New message test confirms Americans are open to lowering the voting age
A new large scale messaging experiment led by the University of Maryland Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement sheds new light on what messages persuade Americans to support Vote 16.
At the Vote 16 Research Network, we are are always working to produce knowledge that can help our partners in the field fully understand the context in which they are operating and use research to inform their strategy. That’s why we have been focused since the very beginning of the network on understanding how Americans react to different arguments in support of lowering the voting age to 16.
This research was inspired by stories we heard from local Vote 16 leaders.
In place after place after place, we heard stories from Vote 16 activists about communities where voters were initially skeptical of Vote 16 until hearing pro-Vote 16 arguments from persuasive messengers, especially young people. We heard these stories from Culver City and Newark and Washington DC. We heard them from Canada and New Zealand and Australia. And so we wanted to see if these anecdotes were signals of a broader pattern in public opinion.
Our first set of Vote 16 messaging experiments in Summer 2022 confirmed what was suggested by the anecdotal stories we were hearing in the field. Americans are open to lowering the voting age. Opposition is quite soft compared to other issues and the most persuasive messages increased support by more than 30%.
Multiple messages work to increase support for Vote 16.
In 2023, we set out to extend these findings and see if particular arguments were more persuasive than other arguments. We worked with a sample of 4,933 individuals that was drawn by Lucid, from October 13 – October 17, 2023. The Lucid sample is designed to approximate a nationally representative sample of voting eligible citizens in the U.S., but as a non-probability sample it is best to focus on differences across experimental conditions rather than overall point estimates.
We tested three messages to see which generated the most support for Vote 16.
Control:
Officials Consider Lowering Voting Age to 16 for Local Elections
For years, a number of localities in the U.S. have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Local government leaders here are now considering lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections. A public meeting was held recently to discuss the issue.
Treatment 1: Prompt about how knowledgable young people are
Officials Consider Lowering Voting Age to 16 for Local Elections, Area Teens Say They Are Knowledgeable Enough
For years, a number of localities in the U.S. have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Local government leaders here are now considering lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections. A public meeting was held recently to discuss the issue.
At the meeting, a number of 16 and 17-year-olds spoke in favor of the proposal. Mary Clark, who is 16 years old, spoke about her experience with politics. “It is important to be informed so I regularly attend public meetings,” Clark said. Across the board, the 16 and 17-year-olds explained that they use multiple sources to learn about the candidates and issues and are ready to cast an informed vote.
Treatment 2: Prompt about how engaged young people are
Officials Consider Lowering Voting Age to 16 for Local Elections, Area Teens Say They Are Engaged Enough
For years, a number of localities in the U.S. have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Local government leaders here are now considering lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections. A public meeting was held recently to discuss the issue.At the meeting, a number of 16 and 17-year-olds spoke in favor of the proposal. Mary Clark, who is 16 years old, spoke about her experience with politics. “It is important to be involved so I regularly serve as a volunteer poll worker during elections,” Clark said. Across the board, the 16 and 17-year-olds explained that they want to be good citizens who are engaged in their community and are eager to cast their vote.
These results are extremely encouraging for Vote 16 activists. They show that multiple messages work to increase support for Vote 16. Supporters of the Vote 16 movement around the country can confidently move forward with persuasion campaigns knowing that multiple message tests have confirmed what their intuition may have already been telling them - Americans are open to supporting Vote 16 when they hear persuasive messages.
Could the success of different Vote 16 messages be context specific?
It may be helpful to interpret these findings in light of new research in the field about the impact of all campaign messaging in the United States. A recent study analyzed 145 different experiments that included 617 advertisements from 51 campaigns that were tested with more than 500,000 respondents - it is one of the most robust analyses of the impact of campaign messaging ever conducted.
They found that some messages were way more effective than others. But there was no single theory of what makes an ad persuasive that explained the difference. Rather, what mattered was the fit between a particular message and the context in which it was being used.
This finding is helpful for us as we think about how to make sense of the data we have about what messages work for Vote 16 campaigns. Activists should move forward with confidence that they can persuade their communities to support Vote 16 and with curiosity about what message is going to be most effective in their particular context. Examples from past campaigns and research can be helpful inspiration. But there is likely not going to be a single definitive Vote 16 message that works which is the best practice for all campaigns. Rather, Vote 16 movement allies can apply this research by providing local Vote 16 campaign leaders with the support they need to try different messages, get feedback from the community, and iterate until local campaign leaders find the right fit between a message and the time and place in which they are working.
Reply to this email to tell us about your experiences! What messages have you seen persuade voters to support Vote 16?
This such an exciting line of research and we can’t wait to get new studies in the field to keep on generating new information and recommendations about how to communicate about Vote 16 policies. Please reach out to us and tell us your stories about what is working (or not working!) for you in your community! We’d love to hear from you and figure out how we can continue to generate knowledge that is useful to this network.
Sam Novey is Chief Strategist at the UMD Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement.
Mike Hanmer is the Director of the UMD Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement.
Daniel R. Biggers (Associate Professor, UC-Riverside), Jared A. McDonald (Assistant Professor, University of Mary Washington), and Jillian Andres Rothschild (Ph.D. Student, UMD GVPT and CDCE Research Fellow) all also contributed valuable work and insights to this study.