All votes matter

Voting is one of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic society, representing the primary means by which citizens influence the policies and leaders that shape their country. In the United States, the right to vote is enshrined as a cornerstone of freedom and self-governance, having been fought for, expanded, and defended over centuries. However, despite the historical significance and the power that voting holds, many Americans today perceive that their votes do not truly count. This essay will explore the importance of voting, the reasons behind voter disillusionment, and how this perception impacts democracy in the U.S.

Voting is often referred to as a civic duty, a fundamental responsibility of citizens to ensure that their government reflects their interests. The U.S. has a long history of fighting for suffrage, from the extension of voting rights to white men without property, to the passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. This right, once hard-fought and restricted, is now available to most adult citizens. Despite the availability and importance of voting, many Americans do not exercise this right, and a growing number believe that their vote has little to no impact on the political landscape.

One reason why voting is so crucial is that it ensures that leaders remain accountable to the people. In theory, elected officials know that their power and position depend on the consent of the governed. Elections are the primary mechanism for the public to express approval or disapproval of the policies and actions of their government. Furthermore, elections determine not just national leadership, such as the president or members of Congress, but also state and local officials who make critical decisions on issues like education, healthcare, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

Additionally, voting determines the direction of policy. Every vote contributes to shaping the collective will of the population on issues like taxation, healthcare, environmental regulation, social services, and civil rights. The importance of each vote is highlighted in close elections, where a relatively small number of votes can determine the outcome. The 2000 U.S. presidential election, for instance, was famously decided by just a few hundred votes in Florida. In such cases, every ballot cast is a powerful reminder of the difference an individual can make in the course of history.

In the 2000 presidential election, voter turnout was approximately 54.2% of eligible voters. This increased in the 2004 election, with about 60.1% of eligible voters participating, and again in the 2008 election, when 61.6% of eligible voters cast their ballots. However, by the 2012 election, turnout dipped slightly to 58.6%, reflecting a decrease in participation compared to the previous two elections. Voter turnout rose again in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, with approximately 61.4% and 66.8% of eligible voters participating, respectively. This means that about one-third of the eligible population consistently chooses not to vote in presidential elections, even in higher turnout years, like 2020, when roughly 33% of eligible voters did not participate. Despite the significant role voting plays in shaping the country’s future, a substantial portion of Americans remains disengaged from the electoral process.

One of the most significant sources of voter disillusionment in the U.S. is the Electoral College. In presidential elections, votes are not counted directly to determine the winner. Instead, each state is assigned a number of electoral votes based on its population, and most states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority in that state. This system means that the votes of citizens in smaller states or so-called "swing states" can have more impact than those in larger states or those that consistently vote for one party. For instance, a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas may feel that their vote is meaningless in these solidly "blue" or "red" states. Conversely, swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hold more power because election outcomes can be highly competitive there. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes, Wisconsin by 22,748, and Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, giving him a total of 80,000 votes that secured 46 Electoral College votes, winning him the Presidency, despite losing the popular vote by 3 million.

The 80,000 votes that helped Donald Trump win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the 2016 election effectively carried 37.5 times more weight than the 3 million popular votes he lost by. This illustrates how swing state votes can have a disproportionately large impact due to the Electoral College system.

Swing states like Ohio have long been considered a bellwether, consistently voting for the eventual winner in most elections throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. Lorain County holds significant importance for politicians in Ohio, and by extension, in presidential elections. Located in northern Ohio near Cleveland, Lorain County has a diverse population that includes urban, suburban, and rural voters, making it a microcosm of the broader state. Historically, Ohio has been a key swing state in presidential elections, and winning counties like Lorain is often essential for candidates looking to secure victory in the state. In 2004, Ohio played a pivotal role by delivering George W. Bush a narrow victory over John Kerry, thereby clinching his second term. In 2004, John Kerry won Lorain County with about 54% of the vote compared to George W. Bush's 46%. However, despite Kerry's success in Lorain County, he lost the state of Ohio overall by 118,601 votes, as Bush performed strongly in other parts of the state, particularly rural and suburban areas. While Lorain County contributed to Kerry's total vote in Ohio, it was not enough to overcome Bush's lead in the state. Bush's strong performance in counties like Butler, Warren, and Clermont, along with his success in rural Ohio, ultimately secured his victory.

Over the 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections, Lorain County's voting patterns reflected shifting political dynamics in Ohio. In 2008 and 2012, Lorain County remained reliably Democratic, voting for Barack Obama in both elections, with significant margins that helped Obama win Ohio. However, in 2016, Donald Trump managed to flip Lorain County, winning it by a narrow margin. This shift was part of a broader trend in Ohio, where Trump won the state decisively. In 2020, Lorain County returned to the Democratic column, voting for Joe Biden, although Trump's overall strong performance in Ohio kept the state in the Republican camp. Lorain County's back-and-forth voting pattern underscores its role as a bellwether within Ohio, reflecting the state's shifting political landscape in recent years.

Los Angeles, California, despite being one of the most populous cities in the United States, is not a critical focus for presidential campaigns due to the way the Electoral College works and the predictability of California's political alignment. With a population exceeding 3.8 million people and a deeply entrenched Democratic voting base, Los Angeles consistently delivers overwhelming support for Democratic candidates. This reliable trend means that the outcome in Los Angeles is rarely in doubt, and because California is solidly blue, the state’s 54 electoral votes are almost guaranteed for the Democratic nominee, regardless of the specific turnout in Los Angeles. Even if voter turnout in Los Angeles were to fluctuate, it would not alter the overall result in California, which is safely in the Democratic column. This makes votes in Los Angeles, while still significant for the national popular vote, less influential in determining the Electoral College outcome compared to votes in a competitive state like Ohio. A vote in Lorain County is much more likely to impact the election’s result than a vote in Los Angeles, simply because the Electoral College prioritizes winning states over the national popular vote. As a result, presidential candidates focus less on mobilizing voters in places like Los Angeles and direct more of their efforts toward battleground regions that can sway the election.

In Ohio, each electoral vote represents approximately 694,085 people. In California, each electoral vote represents around 732,189 people. This means that a vote in Ohio holds slightly more weight in the Electoral College compared to a vote in California, including those from Los Angeles. Ohio voters have a greater per-person influence on the outcome of the election because each electoral vote in Ohio represents fewer people than each electoral vote in California. This discrepancy highlights how voters in swing states like Ohio can have more electoral influence than those in heavily populated and reliably partisan states like California.

This becomes more glaring when considering less populated states. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes but a relatively small population of about 576,851 people, meaning that each electoral vote represents roughly 192,284 people. This gives Wyoming voters a disproportionate influence in the Electoral College compared to more populous states like California, where each electoral vote represents over 732,000 people. This imbalance is due to the fact that every state, no matter how small, gets at least 3 electoral votes (2 senators and 1 representative).

Historically, states with larger electoral vote representation, in terms of fewer people per electoral vote, tend to be red states—those that traditionally lean Republican. Many of these states are rural, less densely populated, and located in the Midwest, Mountain West, and South. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, despite having small populations, receive a minimum of three electoral votes each due to the Electoral College system, which guarantees two votes for Senate representation and at least one for their House representative.

This system disproportionately benefits smaller, typically red states, giving them more electoral representation per voter compared to larger, more populous states like California or New York, which tend to lean Democratic. As a result, voters in these less populous, often Republican-leaning states, have a greater influence on presidential elections relative to voters in more populous states with a higher ratio of people per electoral vote. This imbalance has played a significant role in shaping the outcomes of elections, especially in recent years.

The manipulation of electoral district boundaries, or gerrymandering, is another reason why many Americans feel disenfranchised. Gerrymandering often allows politicians to draw districts in a way that ensures one party’s dominance, regardless of how the population within those districts might vote. This can lead to situations where voters in certain areas feel that no matter what, their preferred candidate has no chance of winning due to the design of the district. This perception of predetermined outcomes erodes confidence in the electoral process.

For example, in Ohio, there is a district that lumps together Akron, Cleveland, and Toledo—three cities that are geographically far apart and have little in common. This district coincidentally disproportionately includes a large portion of Ohio’s Black population. Such practices dilute the voting power of certain communities and can ensure that their voices are minimized in the political process. This limits the representation Black communities could otherwise have across multiple districts, reducing their influence on local and state-level politics. When Black voters are packed into one district, it creates a scenario where their voting power is maximized in just one area, often leading to the election of one representative. However, this also means that surrounding districts, which might have had significant Black populations capable of influencing multiple races, are left without the same degree of political influence. On the other hand, when Black voters are cracked and spread across multiple districts, their numbers are diluted, making it harder for them to form a voting bloc that can elect candidates of their choice.

The consequence of this manipulation is that Black communities may feel their votes are wasted or that their ability to impact election outcomes is diminished. This, in turn, perpetuates a cycle of underrepresentation, which can lead to policies and legislation that do not address the needs of these communities. The practice of gerrymandering, particularly when it targets racial minorities, undermines the democratic principle of fair and equal representation, leaving Black voters disenfranchised and alienated from the political process.

In Los Angeles, gerrymandering has similarly affected communities by manipulating district boundaries in ways that limit the political influence of certain voter groups, particularly minority communities. One example is how Latino and Black communities have been historically either "packed" into certain districts or "cracked" across multiple districts to minimize their collective influence. For instance, districts in Los Angeles have sometimes been drawn to include parts of South Central, East Los Angeles, and other distant neighborhoods with large minority populations, creating a single district with high concentrations of minority voters. This packing consolidates their influence into one area, often ensuring they elect one representative but reducing their power in surrounding districts.

Conversely, cracking has also occurred, where communities are split across several districts, diluting their voting power. This tactic makes it harder for these communities to form a majority or have a meaningful say in electing candidates who reflect their interests. The result is that the political influence of marginalized groups, including Latinos and African Americans in Los Angeles, has been weakened, limiting their representation on both local and state levels.

These gerrymandering practices reduce political competition and contribute to a sense of disenfranchisement among voters, who feel that their ability to influence electoral outcomes is undermined. This manipulation of district boundaries exacerbates the challenges faced by minority communities seeking fair representation, further eroding confidence in the electoral process and perpetuating political inequality.

The influence of money on American elections has become a central issue contributing to voter apathy, especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010. This ruling fundamentally reshaped the political landscape by allowing corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns through Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs). As a result, large financial contributions from a small number of powerful entities have disproportionately influenced elections, leading many Americans to feel that their votes hold little sway compared to the enormous influence wielded by wealthy donors.

The impact of Citizens United has been dramatic. In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, total political spending exceeded $14 billion, nearly doubling the amount spent during the 2016 election, which was already a record at the time. Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, have become a major force in this landscape. In 2020, 10 Super PACs alone accounted for more than $640 million in political spending.

This outsized spending not only benefits individual candidates but also amplifies the voices of wealthy donors and corporations in shaping policy agendas. Major industries like energy, pharmaceuticals, and finance have funneled hundreds of millions into political campaigns, lobbying for legislation that favors their business interests. In contrast, the average American's ability to influence the political process through their vote or small donations pales in comparison to the resources available to large corporate donors.

The presence of such enormous financial influence in American elections can make many voters feel alienated from the political process. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 77% of Americans believe there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and groups can spend on political campaigns. Moreover, 65% of respondents said that new laws could be written to reduce the influence of money in politics, showing widespread frustration with the current system.

The perception that elections are "bought" by wealthy elites contributes to voter apathy, particularly among younger and lower-income voters, who feel their voices are drowned out by corporate interests. For instance, a 2020 survey by the Knight Foundation found that nearly half of non-voters in the U.S. believe their vote does not matter because "wealthy and corporate interests have too much power in elections." This belief, combined with feelings of disillusionment over policy outcomes that tend to favor the rich, drives many away from the ballot box altogether.

The rise of misinformation, especially through social media, has contributed to a growing distrust in American institutions, including the electoral process itself. False claims about voter fraud, the integrity of elections, and conspiracy theories about "stolen" votes have created a perception among some that the voting process is unreliable and rigged. This can lead to disengagement, as individuals who believe their vote will be tampered with or ignored may choose not to participate. Among non-voters, 40% specifically cited the influence of misinformation, feeling that the political system is corrupt or that wealthy and corporate interests hold too much power, with 20% of non-voters stated they lacked trust in election results, partly due to misinformation and false claims about voter fraud and the integrity of the voting system.

Misinformation about voter fraud, election integrity, and conspiracy theories surrounding "stolen" votes is often spread by Republican politicians and conservative media. These claims, particularly amplified through social media, have contributed to a growing distrust in American institutions, especially the electoral process. Republican politicians have increasingly used this strategy, as they recognize that higher voter turnout tends to favor Democratic candidates. This understanding has led to efforts to suppress voter participation, particularly among minority groups, younger voters, and lower-income individuals—demographics that tend to lean Democratic.

Historically, Republicans have benefited from lower voter turnout, as their core supporters—older, more affluent, and predominantly white voters—are more likely to turn out consistently, especially in midterm elections or off-year contests. By sowing distrust in the electoral process and spreading misinformation about widespread voter fraud, Republican politicians can discourage groups that are less likely to support them from voting. For example, following the 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump and many Republican leaders claimed, without evidence, that the election was stolen, despite multiple court rulings and investigations that confirmed its legitimacy.

These false claims were disseminated widely through social media, reinforcing the idea that the voting system is corrupt and rigged. Many of these narratives targeted areas with large populations of minority voters, further marginalizing communities that have historically faced voter suppression. By making some voters believe their vote might not count or that the system is inherently flawed, Republican politicians create conditions where voter turnout, especially among Democratic-leaning demographics, is suppressed.

This strategy is not new, but it has become more pronounced in recent years. Numerous studies have shown that expanding voter access—through mail-in voting, early voting, or voter registration drives—generally leads to higher turnout, which historically benefits Democrats. By contrast, Republicans often push for more restrictive voting laws, such as voter ID requirements, reducing early voting days, or challenging mail-in ballots, under the guise of preventing fraud. These policies disproportionately impact lower-income and minority voters, who are less likely to have access to identification or flexible work schedules that allow them to vote during restrictive times.

In this way, the spread of misinformation about the integrity of elections is a tool used to maintain voter suppression and limit participation. By fueling distrust in the electoral process, Republican politicians can deter people from voting, especially those who are more likely to vote against them, reinforcing their political advantage in low-turnout elections.

A significant percentage of non-voters feel disconnected from the two major political parties in the U.S. According to a 2020 Knight Foundation study on non-voters, 38% of non-voters cited a belief that neither political party represents their interests as a key reason for their disengagement. This sense of alienation is particularly pronounced among younger generations, many of whom feel that both the Democratic and Republican parties cater too heavily to corporate interests and fail to adequately address systemic issues like inequality, climate change, and social justice.

This disconnection from the two-party system often leads to political apathy and a lack of enthusiasm about participating in elections. Many non-voters believe that their concerns, such as social justice reforms or climate action, are not adequately addressed by either party, which contributes to their decision not to engage in the voting process. This phenomenon highlights a broader issue of representation in American politics, where large portions of the electorate feel left out of the political conversation.

When large portions of the population believe their votes do not matter, it creates a dangerous imbalance in democratic representation. One of the most troubling outcomes of this is when lower voter turnout or voter disenfranchisement allows a party to gain disproportionate influence, despite losing the popular vote. This has been evident in recent U.S. presidential elections where the Republican Party won the Electoral College and, consequently, the presidency, even though the Democratic candidate received millions more votes nationwide.

This disconnect between the popular vote and electoral outcomes undermines the core democratic principle of majority rule, where the government is supposed to reflect the will of the majority of citizens. When one party consistently gains power without representing the majority, it can lead to policies and legislation that do not reflect the needs or desires of the broader population. For instance, public opinion might strongly favor progressive policies on healthcare, education, or climate change, but if a minority-backed government holds power, these priorities may be ignored or reversed in favor of policies that cater to a smaller, more elite group of voters.

This type of political imbalance also fosters resentment and disengagement. Voters who consistently see their preferences ignored may lose faith in the electoral process, believing that their votes cannot change the system. This is particularly dangerous because it erodes the foundational trust in democratic institutions. As trust declines, the risk of political extremism and civil unrest grows, as people feel increasingly excluded from the decisions that govern their lives.

Moreover, when one party is able to govern without majority support, it can undermine accountability. Politicians in power may feel less pressure to respond to the concerns of the wider electorate because they know that structural advantages—such as gerrymandering or the Electoral College—will keep them in office even if they lose popular support. This can lead to policies that further entrench inequality and division, deepening the sense of alienation for large portions of the population.

In the long term, allowing a minority-backed government to hold disproportionate power weakens the entire democratic system. The perception that the system is unfair or rigged can fuel calls for radical reforms, which may include undemocratic solutions. When one party governs without broad support, it undermines the legitimacy of the government itself, threatening the stability and cohesion of the political system. Without reforms to ensure that electoral outcomes more accurately reflect the will of the people, democracy risks being hollowed out, leaving behind only the appearance of representation while power remains concentrated in the hands of a few.

The perception that votes do not matter also undermines trust in the political system. Democracy depends on the belief that citizens have a say in how they are governed. When this belief erodes, it opens the door to political extremism, populism, and authoritarianism, as people may seek alternative, sometimes undemocratic, ways to make their voices heard. This can be dangerous, as it destabilizes the political order and creates fertile ground for leaders who promise to bypass democratic processes in favor of their own power.

Ultimately, all votes matter. While some votes may carry more weight than others due to the Electoral College system or district boundaries, every vote is crucial to the functioning of democracy. When large portions of the population believe their votes do not matter, it has a profound impact on representation and governance. Every vote—no matter where it is cast—helps safeguard democracy by ensuring that the government truly represents the people.