When we think of political engagement and activity, we typically think of voting or writing to our elected representatives. Those are important activities, of course, but they are not the only means of political participation. Nowadays, according to political scientist Russell Dalton, many people—especially young people—express themselves politically through more “individualized forms of activity,”(19) such as attending political meetings or rallies; buying or boycotting products because of the political or social values associated with those products or the company that provides them; or simply talking about politics with their friends and families. According to Dalton, these alternative ways of “doing politics” reflect changing norms of citizenship that are different from traditional, “duty-based” ideas about what it means to be a “good citizen,” and they “come with their own potential advantages and problems.”(20)

One of those potential problems, of course, is that many people no longer view voting as an important civic duty. Over the past half century, only about 6 out of 10 American citizens have voted even in high-profile presidential elections, and even fewer young people take the time to register and vote. Many Americans are shocked to learn that their country trails all but a handful of the world’s democracies in voter turnout.(21) Pennsylvania has lagged behind the rest of the nation’s voter turnout rate in most of the last ten presidential elections, and that pattern held true again in 2008. In the 2008 election, only 62.4% of Pennsylvania’s eligible voters went to the polls, compared with 63.6% nationally.



Voter registration and turnout in the midterm elections might be a better measure of whether citizens feel a civic duty to vote, as high-profile presidential elections often attract voters not otherwise engaged. According to the U.S. Census survey data, 64.6% of all eligible electors in Pennsylvania were registered to vote in 2010 (as compared with 65.1% nationally), and 43.9% of Pennsylvania’s eligible electors voted in the midterm elections. Pennsylvania thus ranked 33rd in the nation in voter registration and 35th in voter turnout in 2010. The graph below shows the long-term trend in voter turnout in midterm elections.



One particularly interesting way of looking at voting patterns in our state is by age. While only 22.6% of the so-called Millennial Generation turned out to vote in the 2010 elections, more than half of all Pennsylvanians born before 1964 showed up at the polls that year. There were other significant differences evident in the voting statistics as well. Among those young people 18-24 who had never been to college, a paltry 9.0% voted in 2010, while 21.5% of those with at least some college experience voted.

Politics involves more than just voting, of course, and people who choose not to vote might still engage in politics by contacting governmental officials or by attending public meetings. As we already noted, young people in particular seem more inclined toward non-electoral forms of politics, such as buying or boycotting a product for political reasons. Yet these other ways of “doing politics” remain relatively uncommon. According to the 2010 U.S. Census CPS data, only 9.4% of Pennsylvania residents contacted or visited a public official, only 9.4% attended a public meeting, and only 8.6% bought or boycotted a product because of the political or social values associated with that product.

Most surprising, however, was our finding that only 20.9% of Pennsylvanians reported talking about politics with friends and family at least a few times a week. This was down significantly from the 34.7% figure derived by pooling data from 2008 and 2009. Nationally, “talking about politics” declined from 39.3% in 2008-2009 to 26.0% in 2010, perhaps reflecting that people talked less about politics after the historic presidential election of 2008. Still, Pennsylvania’s decline was especially dramatic, and it dropped Pennsylvania from 45th to 50th in the national rankings on this measure.

Political engagement, like most aspects of civic health, varies significantly by income levels, race and ethnicity, geographic location, and educational attainment. Wealthy people are much more likely to attend public meetings, talk politics with family and friends, contact or visit local officials, and boycott or buy products or services because of the political or social values associated with them. They are also much more likely to register to vote and to turn up at the polls. As the bar graph below reveals, higher income Pennsylvanians were more likely to participate in all measures of political engagement, with the differences especially striking on measures of voter registration and turnout.



The patterns of political participation across race and ethnicity are less clear but even more intriguing. One way of interpreting political action is through creating a composite measure defined by the following indicators: voting, discussing politics with family and friends a few times a week or more, contacting public officials, and buying or boycotting products. Using this composite measure, an individual receives one point for each activity that he or she reports.(23) In Pennsylvania, African Americans were the most politically engaged racial or ethnic group, with 64.0% reporting at least one political action versus 58.0% of Whites and just 23.3% of Latinos. African Americans were more likely than Whites to attend a public meeting and turn out to vote, and they talked politics and contacted or visited public officials almost as frequently as Whites. Latinos, on the other hand, trailed both Whites and African Americans on all our measures of political action and deliberation.



Data on political participation by geographical location also reveals some interesting contrasts. While people living in rural areas were the most likely to attend public meetings and contact or visit a public official (and were virtually tied with suburbanites in talking about politics with friends and family), they were the least likely to register to vote and turn out on Election Day. Put another way, rural Pennsylvanians seem more inclined toward registering their political views in person than via the ballot box. This may, in some measure at least, reflect Pennsylvania’s strong tradition of political deliberation in town hall or Grange hall meetings in rural Pennsylvania.



Education also influences political action and deliberation, and across the board, Pennsylvania residents with at least some college experience were more likely to involve themselves in political activities than those who never went to college. Among Pennsylvanians 25 and older, those with at least some college were about twice as likely to attend public meetings, contact a public official, or engage in consumer politics by buying or boycotting a product because of the political or social values associated with it. They also were significantly more likely to register to vote and turn out at the polls.



Among those between the ages of 18 and 24, education again made a difference. Young Pennsylvanians with at least some college experience were far more likely to register to vote and turn out at the polls, and they were also significantly more likely to attend public meetings, talk about politics with family and friends, and buy or boycott a product or service for political reasons. Overall, the pattern is clear: college experience significantly increases the likelihood that a young person will engage in political deliberations and action.