Horner said, «New York is really notorious in terms of having difficult obstacles for voters to surmount in order to vote,» and that the rules contribute to New York having one of the «
lowest voter participation rates in the country.»
Not exact matches
Then there's data from the US Census, which suggests that an election day holiday would not increase
participation for
lower - income
voters:
In other words, I'm interested in the elections where the main / only reason one can assume for the
low turnout is
voter apathy / bad set of choices to vote for / general -
low - election -
participation culture.
When a pollster asks their opinions about a race,
low -
participation voters might migrate to the candidate they've actually heard of, which would favor Clinton over Sanders.
In the mayor's version, he would appoint the panel and it would have a narrow mandate, limited to charter changes aimed at improving the city's campaign finance system — including
lowering the maximum levels of campaign contributions to candidates — and encouraging
voter participation in elections.
Also mention that compared to
voter participation rates of citizens in other democracies,
participation in U.S. elections is
low.
A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years.1 Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent2 and
voter participation has reached its
lowest point since 1996.3 Without an understanding of the structure of government; rights and responsibilities; and methods of public engagement, civic literacy and
voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy.
Moreover,
low rates of Millennial
voter participation and volunteerism indicate that schools have the opportunity to better prepare students to fulfill the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
At 34 %, the 2015 Bencher election saw the
lowest proportion of
voter participation the last two decades.