New vote rising

The Democracy Compact brought 55,000 new voters to the polls in November. If it can happen here, says Matthew Brown, the outlook for civic renewal is promising

by Ian Donnis

Just when it looked as if Americans couldn't become any more ambivalent about presidential politics, the great Florida stand-off sparked a national surge of interest in the minutiae of elections and voting, from punch cards and the usefulness of the Electoral College to the all-important chad. This latent wave of civic interest didn't come as a surprise to 31-year-old Matthew Brown, who, as executive director of the Democracy Compact, led an eight-month grassroots campaign that brought 55,000 new voters to the Rhode Island polls in November. While the number of Americans who vote has been shrinking for 40 years, Brown cites the Democracy Compact's impact as evidence of the prospects for civic renewal.

Brown, a native of Providence's East Side, was steeped in idealism and activism by his mother, Linda, a veteran of the civil rights and anti-war movements of the '60s. Recalling the coffees that she hosted for candidates when he was seven, he says, "I just grew up thinking that was normal." Brown's belief in the importance of political engagement intensified when he spent a few months in South Africa in 1998. In contrast to the disinterest that most Americans have for politics, South Africans habitually gather at 8 p.m. to watch the evening news and look to their government with "a sense of possibility," he says. Compare that to the US, where 1996 marked the first time in our history that less than half of eligible voters took part in the presidential election, and, according to the Democracy Compact, only 11 percent of Americans under the age of 20 voted.

The compact draws its motivation from a quote by anthropologist Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has." The non-partisan group used one-on-one tactics while targeting a goal of 75,000 new voters. Attracting support from some of the state's largest corporations, the compact selected 150 fellows from different sectors -- business, non-profits, education, and so on -- to recruit 25 "democracy captains," each of whom was given the responsibility of getting 20 new voters to pledge to vote and go to the polls.

Although the effort fell short of its numerical goal, it succeeded in raising Rhode Island, from 24th to 14th, in the percentage of participation by voters, according to an exit poll conducted by WPRI-TV, and established a corps of 2000 volunteers as a foundation for future efforts.

The compact continues a record of civic activism for Brown, a third-year student at Yale Law School, who previously helped to start the Providence chapter of City Year, the community service program for 17- to 24-year-olds, and led that effort for five years. He spoke with the Phoenix last week in the Democracy Compact's campaign-style office, located in the donated basement of a Bank Rhode Island building in Cranston.

Q: We hear so much about how Americans feel alienated from politics, and how they don't see a connection between politics and their own lives. How did the Democracy Compact go about combating this and what kinds of strategies were most effective?
A: All the research shows that the best way to get people engaged in the political process, the best way to get people to vote, is one-to-one, person-to-person conversations. People talking to people they know. When you ask people who are involved in the political process, "Do you vote? Why do you vote?," the answers are always the same: "Because my mother, or father, or brother, or sister, somebody I know and look up to, sat me down and talked to me about it" -- period. That's what gets people involved.

The reason that it takes that kind of interaction to get people involved is that we find people are deeply committed to not voting, the people that don't vote. It's not that they don't know the vote is a possibility, it's not that don't know when Election Day is. They know they can do it, they know how to do it. They've chosen not to do it. They've thought about it. So this effort was really about changing people's minds. And that's not as simple as tapping people on the shoulder, and say, "Hey, remember to vote." You've got to sit down and talk to them and that message has to come from somebody that one respects. That was the heart of the strategy.

What we did was find over 1500 citizen-leaders, people of all backgrounds, influence-makers -- whether they were students or professors or business leaders or clergy members -- and trained them on the importance of democracy, the importance of voting, how to vote, where to vote, all the basics . . . Then everybody went out over a period of two to three months, and talked to the people they know, one-to-one, about the importance of voting, got them to take the pledge to vote, and got them to come to the polls on Election Day.

What we found to be the most important message to change people's mind, and to convince them that voting is important, is to teach people and educate people about how voting affects their day-to-day lives -- their basic bread and butter issues. With South Africa, one of the things I learned there as friends with the chief recruiter of the African National Congress . . . She said we didn't do into the townships and recruit new members by talking about democracy and freedom. We recruited new members by talking about water and electricity. And the message is the same here. An appeal to civic duty is going to work for some people, but I think more often than not, what's going to work is to say, look, this is about your health care, this is about your kid's schools, this is about, if you're a college students, this is about financial aid. You'd be shocked by how many people are not aware of how government is affecting their day-to-day lives.

Q: How did the Democracy Compact's results compare with similar efforts that have been made elsewhere in the US?
A: One is that we went from 24th to 14th in the country in terms of voter turnout. So, you know, obviously, comparatively, we did extraordinarily well, and this is after only eight months of effort. Let me also say that the context in which we were working was not very fertile for getting people out to vote as compared to other states. There were states that were battleground states, where the presidential candidates went 20 times in 30 days, and spent millions of dollars getting people out to vote. There were states that had close senatorial, congressional races and so on, and we didn't have any of that . . . So, when you look at that situation, compared with other states where there close races, and then you look at the fact that we dropped from 24th to 14th in the country in terms of voter turnout in just eight months. I think Rhode Island looks very good in comparison to the rest of the country.

The second thing I would say to answer that question: there aren't any efforts like this going on around the country. There are always efforts, and there were this year, to increase voter turnout, targeted among certain groups -- young people, people of certain backgrounds, people organized around certain issues, environmental issues or what have you -- but there is no effort that we have come across that is totally inclusive, that is people of all political beliefs, all backgrounds, economic, race, that come together, set aside their own interest, their own political beliefs, and commit to a higher goal of increasing participation in the political process. And this, we think, is a unique effort in the country.

Q: Where does the effort go from here?
A: We're figuring that out over the next couple of months. I think, clearly, it worked. We had great results that we can build on. There's a lot of enthusiasm because of that. And, clearly, there's still a great need. We're not going to solve a 40-year decline in voter participation in eight months in this state. So I think we're looking at two things: one is, how do we deepen the impact in this state, and how do we, in a sense, finish the job? We set out to eventually make Rhode Island the most voting state in the country. Well, we got almost halfway there.

We're looking at several things: clearly, continue to identify and train citizen leaders who can then take the message out in their communities. Definitely, to continue to do this kind of research and analysis to provide people with information about the election process, how to improve the election process. Clearly, in election years, to run intensive get-out-the-vote campaigns with all the great public awareness and media attention that we brought to it this year. And, finally, to really look at how to get curriculum in the schools, and we did some of that.

The second question, of course, is, okay, we've really established this as a model state for democracy. How do we share these lessons with other states? Do we grow? If so, when, where and how? Those are the questions we're going to be dealing with in the next couple of months. We want to get to January and have a long-term plan, and be able to say to the state and the country, here's how we're going to go forward and build on the success of the last eight months.

Q: We have a winner-take-all political system in which second-place finishers, not to mention the scores of voters whose views aren't represented by the winner, are basically shut out immediately after Election Day. Wouldn't it make more sense to put time and energy into reforms -- like instant runoff or proportional representation -- that would get at the root of political alienation, rather than going after a symptom like declining participation by voters?
A: That's a chicken and the egg. In democracy, the agents of change, the people who make change happen are the citizens . . . Whatever else we do in terms of looking at policy changes, procedure changes and so on, we've always got to continue -- and really the heart of the program -- is to continue to get people significantly and politically engaged. Because in the end, so what? So we've got 10 percent of people voting and this little Democracy Compact shouting for change. Well, who are going to be the agents? Who's going to force that change if you don't have citizens who are going to go out there and vote and demand change?

I think we always have to make sure that we're working hard to get 60, 70, 80, 90 percent of the people coming out to vote on Election Day. That's critical for democracy. We also, though, are going to be looking at . . . how do we improve this system. We'll look at a lot of things, from same-day registration to how we recruit poll workers, so people have a good experience at the polls, to the sorts of what I would call really structural questions that you're talking about. One of the great benefits of this mess [in Florida] of the last two weeks is this country has been very quickly brought up to speed on the Electoral College, on the boards of canvassers and the role they play, the kinds of ballots we use. All these things have really heightened the conversation about how elections work in this country.

Q: We talked about the cultural difference between the United States and some other countries, like South Africa, where people tend to be much more politically aware and take a greater interest in politics. How's the outlook for bringing about a culture in the US in which people are more politically aware and more involved?
A: You hit the nail on the head. That's precisely what we're trying to do with the Democracy Compact -- change the political culture and make it something that's exciting, something that people want to be a part of, make it a part of everyday life. The way Americans talk, when they're out at lunch, about television shows and movie stars every day, we should talk about politics [like] in some other countries. For a little bit of background, America is the worst voting industrial democracy in the world. Switzerland is the highest.

One of the things that the Swiss do, that we really learned from with the Democracy Compact . . . is they make the political process, and voting itself on Election Day, very much a social experience. That's one way you can begin to change culture -- to make political participation, and Election Day itself, a real social experience. The political parties used to play that role -- rallies, meetings, the kind of coffees I was telling you about [that] my mom used to do. It was part of people's lives -- a social thing. People got together, they worked with different people, and that made it fun and exciting and fulfilling. And you felt like you were part of something larger than yourself. I think people have lost that feeling to a great degree in our politics these days where the campaigns are mostly happening on television -- air wars -- where the politics itself seems far away.

I think there's a great opportunity to bring back a strong social political culture, particularly in a small state like Rhode Island. One way we did that was, we brought together 1500 citizen-leaders of all different backgrounds. We had rallies going all the way back to June, with WaterFire and the torch-lighting ceremony. We had a rally at McCoy Stadium, a rally at the ice rink. We really made it an exciting and social experience for people. And that began to shift the political culture, the way that people think about political involvement. It becomes cool, it becomes interesting, it becomes something you share with other people. It becomes a leadership opportunity for individuals, and not something people sit back and watch happen to them. That's a beginning, but, obviously, we've got a long way to go to change a culture. That takes more than eight months.

Q: How did you get the idea to start the Democracy Compact?
A: About a year and a half ago, I found these great statistics, that young people are volunteering more than ever before in the history of the country. Seventy percent of young people record doing some kind of regular community service. In researching that, I came across really disturbing numbers about the fact that while this volunteerism has been increasing, people's participation in the political process and voting has been decreasing. So I started digging into it, and I found it wasn't just young people. It was everybody, and all backgrounds: men, woman and all ages, except for the World War II generation . . . Sometimes you hear people who don't understand the issue very well, say, "Oh, don't worry, these things come in cycles; when we're in a crisis, people will vote again." Not the case. Cycle is up and down, and around. This has been straight down for 40 years.

I didn't particularly feel compelled like I needed to start another organization. I had done that once and it certainly takes a lot out of you, so I started looking around to see what programs existed that were addressing this issue, that were getting people involved in the political process . . . did this for about four or five months, and basically found out that nothing was being done. There were things targeted at certain groups, but there always have been, and they haven't worked. I really felt strongly that this was an American problem and it needed an American solution.

Q: Beyond increased voting, what was the most interesting thing that came out of the Democracy Compact's 2000 campaign?
A: I think just beneath the surface there's a real passion in this country about our democracy and the right to vote. And I think, like with a lot of issues, the cynics are louder and more organized than the believers. All we hear is, "It doesn't matter, it's a waste of time, the system stinks." But what we found when we put this out is all these people started coming out of the woodwork, and they all had a story -- "My grandfather came here, and if he saw what was happening today in terms of people not voting . . . " People all brought their own stories to it and their passion. It wasn't just a job. Nobody got paid to do this. They had their own passion about this. We really tapped into that, and that's very promising.

Q: How do you feel about the view that, as a country where people have a relatively meager interest in politics, we get the leaders we deserve?
A: Oh, I completely agree. You know, young people are complaining a lot these days, saying, "Why should we get involved in politics if the only issues that politicians talk about are the issues important to the elderly -- Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs," and you look at all those ads. What I always say, that seems totally fair. I mean, the elderly get over 35 percent of the federal budget; they're only 16 percent of the population. Is that fair? Absolutely. They're the only group that's getting organized and going out to vote.

A citizenry that's going to wait for politicians or government to be better, or do what they want to do, or address their needs, are going to wait forever, and they should. That's not how the system works. The responsibility lies first with the citizens. They elect their government, and then the government acts on their behalf. Not the other way around. So I think citizens, absolutely, get what they deserve. But the flip side of that is they can get what they want if they organized and go out to vote. They can get the candidates they want, the government they want. Not a perfect government, not a government they're always going to agree with, but, basically, they'll get the people they hire, and it's their job to hire and fire the government. So, yeah, I think people will get the government they choose.

Q: How's the outlook for reinvigorating American democracy?
A: If what happened here is any indication of what could happen across the country, it's very positive. In eight months, we went from 24th to 14th, we got over 50,000 new voters, all that without any close races. And the fact that these 2000 citizen-leaders just answered the call with passion, in just eight months, means to me there are citizens across this country who, if called, if asked, will pick up the charge, and get out there, and get people reengaged in the political process.

Ian Donnis can be reached atidonnis[a]phx.com.