part I of a series of specials on the US Elections, written by the members of the Americas Focus Group
Harris, Trump, and the Gaza Gordian Knot
by Kristina Maguire Matoušková
For the first time in years, foreign policy is taking center stage in a U.S. presidential election, driven largely by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has sparked a political divide that could significantly affect the outcome of the 2024 race, with Vice President Kamala Harris’s strong support for Israel drawing criticism from young progressives and Arab-American voters.
Traditionally, U.S. elections are dominated by domestic concerns like the economy, healthcare, and immigration. But this year, the escalating violence in the Middle East has reshaped voter priorities. As the election approaches, the fallout from Harris's alignment with President Joe Biden’s Israel policy could pose a major challenge, especially in key battleground states.
In Michigan, a swing state with a sizable Arab American population, dissatisfaction with Harris’s stance on the Gaza conflict is growing. Many Arab voters feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, citing the administration’s military aid to Israel as a key factor in their discontent.
"The Biden administration’s continued support for Israel, including $20 billion in arms, has enabled the campaign against Gaza," says Nabil Awad, a Detroit-based community leader. "Many of us feel that our voices are not being heard."
Polling reflects this sentiment. Recent data shows that only 38% of Arab voters now identify as Democrats, a sharp decline from the 3:1 margin that favored the party during Barack Obama’s first term with 64% identifying as Democrats and only 23% as Republican. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are now tied among Arab voters, with 41% and 42% support, respectively.
The impact of this shift extends beyond Michigan. States like Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Minnesota also have growing Arab-American populations that could influence the election’s outcome. Disillusionment with both Harris and Trump has led some voters to consider sitting out the election altogether.
"If Arab American voters in these key states choose to abstain, it could be a significant blow to Harris," says political analyst Mark Levin from the University of Wisconsin. "These swing states are expected to be very close, and a drop in turnout from this group could make the difference."
This dissatisfaction isn’t limited to Arab-Americans. Among younger voters, especially on college campuses, support for Palestine has surged, with many expressing frustrations over the administration’s stance. Social media has amplified these voices, turning foreign policy into a central issue for a generation that typically prioritizes domestic concerns.
The discontent among young voters could be particularly damaging for Harris. What began as protests at universities against U.S. support for Israel has grown into a political movement. Many young voters now view the Israel-Palestine conflict as a core issue in the upcoming election.
"Harris’s support for Israel has made me rethink my vote," says Sarah Ahmed, a college student and activist. "I can't support someone who is complicit in what I see as war crimes."
These concerns are not just coming from voters. Progressive members of the Democratic Party, including figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, have openly criticized Biden’s policies toward Israel. The divide between the party’s centrist leadership and its progressive wing could weaken Harris’s appeal to the very voters she needs to win.
"The Democratic Party seems fractured over this issue," says Levi Johnston, a political science professor at NYU. "Progressive leaders have a lot of influence among young voters, and their criticism of Harris could cost her support."
Harris also faces another challenge: the potential rise of third-party candidates who oppose U.S. support for Israel. Figures like Green Party candidate Jill Stein, or even Cornel West, have voiced strong anti-war platforms and could siphon off disaffected voters from the Democratic base.
While third-party candidates rarely make a major impact on U.S. elections, there is historical precedent. In 2000, Ralph Nader drew enough votes away from Democrat Al Gore to help George W. Bush win a tight race. This year, the split could similarly harm Harris, particularly in battleground states where even a small number of defections could swing the result.
"This could be a 2000 situation all over again," warns political strategist Claire Richards. "If Harris loses enough progressive and Arab-American voters to a third-party candidate, it could cost her the presidency."
While Harris may struggle to retain the support of Arab-Americans and progressives, Jewish voters present another challenge. Traditionally, Jewish voters have been strong Democratic supporters, especially given the party’s historical backing of Israel. However, the community is not monolithic, and the conflict in Gaza is causing a split.
Some Jewish voters remain committed to U.S. support for Israel and view Harris favorably. However, a growing number of progressive Jewish groups, such as Jewish Voice for Peace, have been critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. These voters could be drawn to third-party candidates or simply choose to stay home on Election Day.
"The Jewish vote isn’t guaranteed for Harris," says Leah Steinberg, a political commentator. "There’s growing dissatisfaction among progressive Jews, and that could hurt her in key states."
Foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, has taken on unprecedented significance in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Kamala Harris’s challenge is clear: she must navigate a deeply divided electorate, balance the concerns of Arab-American voters and progressives, and address growing dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East—all while facing the threat of third-party candidates.
Whether this shift in focus will prove decisive remains to be seen. But as the election nears, the conflict in the Middle East has undoubtedly become one of the most polarizing issues shaping the race. However, the extent to which the election will be impacted by the conflict in the Middle East will be determined after the results and analyses are published. Nonetheless from the observations about voter attitudes both inside the US and US voters abroad, the conflict has gone to the forefront of voter’s issues. Therefore, we can most likely assume that it is going to play at least a small part in deciding the final results of these elections, and thus who the next president of the US is going to be for the next four years.
Women's Rights on the Ballot
by Marta Stella
Abortion has long been one of the most divisive political issues in the United States.
In recent years, this debate has intensified, especially following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v Jackson decision, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. This ruling has reshaped the political landscape in the U.S., particularly for the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with significant implications for the 2024 elections.
The U.S. is currently witnessing the effects of this landmark decision in a way that goes beyond just policy. Abortion is not merely a health issue or a question of women’s autonomy; it is now a litmus test for political candidates, a rallying cry for social movements, and a critical factor in electoral strategies. With key ballot initiatives on abortion up for a vote in multiple states during the 2024 elections, the issue is front and center, and both parties must navigate its volatile terrain carefully
For the GOP, abortion has historically been a rallying point for conservative voters, particularly evangelical Christians and pro-life advocates. However, the post-Dobbs era has exposed deep fractures within the party. While many Republican lawmakers and their base celebrated the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the political reality in 2024 is more complicated. In numerous swing states and districts, the GOP finds itself walking a tightrope, trying to balance the demands of a highly motivated pro-life base with the growing unease of moderate and suburban voters who lean pro-choice.
The Supreme Court's ruling essentially returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states, and the resulting patchwork of laws across the U.S. has created a highly charged environment. Some states, particularly in the South and Midwest, have swiftly enacted near-total abortion bans. Others, including some more conservative states, have faced pushback from voters through ballot measures aimed at safeguarding or expanding abortion rights. This dichotomy has forced the GOP to adopt a more nuanced approach than in previous election cycles.
For instance, in Ohio, where abortion is on the ballot in 2024, Republicans are under pressure to support restrictive laws without alienating crucial swing voters. The Ohio ballot measure aims to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, and early polling indicates strong support for the initiative. This presents a dilemma for the GOP: aligning too closely with hardline pro-life positions could alienate independent and moderate voters, particularly suburban women, who are critical in statewide elections. Ohio Republicans are now grappling with how to mobilize their base while avoiding alienating broader constituencies.
Similarly, in Arizona, where abortion is a pivotal issue, the GOP's stance on the matter could be a deciding factor in one of the nation's most closely watched Senate races. The state has become a battleground, and candidates on both sides must address the abortion issue in a way that resonates with their voters. Kari Lake, the GOP Senate candidate and a staunch pro-life advocate, faces a challenging path to victory as she must appeal to the conservative base without losing moderate and pro-choice voters in key urban areas like Phoenix and Tucson.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democratic Party has largely coalesced around the defense of abortion rights, using the Dobbs decision as a rallying point to galvanize their base. For Democrats, abortion is not just a policy issue but a matter of personal freedom, bodily autonomy, and human rights. In 2024, they have made abortion a centerpiece of their electoral strategy, particularly in key Senate races and state-level campaigns.
The 2022 midterm elections provided a glimpse of how Democrats could leverage abortion as a wedge issue to their advantage. In states like Michigan, Kentucky, and Kansas, voters overwhelmingly rejected attempts to restrict abortion rights, defying expectations in more conservative-leaning regions. These results emboldened Democratic candidates, who saw the electoral potential of framing abortion as a rights issue that transcends partisan boundaries.
In the current election cycle, Democrats are focusing on a similar strategy, particularly in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona, where abortion remains a contentious issue. However, the party faces its own set of challenges. While Democrats are largely united in their support for abortion rights, they must ensure that the issue does not overshadow other key concerns, such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration, which remain top priorities for many voters. Moreover, the party must also be mindful of regional differences in how voters perceive the issue, particularly in more conservative-leaning states where abortion may not resonate as strongly with the electorate.
In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic Senator Bob Casey, historically seen as a more moderate figure on abortion, is up for re-election. Casey's nuanced position on the issue reflects the balancing act that many Democrats in swing states must perform. While Casey has expressed support for maintaining access to abortion services, he has also been cautious not to alienate pro-life voters in the state. This careful positioning will be critical for Democrats as they seek to maintain their Senate majority.
One of the most significant developments in the post-Dobbs era is the rise of abortion-related ballot propositions. These referenda allow voters to directly decide the future of abortion rights in their states, bypassing the often gridlocked legislatures. In 2024, several states have placed abortion-related measures on the ballot, and the outcomes of these votes could have profound implications for both parties.
In South Dakota, for example, voters will decide on a measure that could either maintain or overturn the state's near-total ban on abortion. The state is deeply conservative, but polling suggests that many voters are uncomfortable with the extremity of the current law, which includes no exceptions for rape or incest. For Republicans in South Dakota, this presents a dilemma: while the party leadership remains staunchly pro-life, they must contend with a potential voter backlash if the ban is upheld.
Another closely watched state is Michigan, where voters are being asked to approve a measure that would codify abortion rights into the state constitution. Michigan is a key battleground state, and the abortion debate has galvanized both pro-choice and pro-life activists. The outcome of this ballot measure will likely have national implications, as it could signal the direction in which other swing states might move on the issue.
In addition to these states, other Republican-leaning states like Kentucky and Montana have placed abortion-related propositions on the ballot, reflecting the growing importance of direct democracy in the abortion debate. These measures will likely serve as bellwethers for the national conversation on abortion, providing insight into how voters in deeply conservative states are reacting to the post-Dobbs landscape.
As the 2024 elections approach, abortion remains a defining issue for both the GOP and the Democratic Party. The post-Dobbs landscape has created a political environment in which candidates can no longer afford to take vague or noncommittal positions on the matter. Abortion is now a central issue in state and national elections, with both parties using it to foment their bases and appeal to swing voters.
For the GOP, the challenge lies in balancing the demands of a pro-life base with the realities of electoral politics in swing states. For Democrats, the task is to maintain the momentum of pro-choice activism while addressing other key voter concerns. As states across the country prepare to vote on abortion-related ballot propositions, the outcome of these measures will not only shape the future of abortion rights but also signal the direction of American politics in the years to come.
In this highly charged political environment, abortion has moved from being a peripheral issue to the center of electoral strategy, shaping the way both parties approach the 2024 elections and beyond.
The Undemocratic Process
by Lavinia Catalano
Voter suppression is a long-standing issue that many argue is a key factor for the US’s flawed democracy. It consists of practices, laws, and tactics to discourage certain social groups from exercising their right to vote.
Dating back to the post-Civil War era, voter suppression is strongly entangled with the country’s complex history of racial segregation and the fight for civil rights. When the Reconstruction Amendments were enacted, Southern states quickly drafted laws to restrict formerly enslaved individuals’ voting rights. In the late 19th century, Jim Crow laws established poll taxes, literacy tests, and understanding clauses that resulted in the disenfranchisement of black voters.
In the Sixties, during the Civil Rights Movement, activists fought to dismantle this system of oppressive regulations. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act marked a historic step towards fairer voting rules, by banning literacy tests and establishing federal monitoring in states with a history of voter suppression. Despite these efforts, the issue remained present.
In 2013, SCOTUS’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder removed federal oversight, representing a step backward in the battle against discrimination. In states with a marked tendency to segregation, new laws were immediately enacted to impose additional ID requirements and limit access to polling places.
Georgia Election Integrity Act of 2021 is often cited as a recent example of voter suppression. According to Governor Brian Kemp, the modification of the state’s electoral administration procedures would expand voting access while enhancing ballot security. Critics pointed out that the measures are created to specifically target communities of color.
Other practices often aimed at disenfranchising certain groups of voters are purges of voter rolls, limitations to early voting, misinformation campaigns, and felon disenfranchisement.
Strict ID requirements block around 11% of eligible voters from exercising their rights, mainly affecting minorities, low-income citizens, seniors and students, and people with disabilities. The barrier is represented by the difficulty or cost of retrieving the necessary documentation to obtain documents such as government photo IDs.
Although photo IDs are used to rent a hotel room or to buy alcohol, they are not as common as one would expect: the percentage of citizens lacking a suitable ID is 15% among low-income voters, 16% among Latinos, 18% among over-65 citizens and 25% among Black Americans. Low-income and elderly voters may lack the means to obtain documentation, rural communities are geographically isolated, and Native Americans born at home or on reservations lack the mandated paperwork. This represents a deterrent from voting also for people who change their last names after marriage or divorce, therefore requiring a new ID. Even students who use their university-issued ID daily are often not an accepted form of identification in polls. Supporters claim that it prevents voter fraud, however many point out that it is a very burdensome measure to contrast a low-incidence problem.
As soon as the Supreme Court issued its verdict on Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, Texas introduced a strict voter ID law, that prevented 608,470 from voting, about 4.5% of registered voters in the state. As shown on the map, many states, especially in the South and Midwest, introduced this type of requirement.
Given the high fragmentation of the U.S. voting system, keeping track of eligible voters is a challenge. Election officials try to keep voter rolls updated by removing outdated information and ineligible registrants - this practice is called a "purge". However, a problem arises whenever eligible voters are purged, meaning they won't be able to cast a vote or receive their absentee ballot.
Since 2000, purge rolls have become increasingly frequent, with over 19 million voters removed between 2020 and 2022. This value is 21% higher than in 2014-16, which is a 33% increase compared to 2006-08. The constant rise in the percentage of purges results in a higher risk of inaccuracy.
In one case, activists sent a local polling station a list of people on the US Postal Service's mail forwarding list, claiming that they should be removed from the list of voters registered in the district. Election officials acknowledge that it is unreliable to assume that someone does not live anymore in the district only because they ask for mail forwarding, as this could be explained by various legitimate reasons, such as university or temporary assignments. Furthermore, the voters may be erroneously purged because of a request made by another family member. Although, in theory, asking for mail forwarding does not result in an immediate removal from the electoral roll, it can spark an investigation. If a citizen fails to comply with subsequent inquiries, sometimes by merely missing a piece of mail, they might get purged.
For instance, in October 2024, the League of Women Voters of Virginia together with a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit accusing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares of an ongoing illegitimate voter list ‘purge’. Allegedly, an executive order issued in August by the Governor violates federal law: the order requires daily updates to voter lists, while the law mandates a 90-day ‘quiet period’ before elections to prevent mistakes in removals. Moreover, it is claimed that using the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) data to assess voter citizenship often leads to the unfair exclusion of naturalized citizens. Data can be unreliable or outdated, considering that immigrant citizens can become naturalized only after having acquired a driver’s license, since the license can be obtained while being permanent residents, refugees, or asylum applicants. In response, state officials stated removals occur only after the individuals declare they are not citizens. The lawsuit includes anecdotal instances of improper removals, stating that legitimate voters are purged if they don’t respond within the two-week window provided, as happened to 49 voters in Fairfax County.
In North Carolina, over 700,000 individuals have been removed from voter lists since the start of 2023. Most were deemed ineligible due to being inactive, for example by not participating in the last two federal elections, or not updating their addresses after moving within the state. In the state, which is a key battleground for the upcoming presidential election, Republicans have been filing lawsuits to ask for more controls on ineligible voters. In a case dismissed by a local judge, they challenged the acceptance of the digital IDs issued by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as valid voter IDs.
The Devil's Art: A Decade of US Polls
by Edoardo Maggi
Polling for US elections has been a growing field of study to determine just about anything on voting trends, and to understand how different demographics, income groups, or age groups may feel about the candidates and the direction of the country. One thing is for sure though - these measurements are vital to get an outline of what issues are impacting election cycles, but there is an ever-present misconception that polls are “predictors” of elections. Polls are not meant to predict elections, mainly because they are not designed to even do that in the first place, with their built-in margins of error effectively able to change the result of an election. Without getting bogged down into statistics, for political polling, the margin of error is a range of +/- 5 percentage points (ppt) where the poll’s result can fluctuate. Based on the Central Limit Theorem, having a larger sample makes the standard error of the mean decrease, and thus the margin of error becomes smaller. Essentially, this holds for political polling too, but most of the time the margin of error is kept at 5%. Keeping the margin of error at this size allows for the samples to be feasible, while also being representative enough of the population, essentially a trade-off between reliability and cost-effectiveness.
It cannot be stressed enough that polls need to be as proportional to the population as possible. In statewide polling, pollsters need to take into account who they can poll, what is the most effective way to reach said voters, and in cases of the not-exact population sample, said groups need to be weighted differently to make the poll more accurately representative of the population. Also, the difference between the polling margin and the actual margin is known as the absolute error. One could argue that this is a polling error or a complete inaccuracy, but again - polls are not predictors, the polling average ultimately did get the result inside the margin of error. For example, in North Carolina in the 2020 election, polling website FiveThirtyEight's aggregate polling average on election day had Biden up by 1.8-ppt, with the actual result falling inside the margin of error as Trump would carry it by 1.3-ppt. In this scenario, the difference between the polling margin and the actual margin is the absolute error, equal to 3.1. It is also important to differentiate between polling averages and polls themselves, as polling averages are able to weight different polls based on reputation and reliability.
2016 proved to be one of the most “un-pollable” elections in recent history, especially taking a look at the critical Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Entering election day the FiveThirtyEight Forecast had Hillary Clinton winning Wisconsin with an 83.5% chance, a 78.9% chance in Michigan, and a 77% chance in Pennsylvania. Many political pundits were surprised by the actual results, especially the losses that the Democratic party faced amongst voters that typically made up their loyal electorate. The spotlight was immediately set on voters who felt neglected by Washington, DC, and the establishment, over job losses from automation, and in general the negative effects of globalization on manufacturing in the Rust Belt. Many of these voters were union members, a demographic that is typically categorized in large part as “Non-College Educated White voters”, which Donald Trump carried by an overwhelming 64%-28% margin, marking a significant shift from the 2012 election when Barack Obama carried the same group by a 51%-47% margin for the Democrats. The question remains, why was this change so profound, but was relatively left unmarked by pollsters throughout the country, isn’t it that polls are meant to keep track of trends and not be predictors as mentioned earlier? Non-college-educated white voters being concentrated in key swing states did make the polling error seem more shocking than it was, but when the electoral system puts such weight on battleground states, the criticism comes with plenty of backing.
Moving forward to 2020, Biden led by 8.4 points in Wisconsin, 7.9 in Michigan, and 4.7 in Pennsylvania on election day according to the FiveThirtyEight polling average. The gravest polling mistake was that Biden would win Michigan by 2.8-ppt and Wisconsin by just 0.63-ppt, with an absolute error of 5.2-ppt in Michigan and 7.7-ppt in Wisconsin, thus falling outside the margin of error. The key issue here remains the same: key demographics that were once loyal Democratic voters would not only vote for Trump once, but twice. Pollsters still debate whether the polls were accurate in 2020, with some even arguing that it’s impossible to determine it. Most critics of the polls argue that Trump’s support was underestimated overall and that senate elections tended to have even greater polling errors than the presidential races in the same state.
While there were clear mistakes in 2020, there were also positives, including the accuracy of polling in the Sun Belt states of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.
With President Biden in the Oval Office and Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, Democrats were already certain that 2022 was a year to play defense. Historically, the party of the incumbent president in midterm elections faces an energized opposition that wants to make sure their voice is heard in Congress.
Polling before the 2022 midterms suggested a Republican wave, between Biden’s dwindling approval rating, high inflation, and the occurrence of new wars. The typical concern that Democrats have now become accustomed to is that simply winning the popular vote is not enough to win the election. The Generic Ballot, the typical poll to measure whether respondents prefer a generic republic or generic democrat on election day, had Republicans up by 1.2 points - a worrying sign for democrats. Unlike past elections, polling was much more accurate, even though some criticism remained because it didn’t necessarily “predict” the winner in some instances.
The general interpretation of 2022 polling created the expectations of more drastic Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate than those that materialized. Taking into account both the advantage Republicans enjoyed in polling in several key races (such as in Arizona for Governor and in Pennsylvania for the US Senate), and previous polling errors, it seemed as though a “Red Wave” was on the horizon.
However, that was not the case, and pollsters came out of the 2022 election cycle with increased credibility, as the polling in key battleground states was mostly all inside the margin of error. Ironically enough, pollsters looked outside the US for inspiration in methodological improvements, such as weighing surveys based on whether respondents recall voting in previous elections. Doing this allows for pollsters to correct partisan imbalances where in recent years Democrats have tended to respond to polls at higher rates than Republicans. At least in large part because Democratic voters were more likely to respond to the phone at home during the COVID pandemic. Another part of the equation to create more accurate polling was not only changing who responds to polls but changing the weights of who is polled.
The polls in 2022 being more accurate returned some credibility to pollsters, but what does this mean for 2024?
On the day that Biden suspended his presidential campaign, he was lagging behind Donald Trump by 3.1 points in the RealClearPolitics (RCP) aggregate polling average. Now, RCP shows Trump trailing Kamala Harris by 1.6 points. At the end of the day, both the Trump-Biden and Trump-Harris matchups are in the margin of error, indicating that the race could go either way. What doesn’t need to be taken for granted, however, is the 4-ppt shift simply stemming from the change in the democratic ticket. A 4-point change can have profound electoral effects, especially considering that Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia were all decided by less than one.
The polls also indicated very little changes, where post-convention bumps for either party did not exist, and the assassination attempt of Trump during his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania also strikingly proved to be not much of a game-changer either. Will the polls take once again a route like 2020, with some arguing that the reason polls are off is because of the “Trump Effect” with respondents falling victim to social desirability, or will it remain consistent with the results in 2022?
Demographic changes with youth voters becoming a more prevalent voting group in upcoming election cycles are key to determining future trends. Current polling shows that the current generation of young voters seems to be more engaged in politics compared to prior generations. As much as that’s the case, polling also shows a growing ideological divide between young women and young men, specifically tied to a growing disillusionment amongst young men with society and their role in it, translating into dissatisfaction with the political mainstream.
Tackling the issue of how to poll young voters is important as well, as common data shows that young respondents are less likely to answer the phone or have misleading results when it comes to online opt-in polls. With an ever-changing electorate, it’s key that pollsters also remain on top of their game and adapt so that trends can continue to be covered and studied without inaccuracies.
America's Ballot-ground
by Giulio Cesare Graziani
Among the plethora of details determining who the winner between Harris and Trump will be, people often overlook the significant role the other choices tucked onto the state ballots may have in tipping the electoral balance. US voters will not only be called to vote on their next president, representatives, and senators (as well as local executives and legislatures for some) but also on several referred or initiative propositions, which can be then approved by majority rule or strike down state statutes and constitutional amendments. As American democracy navigates stormy waters and as polarization leads to ever-more tight candidate races, this election’s 159 statewide ballot measures may shed some light on who the new president might be.
Recent elections have witnessed a notable rise in turnout, largely driven by increased participation among historically low-turnout demographic groups, such as young, women, Black, and Hispanic voters. This phenomenon can be partly explained as a reaction to the radicalization the Republican Party has gone through under the aegis of Donald Trump, as these are mainly blue-leaning voting blocs. However, direct democracy may also have played the pivotal role of tying the act of voting to deeply salient issues, which have come to be perceived by both sides as urgent turns to be made in today's America.
All of this became quite evident after the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections, as both witnessed unusually high voter participation compared to the previous fifty years of non-presidential electoral history. On top of the already high anti-Trump mobilization prospects, in 2018 North Dakota Democrats leveraged the legalization of cannabis to attract young liberal voters, which have steadily been a low-propensity demographic group, while Republicans introduced an initiative aimed at banning non-citizen voting, playing to anti-immigrant sentiment. Even more relevant is the 2022 midterm case, when the world mistakenly expected an anti-incumbent red wave to overturn congressional balance, yet the Blue Wall held. Some of this Democratic overperformance lies in the appeal of the six highly contentious abortion referenda that, spurred by the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, managed to galvanize even blue-leaning disengaged voters and bring them to the ballot.
None of that is new though, as academic literature has already been analyzing and variously framing the electoral impact of ballot measures for decades now. Among the most recent and comprehensive empirical analyses on the topic, Tolbert et al. (2001) and Tolbert & Smith (2005) argue that voter turnout, controlling for state-level confounders, has been significantly increasing in the number of ballot propositions throughout the ‘90s and early 2000s. Years later, Biggers (2010) built onto it by pointing out that it is specifically controversial issues (usually social ones, such as “morality politics”, LGBT rights, cannabis regulation, and labor rights) that contribute to driving up turnout by adding information and mobilization potential to electoral campaigns, further empowered by higher intensity and spending.
This can work as the basis to structure successful electoral strategies, aiming to bridge various social and political cleavages and thereby selectively expand turnout in a way that could broaden a party’s or candidate’s supporting coalition of voters. This dynamic is particularly relevant whenever parties or candidates choose to make specific ballot measures a focal part of their campaigns, intentionally framing issues to shape public support and forcing the choice of turning to the polls upon disengaged voters out of a perceived emergency.
Even though this effect on turnout has been consistently observed to be way more salient in midterms rather than presidential elections, with the former having larger room for improvement due to their historically lower participation rates, certain well-calibrated ballot measures can still exert upward pressure on presidential outcomes. This is best exemplified by how, in the highly contested race of 2004, eleven same-sex marriage ban propositions on the ballot led the differential turnout rates among red and blue states to account for about a third of Bush’s margin of victory.
Having determined that any significant impact on turnout can only be attributed to issue salience, the key to further speculations lies in understanding which measures are contentious enough to play a relevant role.
Comments