Inquiry into the Educational Implications of Voting Practices of Young Adults in U.S. Mid-Term Elections*,**

Abstract

Keywords

Social studies Democratic education Voting Surveys Interviews Young adults Social media Citizenship education

1 Introduction

The founding documents of the U.S., such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, include aspirational principles like “All men are created equal” and “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (USA, 1776). Over time, political theorists have differed in their estimations of the level and quality of the democratic system in the U.S. They have disagreed on the extent to which the U.S. has lived up to its founding ideals, including whether the U.S. could be accurately described (now or at any time in the past) as a “democracy,” or whether the system has ever relied on the “consent of the governed” (Dahl, 2008; DuBois, 1987; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020; de Toqueville, 2004).

Since the Declaration was issued and the Constitution ratified, political leaders in the U.S. have quoted and drawn from the aspirational words of these documents. Major changes have been made into law and to the Constitution itself, arguably to become more aligned with its ideals. In retrospect, it is hard to imagine that the founders believed that the votes of only white men with property constituted the “consent of the governed.” It seems outrageous and hypocritical now. Yet, the ideals inscribed were important. Drawing on these ideals, substantial political pressure was brought to bear over time via advocacy, education, popular movements, political campaigns, elections, a civil war, judicial rulings, and other forms of pressure, influence, and law-making, to expand the franchise and the rights of citizens (Foner, 1998; Keyssar, 2009). Many of the changes have led to greater inclusion of who constitutes the electorate, and greater legal rights for those included. However, one could also argue that some changes have led to less influence and political power for those without enormous capital to spend on the political process (Harvey, 2005; Dahl, 2008). At each step of expanding the electorate, powerful groups have opposed the expansion. For example, abolitionists faced stiff opposition to ending slavery and expanding citizenship rights to freed slaves; Suffragettes faced intense counter-pressure in expanding the franchise to women; and after the Constitution was amended each time, new ways were developed to disenfranchise voters, including poll taxes, literacy tests, ID requirements, misinformation campaigns, outright terrorism, and other methods of preventing accurate and representative election results (Hasen, 2012; Keyssar, 2009; Porter, 2008).

Voting and elections are not the only markers of democracy and of reaching the ideal of “consent of the governed” (Westheimer, 2015). However, they constitute a crucial opportunity for ordinary people to be heard and for their views to be represented in government (McElwee, 2014). Many aspects of the voting process must be assessed in order to determine whether elections are fair and representative of the people. The aspects that receive the most amount of attention, for good reason, are logistical issues: the dates and time frames in which citizens can register and vote, the formats in which people can vote, the number of voting booths and poll workers available in various occasions, the ID requirements of citizens before they can cast a ballot, etc. (Conyers, 2005; Hasen, 2012; Keyssar, 2009). And studies suggest that political groups and campaigns have frequently made decisions that discouraged, rather than encouraged, particular groups of people to vote (Keyssar, 2009; O'Connor & Weatherall, 2020; Porter, 2008).

Aspects that affect voter turnout but that receive less attention, perhaps because they are more difficult to understand and to evaluate, are issues of voter disposition, educational preparation, motivation, and the confidence required to cast a ballot (Knoester & Parkison, 2015, Knoester & Kretz, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 1996, 2018). People are less likely to vote if they do not know how, where, or when to do so, and if they do not feel that they understand the issues or know the candidates under consideration (Knoester & Parkison, 2015, Knoester & Kretz, 2017; Knoester & Gichiru, 2014). Other aspects affecting voter turnout include the clarity and availability of voting directions; the clarity with which political candidates have framed the issues and communicated with would-be voters; the availability of news media and other sources of information about issues under consideration; the background education received by would-be voters about their role in the voting process and understanding the organization of the government and its various offices; past experiences with voting; confidence in the systems of voting and government; and other aspects of the knowledge, identities and dispositions of would-be voters. In any given presidential year election, approximately 60% of those eligible to vote submit a ballot, and during mid-term elections, the number is approximately half of that (CIRCLE, 2018; DeSilver, 2017; File, 2017). What does it mean that so few people exercise their right to vote in the U.S.? What does it take for a person to decide to cast a ballot, assuming logistical issues are not the primary obstacles?

1.1 Literature review

Substantial research has been conducted on democratic citizenship education in K-12 schools (Apple, 2006, 2013, 2014, 2018; Gutmann, 1999; Halvorsen, 2012; Hess, 2002, 2009; Hess & McAvoy, 2014; Journell, 2017; Levinson, 2014; Knoester, 2012a,b; Meier & Knoester, 2017; Meier, Knoester, & D'Andrea, 2015; Noddings, 2012; Parker, 2003; Westheimer, 2015; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) and on democratic citizenship education in undergraduate colleges and universities (Colby et al., 2007; Guarasci & Cornwell, 1997; Gichiru & Knoester, 2015). Other research has focused on student activism in and out of schools (Apple, 2009; Flanagan, 2013; Schultz, 2008; Swalwell, 2013); on political engagement among youth on social media (Carlisle & Patton, 2013; Ehrenberg, 2012; Gardner & Davis, 2013); and on varying approaches to political engagement of youth by race and class (Sander & Putnam, 2010; Levinson, 2014). Research has documented the history of suffrage in the U.S. (Keyssar, 2009; Porter, 2008); and aggressive attempts to suppress the votes of particular groups, including young adults (Bolhoffer, 1982; Conyers, 2005; Shen, 2012); the suppression of political speech and banning of books in schools (Apple, 2006; Doyle, 2014; Foerstel, 2002; Schrecker, 2001); and the increasing focus of formal education in the U.S. on neoliberal and instrumentalist outcomes, rather than education for democratic participation (Apple, 2006; Harvey, 2005; Knoester & Au, 2015; Knoester & Meshulam, 2020; Knoester & Parkison, 2015, 2017; Meier & Knoester, 2017; Lubienski, 2003). As scholars of education, we are concerned with the background knowledge and questions of confidence and identity development that accompany the determination of whether someone votes.

The current study contributes to the research literature by examining the political attitudes, experiences, and habits of young adults in the United States, with particular focus on their voting habits. Since young adults are just beyond K-12 schooling they are the voting segment arguably most affected by this experience and their political habits and attitudes should inform educational policy and practice. The concern under focus is that studies have found that young adults vote at low rates, especially during mid-term elections. Just 22% of citizens ages 18–29 voted in the 2014 mid-term elections and 31% in 2018 (Misra, 2019; United States Elections United States Election Project, 2018). Thus, educators and policy makers should consider evidence to inform the civic preparation of young adults in their K-12 and college years. This study set out to address the following research question: What can educators and scholars learn from young adults about their views of voting and citizenship and their motivation to vote during mid-term elections?

1.2 Research methods

We chose to focus our inquiry on young adults since they are just beyond K-12 education and their knowledge, habits, and dispositions might be considered a reflection of their K-12 education. We chose to focus on participation and reflection after a midterm election for several reasons. First, fewer citizens in general, and especially young adults, participate in midterm elections and we are interested in reasons for why people do or do not vote. Second, less money is spent on midterm election campaigns. It is generally harder to know about the candidates and issues under consideration, so educational preparation may be even more important in order to participate in midterm elections. Finally, in elections with fewer participants, each vote potentially counts more, in the sense that it requires fewer votes to affect the outcome, so understanding why citizens do or do not vote in midterm elections may be particularly important.

The authors surveyed 476 young adult college students in two states (Connecticut and Wisconsin). Survey questions can be found in Appendix A. All survey participants were invited for a follow up interview. Follow-up interviews (questions found in Appendix B) were conducted with 36 young adults who responded to our invitation in both states, who were asked if and why they voted, and asked to reflect on their childhood, adolescent, and adult familial, social, academic, and political experiences, including social studies education; their voting habits throughout their lives, including the most recent election; and their interpretations of factors that encouraged or discouraged their habits and dispositions toward citizenship.

We began by sending an email through the campus email lists to undergraduate students at one campus in Wisconsin and another in Connecticut shortly after the November 2018 election, inviting them to complete an online survey. The questions for the survey asked if participants voted or did not vote and about possible reasons why they did vote or did not vote. The last question in the survey invited participants to be interviewed for a small sum of $10.

Survey respondents were 55% women and 45% men. Out of 476 students who completed the survey, a total of 36 students agreed to be interviewed. Of those interviewed, 66% were women and 33% were men. Although we did not ask the race/ethnicity of survey respondents, the interview participants were 80% White, 8.3% Black, 8.3% Latinx, and 2.8% Asian American. We tabulated the survey results, which can be found in Appendix C. Twenty-one interview participants were in Wisconsin and interviewed by the first author, and 15 participants were in Connecticut and interviewed by the second author. Interviews with the participants lasted between 20 min and 60 min, depending on the degree of detail that participants offered in their responses. The interview questions were semi-structured and designed to allow participants to describe their particular pathways toward their understandings and habits relating to politics and civic engagement. Participants were asked to reflect on their childhood, adolescent, and adult familial, social, and academic experiences; their voting habits throughout their lives; and their interpretations of factors that encouraged or discouraged their habits and dispositions toward voting and citizenship. Further, Particular attention was paid in our interviews to the habits, attitudes, supports, and social milieus that participants described relating to politics and elections.

Full transcripts were made of each interview. These transcripts were uploaded into NVIVO12 software for qualitative research, where data were iteratively coded for patterns and categories, grounded in the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). We also utilized a spreadsheet to analyze broad patterns in our data and determined percentages of answers to short-answer questions and to create descriptive statistics (Mertens, 2019). One of the benefits of this method was that interviews allowed us to inquire into hard-to-quantify descriptions and characterizations of particular understandings and experiences. We also saw the retrospective nature of life history as a strength, allowing the research to focus on interpretations of meaningful events in the lives of participants, rather than focusing on snapshots, such as with the use of test scores, surveys, or brief observations.

2 Results

2.1 Surveys

Summaries of our survey and interview questions, along with a table of responses, can be found in Appendices A, B and C. In this section we summarize and offer descriptive statistics of the major findings (Mertens, 2019). We begin with the survey, which included 476 respondents, 417 of whom indicated they were eligible to vote. We asked a limited number of questions in the survey. We were first interested in the percentage of respondents who voted. But we also asked questions that we hypothesized would tell us something about the educational background of our respondents, as well as their perceptions about the social climate they experienced relative to voting and politics. Three hundred and eight, or 73.86% of those eligible, indicated that they voted in 2018. This percentage is significantly higher than the national rate for voter turnout, which was 36% among 18-29 year-olds and 41% for students enrolled in a college or university (Misra, 2019; Thomas et al., 2019). We speculate that the higher voting rates shown in our survey may reflect the engagement associated with choosing to complete a survey about voting and perhaps for recognizing the individuals (faculty members) sending the invitation to complete the survey. Four hundred sixty-four respondents, or 97%, indicated that voting “matters,” suggesting a low amount of cynicism about the political process. A total of 229 (48%) respondents indicated that they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics. We were curious about whether feeling this kind of pressure would result in lower voter turnout, since pressure to avoid talking about politics may lead to being less informed. However, 166 of those 229 (72.49%) of those indicated that they did vote, nearly matching the overall turnout rate.

We also asked whether respondents had ever been part of a formal debate. There is some research evidence that suggests that experience with debate may allow people to feel more comfortable discussing, and thus learning, about politics (Deards, 2014; Hess, 2009). A total of 200 (42%) participants indicated they had taken part in a formal debate. Of those who had both taken part in a formal debate and were eligible to vote, 130 (76.9%) indicated that they had voted, slightly higher than the overall turnout rate.

Finally, we asked survey respondents to indicate the greatest obstacle they faced to voting. According to those who did not vote in both CT and in WI, logistical issues were the most frequently cited obstacle, such as not having the time to vote, not being eligible to vote, and difficulty getting to the polling place. However, issues of lack of knowledge about the candidates and process were also frequently cited. In Wisconsin, the most common obstacle cited was “I didn't know who to vote for” (24.1%), and another common answer was “I did not know who or what was going to be on the ballot” (11%). These responses indicate to us that for many citizens, knowledge about the process and about the candidates were significant obstacles to voting.

2.2 Interviews

We turn now to the interviews that we conducted in both WI and in CT. In our interviews, we were able to ask follow-up questions of 36 survey respondents in order to draw out reasons for their responses, and to ask additional questions that may provide insight about why young adults do or do not vote.

Out of the 36 people interviewed, 26 voted in 2018 and 10 did not vote (one was not a citizen and could not vote). This percentage of voter turnout among our interview participants (71.4%) roughly matched our survey responses. As in the survey, we also asked interview participants whether they thought that voting “matters.” Thirty-five of the participants (97.2%) answered in the affirmative. For example, in answer to the question “do you think that voting matters?” One participant replied:

Absolutely. Ever since I was young, my mother, she raised me to believe that voting was so important and it was one of the first rights. People have died in this country for it; people have died for the right to vote. You know, women, men, all of them. So I believe that whoever has the right should be able to.

Even among participants who did not vote, the majority responded that voting “matters.” One interview participant responded, upon asking whether voting matters, replied:

I do, but I always get thrown off by it because people just make it seem like it's SO important that you HAVE to vote or you don't care, and that kind of throws me off from wanting to vote - that they force it upon you and there's a lot of people that are like, “If you're not voting, then you're not doing your part.” It's like, I know, I want to vote, I have my opinions on politics, but I haven't found a person I just want to follow, you know? Because they're all over the place.

Another interview participant who did not vote but answered that voting “matters” to her explained: “I don't know. I get the argument for every individual vote doesn't make that big of a difference, but all-in-all, it does matter.” Since she said that voting “matters,” I pressed her about why she didn't vote. She replied:

I didn't want to. I didn't know enough about the people, so I don't want to vote. I don't want to vote just based on party, and I don't want to vote uninformed, and I just didn't take that much time to learn about the candidates before it happened.

We found that this sentiment was a common response among interview participants who did not vote. Although logistical issues might also be cited, when pressed on other possible reasons, there seemed to be lack of confidence in their knowledge about for whom or for what to vote. As mentioned above, the high rate of participants replying that voting “matters,” suggests a low amount of cynicism among these participants about the voting process, even among those who did not vote.

We asked interview participants what they remembered about their U.S. History and/or Government classes in high school. We received a variety of responses which are difficult to summarize simply. All participants described particular teachers and their personalities. Many participants mentioned educational activities such as lectures, films, discussions, mock elections, and debates in both affectionate and not-so-affectionate terms. The majority of participants responded with positive adjectives, such as “they were interesting,” “I enjoyed that class,” and “I'm intrigued by the topic.” However, it is notable that the positive characterizations of these classes were made almost exclusively by participants who did vote in 2018. Of the 9 interview participants who did not vote but were eligible, only one attributed a positive characterization of their U.S. History or Government classes in high school. Characterizations of those who did not vote included: “I didn't really enjoy history at all as a high schooler; ” “I hated History; ” and “Sometimes it got a little boring, but the mock election was kind of fun.” These responses suggest that participants who voted tend to enjoy or appreciate topics associated with social studies. There were also participants who offered a mix of both negative and positive reflections on their high school social studies classes. For example, one participant, who did vote in 2018, explained:

I had the worst teacher my freshman year for a civics class. But I do remember that, yeah, we did take a citizenship test. Like, we did some of the practice questions on it. And I don't know if he necessarily knew what he was talking about, so he kind of blew through things. AP U.S. History was also awful - my high school did not have a good department for history - none of us did well on the exam, but also at that point, I didn't really care for history. My modern world history class was awesome; my teacher was really good. She made everything really interesting. We did more of the citizenship stuff in that class and talked a little bit more about civics, and I think that was really the first time that I became interested in those things in a classroom setting.

We asked interview participants questions about how they might have learned about politics other than coursework, such as through social interactions. Of the people who voted, 19 out of 26 or 73% said they wished people they knew would talk more about politics. For example, one participant said in response to the question: “Do you wish people you knew would talk more or less about politics?”

I hope … I wish people talked about it more, just because there are issues that affect us in our everyday life so I wish people talked about it more because it is so important and it actually affects our everyday lives. It affects the policies that … our abilities to do certain things. So, like, I wish people would talk about it more.

Another participant, in response to the same question, responded in this way:

I think … I wish they would talk more, but be more respectful about other peoples’ views and opinions, ‘cause every time I've seen a political debate between peers, it gets like — not aggressive, but they get passionate and they stop listening to each other, even if they're saying almost the same thing.

This respondent seemed to suggest that the reason more people did not talk about politics was due to the strong emotions that were elicited during these conversations.

Among the interview participants who did not vote, only 2 out of 9, or 22.2%, and who were eligible to vote, wished people they knew would talk more about politics. For example, a typical response among this group was the following, in response to the question: “Do you wish that the people that you knew, you know, would talk more or less about politics?” One participant responded: “Um, maybe less, I don't know, we don't usually talk about it, so … “

We also asked participants whether they enjoyed talking about politics. Only 4 participants gave a straight “no.” The majority (17) said that it “depends” or some variant, while 15 said they enjoyed talking about politics. These responses should not be too surprising, since these participants responded to our invitation to be interviewed about politics. For example, one participant explained:

I enjoy it more when people are open-minded on stuff. But a lot of times, when someone's got a very strong view to one side or the other, even though they kind of act like they're open about it, they just kind of try to explain stuff to me like I'm dumb, and it's just … yeah.

Discussing politics face-to-face is only one way that young adults might discuss and learn more about politics. Another way is via social media. We asked a variety of questions about participants’ habits and experiences with political content on social media. Of the people who voted, 18 out of 26 or 69.2% had ever posted something with political content on social media.

For example, in response to the question: “Do you tend to appreciate it and like it (and press the like button) when people post political content on Facebook?” One participant responded:

Yeah, especially if I agree with it, I'll like it. And if I don't agree with it, I'll angry react and leave some sort of comment (laughs). But yeah, sometimes if it's even like an article, I'll like it just to leave a mark that I've read it or to show my support in some way, shape, or form.

Another participant, when asked how often he posts political content on social media, answered in this way:

Oh … I'd say 3 or 4 times a week. A lot of the time it's just sharing articles, especially with all of the lame duck stuff going on right now, just kind of like updating … so it's a lot of times just sharing … I do try to provide factual stuff because I also hate seeing things that look like they should be factual and they aren't, so I always share something - I try to back it up with something reputable.

This response was among the few participants who seemed to post political content quite frequently on social media. Of the people who did not vote but were eligible 1 out of 9 or 11% had ever posted something on social media with political content (88.8% had never done so).

The following interaction was typical of those responding that they did not post political content on social media:

Interviewer: Do you appreciate or do you press the “like” button when people, when you see something that is sort of political?

Interviewee: No, I usually just keep scrolling.

Interviewer: Have you ever pressed the “like” button on anything political?

Interviewee: Probably not.

Interviewer: Do you typically press the “like” on anything when you're on Facebook?

Interviewee: Only if it's like a picture … I only really use Facebook to like look at what my mom posts about my brother and stuff so.

This response was common among those who did not vote and also did not wish to post political content on social media.

As Appendix C indicates, we also quizzed interview participants on their knowledge of a limited number of political questions. For example, we asked participants how many U.S. presidents they could name, how many governors of their home state they could name, and whether they could name the current Vice President of the U.S. Although these questions are not necessarily the most important political issues of the day, it is interesting to note that participants who did vote in 2018, on average, could name more presidents, governors, and the current Vice President.

3 Discussion

These findings are interesting for multiple reasons. They seem to corroborate previous findings that there are many reasons young adults choose to vote or not to vote (The Knight Foundation, 2015; Thomson-DeVeaux et al., 2020). Aside from logistical obstacles, our findings suggest that the lack of information regarding for what or for whom to vote is also a key obstacle to voting (Knoester & Kretz, 2017; The Knight Foundation, 2015). The large majority of young adults who were surveyed and interviewed for this study reported that they believed that voting matters, whether they voted or did not vote in 2018. And those who voted in 2018 seemed more interested, knowledgeable, and confident in speaking or posting information on social media about politics, corroborating previous research (Knoester & Kretz, 2017; The Knight Foundation, 2015).

We argue that educators, in addition to media and governmental institutions, and other cultural forces, have a role to play in the educational preparation of future voters and we recommend actions that can be taken to better prepare young adults for electoral participation. Following their research on motivation, Ryan and Deci (1996, 2018) theorize that knowledge and a sense of self-efficacy are important factors for motivation. Educators can better prepare young adults for participation in electoral politics, especially in relation to the roles of particular offices for which candidates stand for election, and just-in-time-knowledge about candidates, issues, and voting processes needed for young adults to have the confidence to vote.

It is also important to recognize that voting and elections do not take place in a vacuum. The form of democracy that was developed in the U.S. is based, in part, on the idea that candidates compete for votes to win elections. In the late 1700's and early 1800's only white men with property could vote. As a result of social movements, organization, political struggles, and a civil war, the 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, giving black men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, providing women the right to vote, and the 26th Amendment was passed in 1971, giving 18, 19, and 20 year-olds the right to vote. However, throughout U.S. history, and continuing to this day, powerful groups have actively discouraged perceived opponents, including entire demographic groups, from voting and taking part in elections, including through various roadblocks like poll taxes, literacy tests, ID laws, limited voting windows, the spread of false and misleading information, and at times voter intimidation and outright terrorism (Keyssar, 2009). We argue that low access to necessary information about voting, especially regarding local elections, also contributes to low voter turnout. Low information, and lack of broad commitment to public education about these issues, along with pressure on schools to avoid controversial issues, including the banning of books in some locations, can also be understood to be a form of voter suppression (Knoester & Kretz, 2017; Doyle, 2014; Foerstel, 2002; Hasen, 2012; Johnson & Weaver, 1992).

Background education of voters appears to be crucial in building the confidence for some people to vote. We know that there are logistical obstacles for many to vote, and that some groups have intentionally created more obstacles for some to vote (Keyssar, 2009). However, what is less understood are the educational and dispositional obstacles that prevent many from building the sense of self-efficacy required for motivation to accomplish something like voting (Ryan & Deci, 1996, 2018). Evidence suggests that citizens are also intentionally given misleading information by political leaders at the highest level and told to mistrust sources of information that were previously widely understood to be reliable and trustworthy (Kessler, Rizzo & Kelley, 2020). Reliable sources of information have traditionally included schools, colleges and universities, traditional newspapers, and governmental reports. However, evidence suggests these sources of information have been targeted by political groups and trust has eroded in recent years (Urofsky, 2020). Given this climate, educational preparation in schools and knowledge about the processes and about reliable sources of information become even more important.

Unfortunately, people are susceptible to falsehoods (Kahneman, 2011). People can be resistant to accepting facts even from reputable sources and, perhaps most importantly, to the implications of inconvenient facts which are perceived to interfere with their livelihoods. We live in an environment in which the very notion that facts can be verified is under constant attack. These circumstances cause us to question whether the notion of a democracy and of the concept of “consent of the governed” can retain meaning (Lepore, 2020).

Educators interested in preparing students to be engaged voting citizens within the current competitive political environment, rather than an imagined utopia where all voters are warmly welcomed into the political process, must consider the obstacles faced by would-be voters and prepare students to overcome them. However, schools are often environments where conflict and controversial issues are avoided, rather than addressed or even valued. Students must be shown how to access hard-to-find information relevant to voting at all levels of government, not only for high-profile offices, such as the Presidency. (Hess 2002, 2009; Hess & McAvoy, 2014) further recommends explicitly teaching students skills and knowledge necessary to discuss and debate controversial issues within schools. Learning these skills through practice has many benefits. They send the message that informed people can disagree and these disagreements do not have to ruin relationships. They can provide a sense of self-efficacy and confidence even as others may reason differently (Deards, 2014; Mutz, 2006). Learning and practicing how to participate in discussions and debates of controversial issues may lead to a willingness to further discuss controversial issues beyond schooling, and thus to reach deeper knowledge related to public issues. Practicing debates may also allow citizens to become more thoughtful and literate viewers of candidate debates seen on mass media. What sorts of arguments are acceptable and reasonable within a formal debate? Which candidate seems to have a more thoughtful response to the issue under consideration? Which candidate appears to rely on more reliable and authoritative information? Consideration of these questions may not happen or may not reflect critical discernment if discussion and debate of controversial topics are not taught and practiced in a school setting with a thoughtful teacher.

3.1 Limitations

This study is not conclusive as to how particular forms of educational preparation may affect the identities, dispositions, and behaviors of young adults in regards to voting. More research is needed in these areas. Limitations of this study include its small sample size, its specific and convenient pool of participants, and its limited geographical locations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The college students under focus here might be motivated to vote for reasons other than those of other college students or young adults who do not attend college. We realize this study presents a small and particular sample so the patterns and trends we see in the data are not generalizable to all young adults in the U.S. However, this study raises important questions and suggests key areas in need of additional research. We suggest that educational evaluation should include long-term effects of educational preparation. Educators should view voter participation and political engagement as a form of assessment of the educational outcomes of K-12 schools and colleges.

4 Conclusion

This study contributes important new data and analysis to the professional knowledge base relative to the impact of political engagement among young adult citizens. Despite multiple studies finding low voter turnout among young adults, contributing factors remain poorly understood. This inquiry utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods to produce detailed descriptions and analyses of the experiences, dispositions, educational background, and behaviors of young adult college students in relation to the midterm 2018 election.

As both the surveys and interviews suggest, a key obstacle to voting is the level of educational preparation of young adults. We argue that given the long history of voter suppression of various groups in the U.S., including suppression of college-age students, and the avoidance or reluctance of schools and teachers to regularly discuss controversial political issues (Hess, 2002, 2009; Hess and McAvoy, 2014), schools and social studies educators who care about improving the political engagement of graduates should endeavor to overcome these challenges. Research suggests that particular educational interventions may improve voter readiness, such as leading students in dialogue about controversial issues, training adolescents in formal debate, directing students to sources of information about local issues and structures of government, and becoming educated about the ways powerful groups have tried to disenfranchise the votes of young adults (Knoester & Kretz, 2017; Deards, 2014; Hess, 2009; Hess & McAvoy, 2014; Journell, 2017; Westheimer, 2015). Providing, or teaching students how to find, “just in time” information specific to an up-coming election from a reliable and non-partisan source may be particularly helpful. The current study suggests enhanced social studies education may at least partially interrupt the disconnectedness from democratic participation experienced by many young adults.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Center for the Study of Institutions and Innovation based at the University of Wisconsin-Stout for a generous grant to support this research. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Michael Burke and Ryan Hanrahan for help with transcriptions of interviews for this project.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Overview of Survey and Interview Results.

Wisconsin Survey	Number	Total	Pct.
Completed the survey		320
Respondents who indicated they voted in 2018	200	320	62.5
Respondents who indicated they were not eligible to vote in 2018	47	320	14.7
Respondents who indicated they voted in 2018 minus those who were ineligible	200	273	73.26
Respondents who indicated they thought voting “matters”	314	320	98
Respondents who indicated that voting does not matter	6	320	1.87
Respondents who indicated that voting does not matter and did not vote	5	6	83
Respondents who indicated they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics	140	320	43.75
Of those who indicated they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics and voted	100	140	71.4
Of those eligible to vote and indicated that they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics and did not vote	24	140	17.14
Respondents who indicated they had taken part in a formal debate	133	320	41.6
Of those who indicated that they had taken part in a formal debate and were eligible to vote, and voted in 2018	91	108	84.26
Greatest obstacle to voting, according to those who did not vote:
Limited time window when polling place was open	16	120	13.3
I didn't know who to vote for	29	120	24.1
I did not know who or what was going to be on the ballot	11	120	9
I did not like any of the candidates	5	120	4.16
The polling place was too far away	6	120	5
I did not have time to vote	24	120	20
I was not legally eligible to vote	11	120	9
I did not know how to vote	8	120	6.66
I did not feel like my opinion should matter	3	120	2.5
Connecticut Survey	Number	Total	Pct.
Completed the survey		156
Respondents who indicated they voted in 2018	108	156	69.2
Respondents who indicated they did not vote in 2018	48	156	30.76
Respondents who indicated they were not eligible to vote	14	156	8.97
Respondents who indicated they did vote out of total who were eligible to vote	108	142	76
Respondents who indicated that they did not vote but were eligible to vote	34	156	21.79
Respondents who indicated that voting “matters”	150	156	96.15
Respondents who indicated that voting does not matter	8	156	5.13
Respondents who indicated that voting does not matter and did not vote but were eligible to vote	2	34	5.9
Respondents who indicated they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics	89	156	57.05
Of those who indicated they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics and voted	66	156	42.3
Of those eligible to vote and indicated they felt peer or family pressure to avoid talking about politics and did not vote	18	142	12.68
Respondents who indicated that they had ever been part of a formal debate with rules	67	156	42.95
Respondents who indicated that they had ever been part of a formal debate with rules and who voted	45	67	67.16
Of those who indicated that they had taken part in a formal debate and were eligible to vote, and voted in 2018	39	61	63.9
Of those who indicated that they had taken part in a formal debate and were eligible to vote, and did not vote in 2018	22	61	36
Greatest obstacle to voting for those who did not vote:
I did not know how to vote	2	48	4.16
I did not like any of the candidates	5	48	10.41
I did not have any time to vote	11	48	22.91
The polling place was too far away	6	48	12.5
I did not know who or what was going to be on the ballot	7	48	14.58
Limited time window when polling place was open	7	48	14.58
I did not feel like my opinion should matter	0	48	0
I was not legally eligible to vote	11	48	22.91
Voting does not matter	1	48	2
Statistics from Interviews (CT and WI combined)	Number	Total	Pct.
Interviewees who reported they voted in 2018	26	36	72.2
Interviewees who reported they were not eligible to vote	1	36	2.7
Interviewees who reported that voting “matters”	35	36	97.2
Of the interviewees who indicated that they voted in 2018, those who indicated that they wished people they knew talked more about politics	19	26	73
Of the interviewees who did not vote but were eligible to vote, those who wished the people they knew would talk more about politics	2	9	22.2
Of the interviewees who voted, those who indicated they had ever posted something with political content on social media	18	26	69.2
Of the interviewees who did not vote but were eligible, those who had ever posted something with political content on social media	1	9	11
Of the interviewees who did vote, those who could successfully name the current vice president	22	26	84.6
Of the interviewees who did not vote, those who could successfully name the current vice president	4	9	44.4
Of the interviewees who did vote, the number of U.S. presidents they could name	14.04	44	31.9
Of the interviewees who did not vote but were eligible, the number of U.S. presidents they could name	11.3	44	25.68
Of the interviewees who did vote, the number of governors they could name of the state in which they were living	2.3
Of the interviewees who did not vote, the number of governors they could name of the state in which they were living	1.22
Of the interviewees who did vote, those who indicated that they had taken part in a formal debate with rules while in school	13	26	50
Of the interviewees who did not vote and were eligible, those who indicated they had taken part in a formal debate with rules while in school	5	9	55.5

References

Apple

M.W.

Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality

2nd ed. 2006

Routledge

New York, NY

Apple

M.W.

Global crises, social justice and education

2009

Routledge

New York, NY

Apple

M.W.

Can education change society?

2013

Routledge

New York, NY

Apple

M.W.

Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age

3rd ed. 2014

Routledge

New York, NY

Apple

M.W.

Ideology and curriculum

4th ed. 2018

Routledge

New York, NY

Bogdan

R.C.

Biklen

S.K.

Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods

5th ed. 2006

Pearson Education

New York, NY

Bolhoffer

J.A.

Disenfranchisement of the college student vote: When a resident is not a resident

Fordham Law Review 11 3 1982 489–525

Carlisle

J.E.

Patton

R.C.

Is social media changing how we understand political engagement? An analysis of Facebook and the 2008 presidential election

Political Research Quarterly 66 4 2013 883–895

Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement CIRCLE

Youth voting

Retrieved from: https://civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/ 2018

10.

Colby

Beaumont

Ehrlich

Corngold

Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement

2007

Jossey-Bass

Hoboken, NJ

11.

Conyers

What went wrong in Ohio: The Conyers report of the 2004 presidential election

2005

Academy Chicago Publishers

Chicago, IL

12.

Creswell

J.W.

Creswell

J.D.

Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches

2018

Sage Publications

Thousand Oaks, CA

13.

Dahl

On democracy

2008

Yale University Press

New Haven, CT

14.

Deards

Making the case for teaching students to debate

Education Week 34 1 2014 1 Retrieved from: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/12/01deards.h34.html

15.

DeSilver

U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout. Pew Research Center

Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ 2017

16.

Doyle

R.P.

Banned books: Challenging our freedom to read

2014

American Library Association

Chicago, IL

17.

DuBois

W.E.B.

Writings

1987

Library of America

New York, NY

18.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)

Democracy index 2019

Retrieved from https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index 2020

19.

Ehrenberg

Facebook prompts people to vote, those whose pals went to polls were more likely to go

Science News 182 8 2012 12

20.

File

Voting in America: A look at the 2016 presidential election

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html 2017

21.

Flanagan

C.A.

Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young

2013

Harvard University Press

Cambridge, MA

22.

Foerstel

H.N.

Banned in the USA: A reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries

2002

Greenwood Publishing Group

Westport, CT

23.

Foner

The story of American freedom

1998

W. W. Norton & Co

New York, NY

24.

Gardner

Davis

The app generation: How today's youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world

2013

Yale University Press

New Haven, CT

25.

Gichiru

W.P.

Knoester

Teaching international struggles for critical democratic education

Promoting global competence and social justice in teacher education: Successes and challenges within local and international contexts 2015

Lexington Books

Lanham, MD

243–278

26.

Guarasci

Cornwell

G.H.

Democratic education in an age of difference: Redefining citizenship in higher education

1997

Jossey-Bass

San Francisco, CA

27.

Gutmann

Democratic education

1999

Princeton University Press

Princeton, NJ

28.

Halvorsen

A history of elementary social studies: Romance and reality

2012

Peter Lang

New York, NY

29.

Harvey

A brief history of neoliberalism

2005

Oxford University Press

Oxford

30.

Hasen

R.L.

The fraudulent fraud squad: Understanding the battle over voter ID

2012

Yale University Press

New Haven, CT

31.

Hess

Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers

Theory & Research in Social Education 30 1 2002 10–41

32.

Hess

Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion

2009

Routledge

New York, NY

33.

Hess

D.E.

McAvoy

P.A.

The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education

2014

Routledge

New York, NY

34.

Johnson

S.D.

Weaver

R.L.

Groupthink and the classroom: Changing familiar patterns to encourage critical thought

Journal of Instructional Psychology 19 2 1992 99–106

35.

Journell

Teaching politics in secondary education: Engaging with contentious issues

2017

State University of New York Press

Albany, NY

36.

Kahneman

Thinking, fast and slow

2011

Farrar, Straus & Giroux

New York, NY

37.

Kessler

Rizzo

Kelly

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims. The Washington Post

Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/ 2020

38.

Keyssar

The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States

2nd ed. 2009

Basic Books

New York, NY

39.

Knoester

Democratic education in practice: Inside the Mission Hill School

2012

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

40.

Knoester

International struggles for critical democratic education

2012

Peter Lang

New York, NY

41.

Knoester

Standardized testing and school segregation: Like tinder for fire?

Race Ethnicity and Education 20 1 2015 1–14

10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474

42.

Knoester

Gichiru

W.P.

Education for democracy at the university level

Journal of International Social Studies 4 1 2014 115–118

43.

Knoester

Kretz

Why do young adults vote at low rates? Implications for education

Social Studies Research and Practice 12 2 2017 139–153

10.1108/SSRP-04-2017-0013

44.

Knoester

Meshulam

Beyond deficit assessment in bilingual primary schools

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 2020

10.1080/13670050/.2020.1742652

45.

Knoester

Parkison

Where is citizenship education in the age of Common Core State Standards?

Critical Education 20 1 2015 1–16

46.

Knoester

Parkison

Seeing like a state: How educational policy misreads what is important in schools

Educational Studies 53 3 2017 247–262

10.1080/00131946.2017.1297302

47.

Lepore

The last time democracy almost died: Learning from the upheaval of the nineteen-thirties. The New Yorker

Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/03/the-last-time-democracy-almost-died 2020

48.

Levinson

No citizen left behind

2014

Harvard University Press

Cambridge, MA

49.

Lubienski

Instrumentalist perspectives on the “public” in public education: Incentives and purposes

Educational Policy 17 4 2003 478–502

50.

McElwee

Why the voting gap matters

2014

Demos

Retrieved from http://www.demos.org/publication/why-voting-gap-matters

51.

Meier

Knoester

Beyond testing: Seven assessments of students and schools more effective than standardized tests

2017

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

52.

Meier

Knoester

D'Andrea

K.C.

Teaching in themes: An approach to schoolwide learning, creating community, and differentiating instruction

2015

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

53.

Mertens

D.M.

Research and evaluation in education and psychology

5th ed. 2019

Sage

Thousand Oaks, CA

54.

Misra

Voter turnout rates among all voting age and major racial and ethnic groups were higher than in 2014. United States Census Bureau

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-election-turnout.html 2019

55.

Mutz

D.C.

Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy

2006

Cambridge University Press

New York, NY

56.

Noddings

Education and democracy in the 21st century

2012

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

57.

O'Connor

Weatherall

J.O.

The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread

2020

Yale University Press

New Haven, CT

58.

Parker

W.C.

Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life

2003

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

59.

Porter

K.H.

A history of suffrage in the United States

2008

BiblioBazaar

New York, NY

60.

Ryan

R.M.

Deci

E.L.

Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation

1996

Penguin Books

New York, NY

61.

Ryan

R.M.

Deci

E.L.

Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness

2018

Guilford Press

New York, NY

62.

Sander

T.H.

Putnam

R.D.

Still bowling alone: The post 9/11 split

Journal of Democracy 21 1 2010 9–16

63.

Schrecker

E.W.

The age of McCarthyism: A brief history with documents

2nd ed. 2001

Bedford/St. Martin's

New York, NY

64.

Schultz

Spectacular things happen along the way

2008

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

65.

Shen

Florida sought to disenfranchise college students in 2012 election, lawmaker admits. Think Progress

2012 Washington, D. C. Retrieved from: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/18/1350331/florida-sought-to-disenfranchise-college-students-in-2012-election-lawmaker-admits/

66.

Swalwell

K.M.

Educating activist allies: Social justice pedagogy with the suburban and urban elite

2013

Routledge

New York, NY

67.

The Knight Foundation

Why millennials don't vote for mayor: Barriers and motivators for local voting

2015 Miami, FL. Retrieved from http://features/knightfoundation.org/local-vote/voter-dropoff.pdf

68.

Thomas

Gismondi

Gautam

Brinker

Democracy counts 2018: Increased student and institutional engagement

2019

Tufts University Institute for Democracy and Higher Education

Medford, MA

Retrieved from: https://idhe.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/DemocracyCounts2018.pdf

69.

Thomson-DeVeaux

Mithani

Bronner

Why many Americans don't vote

Vol. 538 2020 Retrieved from: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/non-voters-poll-2020-election/

70.

de Toqueville

Democracy in America

Goldhammer Trans

2004

Library of America

New York, NY

71.

United States Election Project

Voter turnout demographics

Retrieved from http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics 2018

72.

Urofsky

M.I.

The campaign finance cases: Buckley, McConnell, Citizens United, and McCutcheon

2020

University Press of Kansas

Lawrence, KS

73.

Westheimer

What kind of citizen? Educating our children for the common good

2015

Teachers College Press

New York, NY

74.

Westheimer

Kahne

What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy

American Educational Research Journal 41 2 2004 237–269