American democracy is in crisis. At a time of deepening polarization and social strife, many of our elected officials – most notably our chief executive – routinely disregard, and indeed actively undermine, the very norms and institutions that buttress our democratic system. At every turn, the foundational values of American democracy are under attack.
Fortunately, the threats facing our democracy are not unique and there is much to learn from other countries and from our own history – both about democratic backsliding and about strategies to reverse its course. Understanding the experiences of other democracies can help us grapple with challenges we are experiencing today, and plan for those that may lie ahead.
Rachel and David’s analysis challenges us to revisit many of the assumptions Democracy Fund has made in assessing our democracy’s vulnerabilities and deploying strategies to protect it. Our staff has grappled these insights in ways that have enriched our thinking and the approach to our work. Among others:
We are affirmed in our work focused on ensuring the independence of a robust, healthy media that can hold those in power to account. The watchdog function of the media cannot be underestimated.
We take to the warning against placing too much hope in the political parties and legislature to defend themselves against abuses of power by a strong executive. We must explore ways to find, pressure, and incentivize, alternative champions of democracy.
While the paper corroborates our fears on the risk of the American’s system reliance on informal norms, we were encouraged to read how federalism should be considered an important tool in combatting the worst overreaches of an embattled federal government.
Democracy Fund regularly publishes research relating to our established program areas, and we occasionally commission work that is intended to push our thinking in new directions. We, like others, have much to learn. We are all well-advised to engage deeply with new, big ideas that challenge our assumptions. The research is a platform for rigorous scholarship that can help us identify new strategies to build a healthier democracy.
As the nation gears up for what could be one of the most historic mid-term elections, it’s important to separate the misconceptions from realities when assessing the safety and security of our elections. A new cohort of nonprofits have emerged to focus on promoting election security and election access for the voting process. Election officials at the local and state level, as well as national officials, have worked incredibly hard since 2016 to identify and respond to foreign probing and cybersecurity breaches—and we believe that despite increased risks, our elections are safer than they have ever been.
The U.S. election system is not run by a single body or office—rather they are administered by approximately 10,000 local jurisdictions nationwide – which makes it difficult to coordinate an attack on the election process or rig the system. Even within the same state, different jurisdictions use different technologies to administer their ballots, making a successful attack even more difficult. There are problems that need ongoing attention; and it is certainly true that foreign interference is a real threat—but federal, state, and local authorities remain vigilant as they protect our democracy.
To secure an election, local election officials test machines in the lead up to the election to detect problems early and ensure things run smoothly on Election Day. In addition, all 50 states and 1,000 local election offices share information with U.S. Department of Homeland Security to prepare for potential cyber threats. Additionally, Congress has worked to provide state and local government with funds to aid them in securing this election.
To keep voting machines secure, they are held under lock and key with additional protections in place to ensure that nobody without proper credentials can access the devices undetected—typically with multiple layers of physical security such as fencing, key card access, locks, and seals, as well as observational video surveillance. Together, these serve as a check and balance to prevent tampering with the machines and to catch any errors in the count.
Similarly, it is very unlikely that anyone could ever change a vote tally. Ballots are cast at tens of thousands of polling places across the country. Changing an election result would require advance knowledge of likely results, numerous perpetrators working together to go completely undetected by communities, election officials, and law enforcement, including the FBI.
It’s also important to keep in mind that80% of Americans vote on paper, and almost all states require a post-election review to validate the results. If a discrepancy exists, reviews and recounts are ordered, and the paper records are used for the official record. Even if an individual machine were compromised, the official result would be based on the paper record. And most states are considering a move to a post election audit that’s based on the difference between the the candidates, sometimes known as a “risk-limiting audit.” Furthermore, local election officials are the best resource in any election cycle.You can learn about how they secure the election systems, machines, and other equipment on their social media accounts. If there are problems getting attention from your poll worker or the head of your polling place, there is an effective national hotline, 1866-Our-Vote
Finally, instances of people voting multiple times or voting if ineligible are an incredibly rare occurrence, and this does not occur at a scale that has ever been shown to impact or change an election result. The registration rolls and voters reporting their identity both serve as a check, and the massive criminal penalties for voter fraud operate as a major deterrent. The likelihood that a scheme of voter impersonation would change a particular race is incredibly small.
While Congress needs to do more work to solve this problem-and fund a solution, they’ve started the process. Earlier this year, they appropriated $380 million dollars to the states, to be used to promote greater security of elections. All of the states and territories requested this money, received it, and many states are now using the money to improve security and voting systems. Overall, our elections are as secure as they’ve ever been—certainly compared to 2016. There are diligent public servants on hand to address security concerns that do arise in the 2018 midterms so that each state can understand the challenges and feel equipped to prepare for the 2020 presidential election. While I am optimistic, the need to better secure our elections and provide voters has never been greater, and Congress must provide a regular stream of funding to the states to deal with the rising threats—as the states and localities cannot match the magnitude of threats alone.
To find your polling place, learn about the candidates, or find other information about your local election from nonpartisan organizations like the Voting Information Project and Vote411.org—and find out more about your state’s recount process here. You can also talk with family and friends about the election. And to learn more about our work, check out the website www.democracyfund.org, including new research on the public’s view of election administration and reform, found here, and state-level news about elections on www.electionline.org.
From rising discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities to the resurgence of fascist and white supremacist ideologies, both the EU and the United States are grappling with how to respond to the rise of hate¬¬ and fear-based politics. Magnified by foreign and special interest propaganda and misinformation, these dangerous and highly divisive movements could significantly challenge the health and future of democracy around the world. This month, I joined the German Marshall Fund Memorial fellowship program to learn more about how European democracies are responding to these threats, and to share how Democracy Fund is standing up to defend democracy here in the U.S.
After visiting with political, philanthropic, and community leaders in five countries, I was especially inspired by the work being done to foster conversation and connection between communities in both Athens, Greece and Sofia, Bulgaria. In Athens, the civil sector has created common spaces for communities to engage with each other through the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center, and local government initiatives are working to integrate migrant communities. In Bulgaria, the Sofia Platform is helping communities reconnect by developing a new model for civic education, including an updated syllabus and new tools and trainings for teachers.
At Democracy Fund, we believe that healthy democracy is rooted in the recognition of the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law. All people have intrinsic value and bigotry in any form undermines democracy. Grantees of our Just and Inclusive Society project are working to defend the rights and voices of targeted communities through communications and legal strategies. Democracy Fund has also funded new research on The Rise of the Alt-Right and is investing in projects that empower faith leaders to help bridge some of our nation’s most painful divides.
We also believe that constructive dialogue within and between political parties is essential to governing a complex society like ours. Americans must find ways to reestablish trust in our political leaders and institutions, and also with each other. In previous blog posts, we’ve shared how elevating constructive voices, celebrating civility, and ensuring Congress looks more like America are important keys to achieving this goal—but it’s not enough. As Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently explained, “How do you make inclusive, aspirational politics … strategically valuable? How do you make it so this is the winning thing, this is how you win elections?”
To dig into this question, Democracy Fund is partnering with universities, think tanks, and nonprofit organizations to convene leaders from across the political spectrum and in communities across the country to listen, learn, and connect with each other. Through in-depth conversations about American identity and political philosophy, these projects aim to develop new ideas, strategies, and actionable steps towards a more inclusive America.
In a series of bipartisan events, The Project on Political Reform at the University of Chicago is convening political scientists and practitioners to discuss the scope and nature of governmental and political dysfunction. Participants work together to help identify pragmatic solutions and common-sense strategies for improving political accountability, campaign laws and practices, structural incentives influencing candidate and office-holder behavior, and relationships between governing institutions. The American Project on the Future of Conservatism at Pepperdine University is a multi-year program that brings together conservative leaders and scholars to assess where the conservative movement stands today and to imagine its healthy future. Contributors at recent events have published essays and media pieces and a collaborative principles document entitled A Way Forward, which offers innovative insights on conservatism in an age of rising populism.
The Inclusive Republic Series, an Aspen Socrates Program, provides a forum for emerging leaders and civically engaged citizens from a wide range of backgrounds and sectors to discuss American identity through examination of some of our nation’s founding documents and with expert-moderated dialogue. The Prospects for Liberal Democracy Series at the CATO Institute aims to mitigate the growing threat of populism through discussions about the future of liberal democracy in the United States among a diverse group of activists, academics, and political leaders. By promoting civil discourse in communities across the country, these convenings are working to change the nature of our national dialogue.
To push back against the rise of hate and fear-based politics, we must find ways to rebuild trust and connection with our communities and with each other. By focusing on the ideals and values that unite us, rather than divide us, these grantees give us hope for the future. We’re grateful for their commitment to helping build a more inclusive America and a stronger democracy. I look forward to sharing what we’re learning as these and other projects continue.
Something remarkable starts today. Across the country 155 newsrooms are banding together for a year-end campaign to stand up for journalism that strengthens democracy. Today is the first day of NewsMatch, a national call to action to support trustworthy local news and critical investigative reporting. For the next two months a group of funders will double donations to nonprofit newsrooms across the country. At a moment when news deserts are spreading and journalism is under attack, nonprofit newsrooms are expanding and refuse to back down. They are united in their commitment to serve the public, Now more than ever, they need the public’s support.
From November 1 to December 31 individual donations of $1,000 or less will be matched, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000 per newsroom. At NewsMatch.org you can search for participating newsrooms that report on issues you care about or cover your community, and you can donate to them all in one place.
Now in its third year, NewsMatch is a unique partnership between local and national foundations and companies that aims to raise millions of dollars for quality news, build the long term capacity of the nonprofit news sector, and raise awareness of the important role of journalism in our democracy. Local and national funders interested in supporting public interest journalism can still get involved (reach out to me at jstearns@democracyfund.org to discuss how NewsMatch can meet your goals)
Originally created by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation in 2016, NewsMatch has more than doubled in dollars, donors, and participants in three years as it has become a platform for foundations and corporations to pool their funds and expand their impact. “NewsMatch is more than just a campaign. It is a movement that accelerates a new lane of journalism,” writes Karen Rundlet, a Journalism Director at Knight Foundation, “NewsMatch is stronger with multiple sources of financial support.”
New Funders Join NewsMatch to Support Quality News
In 2018 NewsMatch is growing significantly with new funders and newsrooms, representing the increased importance of nonprofit news to keeping our citizens informed, holding our leaders accountable, and covering the issues facing our communities and our nation.
One of the new funders joining NewsMatch in 2018 is the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. Jonathan Logan, a longtime supporter of investigative reporting in the United States, invests in journalism that creates positive change. “NewsMatch is a perfect fit for us,” Logan said, “we look for opportunities where our support will make a significant difference.” The Jonathan Logan Family Foundation’s gift will both support the national campaign and provide an extra match opportunity to specific local newsrooms. “We are able to support dozens of worthy newsrooms by being part of the main NewsMatch fund, and at the same time offer additional support and incentives to more than a dozen newsrooms in the Deep South and post-Hurricane Maria Puerto Rico, regions of particular importance to us,” Logan said.
Facebook has also significantly increased its support this year, after partnering with NewsMatch in 2017 to raise awareness about the campaign. In August the Facebook Journalism Project announced it was contributing $1 million to the NewsMatch fund. “We are thrilled to do our part to help support these publishers that are providing critical news for communities across the U.S. and helping fill gaps in public information,” said Jason White, Facebook’s director of news partnerships. “This is Facebook’s second year supporting NewsMatch, and over this time, we’ve seen an increase in the importance of nonprofit newsrooms to the local news ecosystem.” Facebook is the first corporation to join the campaign.
In parallel with NewsMatch, at least 20 other foundations and donors have set up local matching efforts with individual newsrooms during the last months of the year. These donors include the University of Texas at El Paso which is providing $65,000 in matching dollars to Borderzine, The Zellerbach Family Foundation and The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation which are supporting Fostering Media Connections, the Asta MacDonald Memorial Match supporting WDET Detroit Public Radio, South Dakota philanthropists Dan and Arlene Kirby who are providing $25,000 in matching dollars to South Dakota News Watch, a match from the PRI-PRX Board, a group of major donors in Michigan who will be matching donations to East Lansing Info, and Hugh and Jackie Bikle, the Calhoun & Christiano Family Fund, and the Randy and Rebecca Wolf Family Fund who together are supporting BenitoLink.com with a $25,000 match.
Foundations Expand Their Support with More Dollars for More Newsrooms
In addition to these new supporters a number of foundations returned to support NewsMatch for a second year, and expanded their support in 2018. The Gates Family Foundation, which supported one newsroom in 2017, is offering an additional $1,500 match to eight Colorado newsrooms in 2018 as part of the Colorado Media Project, which aims to strengthen and accelerate sustainable, civic-minded journalism in Colorado. Melissa Milios Davis, vice president for strategic communications at the Gates Family Foundation, sees NewsMatch as a way to encourage Colorado outlets “to come together to brainstorm ways to increase individual donations at each outlet, while also amplifying the vital role that community support plays in sustaining high-quality local news in Colorado.”
The Wyncote Foundation in Pennsylvania is also increasing the number of newsrooms it is supporting through NewsMatch. “Wyncote Foundation is pleased to support the NewsMatch initiative again this year,” David Haas, Wyncote Board Vice Chair said. “NewsMatch allows us to support a range of strategies that strengthen non-partisan, fact-based journalism covering local and regional issues of concern to citizens in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and that further civic dialogue and engagement within and across our communities.” Through these partnerships with NewsMatch, these place-based funders are making individual donations to local journalism go even further.
Solving Big Problems Together
All of these partners join Democracy Fund, the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation, Knight Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation who continue to support NewsMatch, which is housed at the Miami Foundation. Collaboration is core to the success of this effort. The campaign is driven by the Institute for Nonprofit News and the News Revenue Hub, both of whom support the 155 participants during NewsMatch and year round. By creating shared trainings, templates and resources, these two organizations have helped to create an unprecedented, coordinated approach to end-of-year fundraising across the nonprofit news sector.
“Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation’s grant to NewsMatch supports the growth of nonprofit news across the country as well as locally in Oklahoma,” said program officer Tyler Tokarczyk. “The collaboration between national and local funders, and the participation of national and local news organizations makes NewsMatch a truly unique giving opportunity we are proud to contribute to again in 2018.” By combining partnerships in the field with partnerships across funders, NewsMatch is able to tackle big challenges none of us could do alone.
NewsMatch launches today and will begin matching individual donations to participating newsrooms, but foundations, companies and donors who want to join the effort are still welcome to contribute. The fund is housed at the Miami Foundation which handles all the administration and logistics for partner funders, making it easy for foundations and donors of any size to join NewsMatch. As the nonprofit news field has grown there is an urgent need to expand NewsMatch even further to support the journalism our nation needs. NewsMatch helped make 2017 a record-breaking year for giving to nonprofit news — this year we have to go even bigger with your support.
Democracy in America suffers from a decades-long pattern of institutional decline. The candidacy and election of President Donald Trump is a symptom as well as an accelerant of this institutional degradation, catalyzing reactions from other institutions, parties, and voters. On the positive side, President Trump’s brazen disregard for the longstanding norms of American governance has drawn attention to long-running problems, creating new interest in what the United States might learn from the experience of other countries in similar situations.
What can we learn from other democracies that have faced executive degradation1 of preweakened democratic institutions, particularly countries with polarized populations? Based on the trajectories of other nations, what damage might we expect to see by the end of the Trump administration? Are there lessons for renewal that can be applied the day this administration exits the scene?
Few countries are directly comparable to the United States. As the world’s oldest continual democracy, the United States has far more established institutions than most other states. And yet the laws protecting the checks and balances of our government are older and thinner than those of most modern democracies, creating the impression of a strong state that has in practice relied more on norms than law to maintain its institutions. America’s implementation of federalism is deeper than in most other countries and is a significant buffer against executive overreach. On the other hand, its population is deeply — and often evenly — polarized by identity-driven divisions that do not lend themselves to compromise. For both sides, every political fight is an identity battle and each battle is potentially winnable. The temptation to engage in undemocratic behavior is significant.
In declining order of direct comparison, we looked at cases of democratic decline and subsequent renewal in Italy under Silvio Berlusconi, Colombia under President Álvaro Uribe, Louisiana during the Huey Long period, Argentina during the populist regimes of Carlos Menem and the Kirchners, South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye, Peru during the reign of Alberto Fujimori, and India under Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. We also looked at the similarities and differences between these states and countries that faced executive degradation and have not yet recovered, particularly Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela.
Democracy Fund’s healthy democracy framework identifies voting as the cornerstone of our democracy. The elections process ought to be free, fair, accessible and secure; give voters the information that they need to make informed choices; and must “provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy.”
We know that the public’s trust and confidence in elections provides the basis for a healthy election system and a healthy democracy. However, prior to heightened concerns around elections cybersecurity, we were surprised to find that there are not many people studying this dimension of public opinion. In the spirit of learning and dialogue, we decided to examine data collected from 2008-2016 via the Cooperative Congressional Election Study to better understand the public’s views on our elections process.
In collaboration with Paul Gronke of Reed College, I am excited to share our findings in a new Democracy Fund report, “Understanding the Voter Experience: The Public’s View of Election Administration and Reform.” This report offers insight into the individual-level decision to vote or not, the public’s’ knowledge and application of voter registration requirements, the over all voter experience, and the public’s trust and confidence in U.S. elections.
The Good News
In Understanding the Voter Experience, we find that the public generally perceives that elections are run with integrity, understands most of what is required of them in order to vote, and have a good experience when voting. When compared to other institutions of in trust, election administration ranks well.
Other encouraging findings include that many people realize that they are responsible for registering and updating their registration; most respondents provide good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers and their state and local election officials; and majorities of the folks we surveyed are confident that their own votes and votes across the country are counted as intended.
Areas for Improvement
Our report also shows that the public can benefit from ongoing educational efforts—especially in states that have recently implemented modernization reforms or that have recently changed identification requirements. Significant numbers of our respondents were confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements pre-election, and our data indicate that they learn about these requirements post-election.
We also found a significant number of people did not know whether online voter registration is available in their state. In fact, nearly 50 percent of the respondents did not know whether their respective states offered online voter registration, and over 17 percent answered incorrectly as to whether their state offered it.
Our report also examines the public’s heavily reliance on the internet for basic election information, which is important because we find that a lack of information may keep people from voting, especially down-ballot races. The data shows that approximately 30-40 percent of respondents consistently felt they did not have enough information to vote on key races like state attorney general, secretary of state, and state senator races.
We hope that “Understanding the Voter Experience” will help election officials, lawmakers, advocates, and others better understand attitudes of the American people toward one of their most-cherished rights, and will encourage more probing of public attitudes about our election system. As you read the report, we welcome your questions and feedback. Please do not hesitate to email me at nadona@democracyfund.org.
Today we are pleased to unveil a new and improved electionline — America’s only politics-free source for election administration news and information.
In January 2018, we announced that electionline had become a project of Democracy Fund’s Elections program. We felt then, as we do now, that it is a vital platform for finding trusted news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections, and for sharing tools, best practices, and innovative ideas for improving the voting experience. Our simple goals for redeveloping the site were to enhance its capabilities and expand content — but our long-term plans are to create a place where readers are exposed to new ideas, opportunities for continuing education, and relationship building.
To do this, we started by thinking long and hard about the site’s current audience and their needs. Starting today, election administrators, academics, voting advocates and other regular readers of electionline will find new items of interest on the site, including:
A calendar of national, state and other field-relevant events;
A directory of organizations and their areas of expertise;
Reports, trainings, tools, guides, and other materials;
A marketplace featuring job openings in the elections field and information on used election equipment for sale; and
Better search functionality throughout
Electionline remains the only place on the internet to find state-by-state curation of daily election administration news. In addition to publishing the classic electionline Weekly newsletter, we will also begin sharing original reports and exclusivecontent from leaders and experts in the field — making the site a must-read for local election officials, civic organizations, and journalists who cover elections.
While redeveloping the site, we learned two really insightful lessons that might be helpful for others who are developing virtual spaces for information sharing and engagement.
First, collaborate with your audiences and include some “outsider” perspective. As our team weighed important decisions about the look and feel of the website, we were grateful to receive insight and direction from many readers who already trust and rely on electionline.
Second, reflect your values. Redeveloping or creating a new platform is an opportunity to reinforce essential characteristics that inform readers who your organization is, and what they care about. For us it meant focusing on authenticity (even if it means publishing unflattering stories about ourselves or our partners); transparency about who we support with resources in the field; and cultivating greater interest for under-covered areas of importance like voting trends for overlooked communities.
Through this process, we hope we were able to successfully incorporate the feedback we heard from current readers. We also hope that the new electionline website more deeply resonates with all those who are interested in elections in America. We’re excited to hear your thoughts and reactions as you explore the new website. Please visit www.electionline.org and let us know what you think!
Washington, D.C. – Today, Democracy Fund, in collaboration with Reed College Professor Paul Gronke, released a new report on Understanding The Voter Experience: The Public’s View of Election Administration and Reform. It shows that while most Americans approve of the job their election officials are doing and trust the results of the election, confusion about voting processes and lack of information about candidates are the top reasons people decide not to vote. Recognizing the information gap between voters and local and state election officials, Democracy Fund is also proud to announce the relaunch of electionline.org—a crucial resource for trusted, politics-free news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections.
“Understanding the experiences that American voters face during an election cycle is key to improving the electoral system and increasing voter turnout,” said Natalie Adona, Senior Research and Learning Associate with Democracy Fund’s Elections Program. “Our data provides insights into the voter journey from beginning to end: individual level decisions to vote or not, general awareness and familiarity with voter registration requirements, and the public’s trust and confidence in U.S. elections.”
Highlights from Understanding the Voter Experience, include:
The public ranks election administration well in terms of trust when compared to other institutions—outranking Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Press. In 2016, 95 percent of people gave a good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers and nearly 60 percent gave high rankings to their local election officials.
87 percent of respondents were confident that their own ballot was counted as cast in 2016, but only 71 percent were confident in the national vote count.
In general, people understand they are responsible for their voter registration, but nearly half of the respondents were confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements.
30-40 percent of respondents consistently felt they did not have enough information to vote on key races like state attorney general, secretary of state, and state senator.
“Far too many respondents felt that they did not have enough information to vote,” said Adam Ambrogi, Director of Democracy Fund’s Elections Program. “Democracy only works if the American public understands how to vote, has enough information to make informed decisions, is confident in our election process, and trusts the results.”
As part of Democracy Fund’s commitment to fostering a modern, trusted, voter-centric election system, it is also unveiling the new and improved electionline, which continues to be the only place to find state-by-state curation of daily election administration news. In addition to publishing the classic electionline Weekly newsletter, the website will also share original reports and exclusive content from leaders and experts in the field—making the site a must-read for local election officials, civic organizations, and journalists who cover elections.
###
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND
Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $100 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.
ABOUT ELECTIONLINE
Electionline is America’s only nonpartisan, non-advocacy clearinghouse for news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections and a hub for sharing tools, best practices, and innovative ideas for improving the voting experience. A project of Democracy Fund, electionline aims to support voter-centric elections that are accessible, fair, and secure. To learn more, visit www.electionline.org or follow @electionline.
This report provides insights into the state of public opinion about election administration and reform. The findings are primarily drawn from the 2008–2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), a survey conducted each federal election year since 2006. i We hope that the findings contained in this report, and suggestions for future research, will help election officials, lawmakers, advocates, and others understand attitudes of the American people toward one of their most-cherished rights.
The takeaways in this report include:
Deciding to Vote
A significant number of nonvoters choose not to participate because they do not like the candidates, and some may be generally unenthusiastic about participating.
Lack of information may keep people from voting in certain contests, especially down-ballot races.
Navigating Voter Registration
Many people know that they are responsible for registering and updating registration. Most know where to register and that a move requires them to update their information. Most people are likely to rely on internet searches for registration information.
Many people could benefit from ongoing education about how the voter registration process works in their states, especially states that have recently implemented modernization reforms.
The majority of people support online voter registration but might not know whether it is available in their state. Some continue to prefer to use the paper registration form. The public does not currently express strong support or opposition to automatic voter registration.
The Voter Experience
There is not one most-preferred method of voting. Many like the convenience of early in-person and absentee or vote-by-mail voting. Absentee or vote-by-mail voters are more likely than early in-person voters to say that they distrust certain aspects of the voting process. Not surprisingly, voters provide compelling reasons to continue to vote in the way they have done before.
People express a higher tolerance for waiting in line when they are told that the wait is 15 minutes. Tolerance decreases as the anticipated wait time increases. i More about the CCES is offered in the Survey Methodology section of this report and on the project’s website at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu.
Significant numbers of people are confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements. Many appear to learn about these requirements during election cycles, suggesting the need for ongoing education.
Overwhelming majorities of people provide good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers. Most people like that poll workers are polite and knowledgeable and demonstrate other signs of excellent customer service.
Trust and Confidence Measures
Election administrators enjoy higher levels of public trust when compared to officials in other public institutions. State and local election officials should continue to enjoy high public approval if they are viewed as nonpartisan experts.
Levels of voter confidence are influenced by the voter’s polling place experience, partisanship, and support for the winner (sometimes referred to as the “winner’s effect”). Most are confident that their own votes and votes across the country are counted as intended, though there is a noticeable gap between individual and national level confidence. There was a dramatic up-tick in voter confidence levels among Republicans and Trump supporters in 2016.
Perceptions of voter fraud, electoral integrity, and electoral fairness are deeply intertwined and powerful indicators of a healthy democracy. Most people believe that our elections are run with integrity and that outcomes are fair, but perceptions about the prevalence of voter fraud raise concerns.
We hope that readers find this informative report as interesting as we do. Thank you for reading!
Let’s face it – it’s a tough time to be in the democracy business. America’s democratic institutions and norms are under pressure from hyperpolarization, disruptive technologies, and foreign interference, to name a few things. And we’re not alone: new and established democracies all over the world are facing what Varieties of Democracy has dubbed the “third wave of autocratization”. So when I tell people that I’m the director of evaluation and learning at an organization dedicated to strengthening American democracy, the response I often get is a slightly raised eyebrow and the question “so…how’s that going for you?”
It’s a question intended to prompt a pithy response, I suppose, but I’m increasingly inclined to answer it honestly, and thoroughly. Because the truth is that while assessing impact in any kind of complex social system is hard, it’s particularly difficult when the problems you’re trying to solve are the really big ones and the headwinds you’re facing are especially strong. In these situations, real, meaningful impact is unpredictable, nonlinear, and often something that can only fully understood retrospectively. It’s no wonder that despite robust evaluation and learning practices, many social change organizations still struggle to understand, in real time, whether the work they’re doing is making a difference.
But I’m increasingly convinced that our challenge is not just in measuring the impact that we’re having – it’s in how we think about what impact looks like in the first place. There’s a particular mental model that most people fall into when we talk about impact: we think about what the system will look like as our program progresses over time, compared to what it would look like over the same period without that program. And we default to the expectation that our programs will lead to greater positive increases in desired outcomes compared to the status quo. The rate of change may be incremental, exponential, or something else, but it’s always positive. Unfortunately, this contributes to a widespread assumption in social change work that a program can only be “impactful” if there are measurable increases in expected outcomes.
I’ve spoken a lot with my colleagues at Democracy Fund, as well as at other Omidyar Group organizations, about what impact looks like for the work that we do. I’ve recalled evaluations that I’ve led and reviewed other evaluation literature. And what I’ve realized is that impact can manifest in many different ways. Consider, for example, a conversation that I had recently with one of our program teams about an initiative that they had continued to pursue, despite a lack of measurable outcomes in the last year or so. “We never expected this program to fix the system,” they said. “But it’s a finger in the dam. If we don’t do this work, things will keep going downhill.” That’s a perfectly valid strategy, and stabilizing a system in decline can be, in and of itself, an important impact.
So, together with other evaluation and learning experts in other Omidyar Group organizations, I’ve been working on a way to communicate the different ways we think our work will achieve impact, whether that’s transforming a system, stabilizing a system, or something else. With their input, I’ve identified six different “models” of impact, each of which reflect a particular type of status quo, and potential trajectory of change.
Six Models of Impact
Transformative: This is “impact” the way its most commonly thought of. With transformative impact, we expect a positive change in the system over time compared to the static rate of the counterfactual. The rate of change may be gradual/incremental, exponential, or somewhere in between. For example, we might expect a Get Out the Vote initiative to be transformative, with a positive change on voter turnout over the course of the project.
Proactive: Some systems may already be moving in a positive direction, but an intervention can help accelerate that change. In this case, the ultimate change in outcomes is the same, but the accelerated pace and steeper rate of change is meaningful. We might facilitate these programs if the impact then allows us to pursue further opportunities that we are otherwise waiting to implement. For example, a public awareness campaign can help shift public attitudes toward a particular issue more quickly than they might otherwise have done.
Opportunistic:In the opportunistic model, the program lays the groundwork for change, but the outcomes will be entirely constrained by the context. There may be little perceivable difference in the treatment vs. control scenarios until there is a change in the context that creates an opportunity or removes an obstacle to change. If and when that happens, we expect to see a jump in the value of the outcome in the treatment scenarios compared to the counterfactual. The rate of change therefore looks like a “stair step,” with long periods of stasis interrupted by sudden increases. Public advocacy campaigns often follow an opportunistic model, where ongoing advocacy work lays the groundwork for a trigger event that creates a groundswell of public interest and an opportunity for reform.
Stabilizing: In some situations, we are working to prevent further decline within the system, to disrupt a “vicious cycle,” and/or to hold the system steady until the opportunity arises for positive change. In the stabilizing model, there is no measurable change to the outcome value throughout the course of the program. The program thus appears to have no impact unless you consider the counterfactual and/or the negative historical trendline. We sometimes refer to this as a “finger in the dam” strategy. In this case, the benefit of the program lies in its ability to halt further decline. A civil liberties protection program may follow a stabilizing model: while we may not expect to see substantive expansions of legal protections for marginalized populations, we may be able to maintain the protections that currently exist and ensure their continued enforcement.
Preventative: Perhaps the opposite of an opportunistic model, in this model the program lays the groundwork to strengthen the status quo and prevent certain events with the goal of having no change in the outcome. In this model, we recognize that there are vulnerabilities in the system that could lead a seemingly healthy system to accelerate suddenly in a negative direction. Crisis communications work, in which a crisis event could lead to sudden negative shift in public perceptions/behaviors, is an example. This model is similar to the “stabilizing” model, in which the impact is “no change,” but differs in that the catalyzing event that spurs the decline may never actually happen. “Proving” impact in the preventative model is particularly challenging, because the impact in this case is, essentially, that a worse-case scenario did not occur.
Palliative: One of the realities of working within a systems context is that, occasionally, systems fail with no recourse. The intervention, in these cases, may be focused on slowing the decline of the system in order to mitigate the effects of the eventual collapse, or to buy time for alternatives to emerge or evolve. The palliative model may appear to show a negative relationship between the intervention and the outcomes – that the program is actually doing harm – unless we consider the counterfactual or the historical trendline. An example of the palliative model might be providing direct financial support to a struggling organization or sector until a new, more sustainable business or service model emerges.
Applying Impact Models in an Evaluation and Learning Practice
Of course, in a systems context, it may be hard to actually prove, empirically, whether a system is following one of these models for a number of reasons. But “impact models” can still be an enormously helpful evaluation and learning tool. They can prompt us to analyze not just the current state of the system, but how that system has evolved over time, and thus calibrate our expectations for how the system might respond to an intervention in the future. They can help us communicate a theory of change more clearly, especially what we think the benefit of a program will actually be. They can help us develop strategies of multiple interventions that work together to strengthen a system. They can also help us make sense of performance data, and place outcome measurements in greater context. Finally, they can help us determine how and when to adapt our strategies, as we move from one model to another or add new models to the mix.
I’m sharing these six models not to propose that any and all programs must follow one of them, but rather to start a conversation about the different ways our work can support positive change in complex systems. If these models resonate for you, or if they don’t, or if you have other models you’ve seen in your work, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to tweet them to me @lizruedy.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
