Messaging Guide

Voting

Begin in agreement, for example: In a democracy, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom.
Use values, for example: Freedom, liberty, fundamental rights, basic rights, democracy.
Show how they benefit, for example: A modern voting system that is free, fair and accessible makes it quicker and simpler for you to vote.

In general, progressives seek to make voter registration simpler and more accurate and voting more convenient. Right wingers try to make it harder for eligible Americans to register and vote. Your argument is based on freedom, patriotism and the modernization of our outmoded voting systems. Their argument is based on the unfounded fear of voter fraud, often imagined as fraudulent voting by African Americans and immigrants.

Whether you are arguing for a progressive reform or against a right-wing restriction, begin with a statement of your values.

Say… In America, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom. And because we are the leading democracy in the world, our election system ought to be completely free, fair and accessible.

Put the conversation in context. When talking about voting, progressives have two great advantages that are too-rarely used by our side:

First, the most popular and powerful value in political debate is freedom. Use it in debating this issue. If voting is understood as a basic right like freedom of speech, then it must be protected. None of our freedoms should be limited without an overriding reason and, in this case, none exists. If you can win the frame that voting is a fundamental freedom, you’ll ultimately win the argument.

Second, Americans are proud of American democracy and an appeal to that feeling of patriotism helps to persuade them. For example, here’s a narrative that opposes voting restrictions generally:

Say… In America, the right to vote is a fundamental freedom. And because we are the leading democracy in the world, our election system must be free, fair and accessible for every qualified voter. As we protect election integrity, we cannot infringe on freedom. When the government puts up barriers, it creates long lines for everyone, increases taxpayer costs, and denies the vote to millions of senior citizens and military veterans. Let’s stick to efficient and effective ways to keep our elections honest.

How do we deal with lies about voter fraud?

In the real world, if someone tries to cast a ballot by impersonating an eligible voter or tries to manipulate voting numbers, that’s a crime punishable by years in prison. Because the penalty is so severe, this crime almost never happens.

The problem is, the right-wing media has convinced many Americans that voter fraud exists. The best messaging advice is—acknowledge the importance of protecting the integrity of our elections, argue that voting is the most basic right in a democracy, and try to push the debate toward the goal of making elections free, fair and accessible. For example, when arguing against voter ID legislation, appeal to freedom and patriotism, and then:

Say… Protecting the integrity of our elections is absolutely essential. In the process, we cannot infringe on freedom; we cannot deny voters an election that is free, fair and accessible. If we require Election Day precinct officials to scrutinize each and every voter’s identification and limit the types of qualified ID to just a few, it will create long lines for everyone, increase election costs by millions of dollars, and make it much harder for Americans who don’t have a driver’s license to vote—including senior citizens and military veterans. There are more effective ways to keep our elections honest without making it harder for us to exercise our fundamental freedom to vote.

The narrative makes three points:

1. Long lines—In considering any policy, people first want to know how it affects them personally. Voter ID will increase everyone’s waiting time at the polls, perhaps by a lot. Let voters understand they will be personally inconvenienced by this law.
2. Taxpayer costs—Right now, any unnecessary government spending is unpopular. A photo ID requirement means the government will have to pay to educate voters about the new rules, educate precinct officials, and perhaps pay for staff or machinery in order to speed up the delays it will cause. This may sound like a small point, but it played a big role in winning a Minnesota referendum on voter ID.
3. Making it harder to vote—This is the most important argument but, to be effective, limit your examples to the most sympathetic victims. Average Americans can be persuaded by focusing on seniors and veterans who are lifelong voters; often they no longer have valid driver’s licenses and they would have a hard time getting substitute ID. Swing voters are less likely to be persuaded by hearing about people in poverty who lack identification.

Do not underestimate the difficulty of the progressive argument. Be mindful of Americans’ beliefs and use the best-informed messaging to win them over.