The Denison University campus in Granville, Ohio, on a somewhat cloudy Tuesday, appears to be the perfect setting for a low-key political science revolution. historic brick structures. Half-listening to podcasts, students pass by with coffee cups. There is no indication in the scene that a small group of undergraduates has been working on one of the more difficult issues in American democracy somewhere within the Alford Community Leadership and Involvement Center. However, that is precisely what is taking place.
Driven by DU Votes, a nonpartisan student organization on campus since the 2018 cycle, the study aimed to comprehend a topic that political scientists have debated for years. Why do voters differ so much depending on their educational background? It’s one of those questions that seems easy until you give it some thought. The figures are startling. According to Denison, 99.6% of students who were eligible to vote registered for the 2020 election, and 82.9% of those students cast ballots. These numbers are abnormal. They imply that something is taking place within the organization that is influencing behavior rather than merely mirroring it.
Walking through the CLIC offices gives the impression that the students and staff working on this have been considering voter behavior in a way that most campaigns never bother to. Turnout is not something they are pursuing for its own sake. They are putting a theory to the test. The traditional thesis, which is taught in almost all introductory political science courses, is that education leads to increased civic engagement—that is, students who attend the polls are thoughtful, involved citizens. The opposing viewpoint, which has gained traction recently, contends that education is merely a stand-in. This side contends that factors like family income, political socialization during childhood, cognitive ability, and even genetics are the true drivers.
The two groups have been producing equally credible studies with opposing findings for decades. To be honest, it has been a complete mess.
The Denison project aimed to achieve something more truthful. Rather than taking sides, the faculty and students started creating engagement programs that could be evaluated against actual voting results. The committee, which meets once a month, views civic engagement more as an experiment than as a checklist. Data and input are fed back into the planning process through collaborations with the local Board of Elections, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, Campus Vote Project, and the ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge. It’s not a glamorous job. Spreadsheets, follow-up emails, and the occasional irate text from a student who can’t find their polling place make up the majority of it.
However, the preliminary results, discussed casually on campus, suggest something intriguing. Though not in the straightforward manner the previous theory suggested, education does appear to have a significant impact on voter behavior. A student’s decision to vote is not influenced by the Federalist Papers lecture. It’s the social setting. Positive peer pressure. The fact that a professor brought up the deadline, that a club is holding a registration drive in the dining hall, or that a roommate will cast a ballot. In this reading, education becomes more of a culture than a curriculum.
That distinction is important. Campaigns and academic institutions may need to reconsider their entire strategy for voter mobilization if the Denison findings stand up to more scrutiny. Not more leaflets. More a sense of community.
How much of this will apply outside of a small central Ohio liberal arts campus is still up in the air. Denison has a tradition of civic engagement that many schools lack, as well as resources and motivated students. However, it is difficult not to question whether the solution to the education-voting conundrum was never in the classroom at all as you watch this play out. It was in the dorm rooms, the hallways, and the quiet chats between people who just expected one another to show up.
