Why do you vote? I'm a man who grew up on the heels of the civil rights movement. I remember my aunt Cleo Howard talking about shaking MLK’s hand, she was still giddy about it as she spoke. I remember my mom talking about how she as a young woman would visit the south and still have to go to the back of retail establishments to buy goods. There were many African Americans who fought, were arrested, and even died for the right to participate in the American election process. So voting for me came with a mandate, and it was based on aspirations. Aspiring to be better, to contribute to the nation, and collect the promise of America. Just like JFK most Americans back then asked what they could do for the country.

Voting in the past was for citizens who sought to shape their communities and influence the future of their nation, like my Grandfather who lied about his age on his military application to serve in WWI. However, the voting landscape has undergone a significant transformation over the years, shifting from an aspirational practice to a more transactional approach. In this blog, we will explore three key points of contrast between these two paradigms: within three aspects - motivation, engagement, and outcome.

1. Motivation: Civic Duty vs. Personal Gain

In an aspirational voting model, individuals participate in elections driven by a sense of civic duty and a desire to contribute to the democratic process. Voters are motivated by the ideals of representation, social justice, and collective well-being. They view their vote as a powerful tool to advocate for change, champion causes, and support candidates who align with their values.

Conversely, in a transactional voting model, the motivation shifts toward personal gain. Voters may approach elections with a mindset of "What’s in it for me?" rather than focusing on the broader implications of their choices. This shift has led to a more self-centered approach to politics, where individuals prioritize candidates or policies that promise direct benefits—such as tax cuts or financial incentives—over long-term societal impacts. This was prevalent in the 2024 presidential election where grievances seemed to highlight voters' motivation.

2. Engagement: Community Involvement vs. Consumerism

Aspirational voting encourages community involvement and collective dialogue. Voters engage in discussions, attend town halls, and participate in grassroots movements. This engagement fosters a sense of belonging and shared purpose, driving individuals to invest time and effort into understanding the issues at stake and the candidates' positions.

In contrast, transactional voting reflects a more consumerist attitude towards politics. Voters may view themselves as consumers, evaluating candidates based on their ability to deliver immediate benefits rather than their vision for the future. This shift can result in lower levels of civic engagement, as individuals may feel less inclined to participate in community discussions or volunteer for campaigns. Instead, they opt for a more passive approach, consuming political information through soundbites and social media without actively contributing to the democratic process.

3. Outcome: Visionary Change vs. Short-Term Solutions

The outcomes of aspirational versus transactional voting are starkly different. Aspirational voting often leads to visionary change, as voters rally around candidates and policies that promote long-term solutions to societal challenges. This approach encourages elected officials to think beyond their terms and consider the implications of their decisions on future generations.

On the other hand, transactional voting can result in short-term solutions that may not address the root causes of issues. Elected officials, aware of this transactional mindset, may prioritize quick fixes or popular policies that appeal to immediate voter interests, neglecting comprehensive strategies that foster development. This can perpetuate cycles of disillusionment and frustration among constituents who find that their needs are not being met in the long run.

Conclusion

As a lifelong communicator, I found this past election fascinating. Analyzing each campaign's messaging priorities, along with the outcome. Both campaigns tested the premise of this blog post: Democrats tried to focus on the promise of the future. However, this failed to reach the electorate's feelings. Republicans focused their messaging on grievances, division, and hate. The transformation of voting from an aspirational to a transactional practice presents both challenges and opportunities for our democracy.

While it is essential to recognize the role of individual interests in the electoral process, we must also strive to cultivate a culture of civic engagement that prioritizes collective aspirations and long-term change. By fostering a sense of community involvement and encouraging voters to think beyond immediate benefits, we can reinvigorate our democracy and ensure that every vote contributes to a brighter future for all.

As we approach the next election cycle, let us reflect on our motivations and strive to reconnect with the aspirational ideals that underpin our democratic system. There is a change in mindset that the country needs to undergo, that may seem like a lofty goal - but the American Promise is worth it.

Thomas Y. Lynch

On March 15, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson calls on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.

LBJ's Voting Rights Speech

"The American Promise"