Trust in elections shapes more than just voter turnout, study reveals
Media contact: Jennifer Dimas
(970) 988-4265
[email protected]
A recent Colorado State University study examining the interplay between trust in the electoral process and political participation has revealed some significant differences between liberals and conservatives. Using data from a comprehensive survey of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, conducted around the 2020 general election, the research highlights how political beliefs can shape civic engagement in democratic processes beyond voting.
The findings show that liberals are more likely to engage in non-voting political activities — such as protesting, donating to political candidates or campaigns, and engaging in politics online — compared to their conservative counterparts. The study also uncovers a counterintuitive trend among conservatives: those who have greater trust in the electoral process tend to participate less in these activities.
The survey aimed to explore the psychological motivations behind the political perspectives and ideologies that drive civic engagement, said CSU Political Science Professor Kyle Saunders, a co-author of the study who researches political parties and behavior, public opinion, and elections.
“We’ve been researching non-voting participation to understand the myriad reasons people engage in activities beyond voting,” Saunders said, noting that while factors like wealth and education influence non-voting participation, they are far from the only determinants.
Addressing a ‘plot hole’
Co-author and Ph.D. candidate Erin Fitz described the study as addressing a “plot hole” in existing research.
“We were dissatisfied with how non-voting participation and electoral trust have been measured in previous literature,” said Fitz, whose research focuses on political participation, elections and public opinion. “People tend to agree that voting is crucial — it’s our most direct form of participation in a democratic system. However, we should be careful not to underestimate other activities that also matter.”
For decades, researchers have defined “non-voting participation” to include activities like working for or donating to candidates, along with displaying campaign signs. However, Fitz noted that numerous other participation methods exist, including protests, advocacy and online engagement, such as participating in Zoom calls organized by political campaigns or commenting about politics on social media.
“Engagement on platforms like Twitter, now X, has even been shown to actually boost voter turnout,” she said.
By broadening the definition of non-voting participation, the study reveals that a larger and more diverse segment of the electorate is actively engaging in these activities.
“And the more likely someone is to participate in non-voting activities, the more likely they are to vote,” Saunders said.
A complicated case of trust
Measuring electoral trust, however, is complex. While larger issues such as integrity in the electoral process are key, individuals’ responses about their trust in elections often varies depending on whether their candidate or issue won or lost.
Trust is often measured after voting, which may not accurately reflect its influence on political behavior, Fitz noted.
“It seems obvious that trust matters, but it’s only recently that we’ve had the data to adequately test its association with political participation,” she said.
So why does greater trust in the electoral process before an election correlate with less participation among conservatives? Fitz proposed that liberals may be more inclined toward change, while conservatives might focus more on maintaining the status quo. Additionally, Republicans often demonstrate greater ideological cohesion, while Democrats encompass a broader range of interests.
“This variety of non-voting opportunities allows individuals to engage in ways that matter to them, beyond just voting every four years,” Fitz noted.
This understanding could provide insight into how political dynamics evolve over time.
“People don’t always know why they’re participating,” Fitz said. “They might go to a protest not because they’re really passionate about an issue, but because their friend asked them to.”
A new way to campaign
This extends to the evolution of the landscape of political strategies that encourage both non-voting participation and voting, Fitz said, wondering if campaigns built on distrust will remain effective for candidates and if politicians will recognize the potential to leverage trust levels to engage constituents, even if it seems counterintuitive to maintaining democracy.
“The unfortunate implication of our findings is that fostering distrust in the electoral process could actually encourage participation,” she said.
“How will leaders learn from each other and adopt the strategies that work?” Saunders added. “If promoting distrust proves effective and continues to work, future leaders may follow the same playbook. And that will have some profound consequences for democracy.”
“While trust in the system is at historic lows, it tends to fluctuate — higher for Democrats when a Democrat is in office, and vice versa for Republicans,” he explained. “The social fabric of democracy is still intact, but it does feel like we’re poking holes in it.
“These institutions are resilient, and they continue to persevere, but does that mean we should go around knocking the foundations out from underneath them?” Saunders asked.
Lessons from 2020
As trust in elections emerges as a critical factor in political participation, the study underscores the necessity of fostering confidence in the electoral process to promote broad civic engagement, a cornerstone of a thriving democracy.
Reflecting on recent elections, Fitz noted that the impact of messages about election integrity can vary significantly based on the candidates involved.
“While there are liberals who distrust elections, this distrust doesn’t seem to affect whether or not they participate in the process,” she said. “Distrust is happening on both ends of the political spectrum; it just plays out a little differently as to how it affects participation.”
SOURCE Special Report | Elections and free speech
As a land-grant institution, democracy and civic engagement are central to the Colorado State University mission. Ahead of the 2024 election, numerous CSU experts weighed in on topics that touch politics and culture. CSU’s SOURCE Special Report highlights some key topics surrounding elections and free speech.