Agnostic.com

4 10

LINK Not religious, not voting? The 'nones' are a powerful force in politics – but not yet a coalition

Not religious, not voting? The ‘nones’ are a powerful force in politics – but not yet a coalition
Published: September 6, 2023

Nearly 30% of Americans say they have no religious affiliation. Today the so-called “nones” represent about 30% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans – and they are making their voices heard. Organizations lobby on behalf of atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and other nonreligious people.

As more people leave religious institutions, or never join them in the first place, it’s easy to assume this demographic will command more influence. But as a sociologist who studies politics and religion, I wanted to know whether there was evidence that this religious change could actually make a strong political impact.

There are reasons to be skeptical of unaffiliated Americans’ power at the ballot box. Religious institutions have long been key for mobilizing voters, both on the left and the right. Religiously unaffiliated people tend to be younger, and younger people tend to vote less often. What’s more, exit polls from recent elections show the religiously unaffiliated may be a smaller percentage of voters than of the general population.

Most importantly, it’s hard to put the “unaffiliated” in a box. Only a third of them identify as atheists or agnostics. While there is a smaller core of secular activists, they tend to hold different views from the larger group of people who are religiously unaffiliated, such as being more concerned about the separation of church and state.

Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts
By combining all unaffiliated people as “the nones,” researchers and political analysts risk missing key details about this large and diverse constituency.

In order to learn more about which parts of religious unaffiliated populations turn out to vote, I used data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES, for presidential elections in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. The CES collects large surveys and then matches individual respondents in those surveys to validated voter turnout records.

These surveys were different from exit polls in some key ways. For example, according to these survey samples, overall validated voter turnout looked higher in many groups, not just the unaffiliated, than exit polls suggested. But because each survey sample had over 100,000 respondents and detailed questions about religious affiliation, they allowed me to find some important differences between smaller groups within the unaffiliated.

My findings, published in June 2023 in the journal Sociology of Religion, were that the unaffiliated are divided in their voter turnout: Some unaffiliated groups are more likely to vote than religiously affiliated respondents, and some are less likely.

People who identified as atheists and agnostics were more likely to vote than religiously affiliated respondents, especially in more recent elections. For example, after controlling for key demographic predictors of voting – like age, education and income – I found that atheists and agnostics were each about 30% more likely to have a validated record of voting in the 2020 election than religiously affiliated respondents.

With those same controls, people who identified their religion as simply “nothing in particular,” who are about two-thirds of the unaffiliated, were actually less likely to turn out in all four elections. In the 2020 election sample, for example, I found that around 7 in 10 agnostics and atheists had a validated voter turnout record, versus only about half of the “nothing in particulars.”

Together, these groups’ voting behaviors tend to cancel each other out. Once I controlled for other predictors of voting like age and education, “the nones” as a whole were equally likely to have a turnout record as religiously affiliated respondents.

2024 and beyond
Concern about growing Christian nationalism, which advocates for fusing national identity and political power with Christian beliefs, has put a spotlight on religion’s role in right-wing advocacy.

Yet religion does not line up neatly with one party. The political left also boasts a diverse coalition of religious groups, and there are many Republican voters for whom religion is not important.

If the percentage of people without a religious affiliation continues to rise, both Republicans and Democrats will have to think more creatively and intentionally about how to appeal to these voters. My research shows that neither party can take the unaffiliated for granted nor treat them as a single, unified group. Instead, politicians and analysts will need to think more specifically about what motivates people to vote, and particularly what policies encourage voting among young adults.

For example, some activist groups talk about “the secular values voter:” someone who is increasingly motivated to vote by concern about separation of church and state. I did find evidence that the average atheist or agnostic is about 30% more likely to turn out than the average religiously affiliated voter, lending some support to the secular values voter story. At the same time, that description does not fit all the “nones.”

Instead of focusing on America’s declining religious affiliation, it may be more helpful to focus on the country’s increasing religious diversity, especially because many unaffiliated people still report having religious and spiritual beliefs and practices. Faith communities have historically been important sites for political organizing. Today, though, motivating and empowering voters might mean looking across a broader set of community institutions to find them.

Rethinking assumptions
There is good news in these findings for everyone, regardless of their political leanings. Social science theories from the 1990s and 2000s argued that leaving religion was part of a larger trend in declining civic engagement, like voting and volunteering, but that may not be the case.

According to my research, it was actually unaffiliated respondents who reported still attending religious services who were least likely to vote. Their turnout rates were lower than both frequently attending religious affiliates and unaffiliated people who never attended.

This finding matches up with previous research on religion, spirituality and other kinds of civic engagement. Sociologists Jacqui Frost and Penny Edgell, for example, found a similar pattern in volunteering among religiously unaffiliated respondents. In a previous study, sociologist Jaime Kucinskas and I found that spiritual practices like meditation and yoga were just as strongly associated with political behavior as religious practices like church attendance. Across these studies, it looks like disengagement from formal religion is not necessarily linked to political disengagement.

As the religious landscape changes, new potential voters may be ready to engage – if political leadership can enact policies that help them turn out, and inspire them to turn out, too.

HippieChick58 9 Sep 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

This is concerning. Voting isn't just a privilege, it's a duty. Otherwise violence is the only way citizens can express themselves.

4

I now have a new rant for my reps in WA DC. I actually try not to rant but to offer suggestions for messaging and reaching out to their constituents.

7

I belong to Secular Democrats (Texas), we are now identified as a legitimate caucus at the state convention . It takes a lot to organize and herd cats.

4

Very interesting. Here in Australia we have compulsory voting. I used to be opposed to that but in recent years I have changed my mind. Compulsion is only one aspect of our system: it goes hand in hand with a (reasonably) efficient and independent Electoral Commission and a system to make voting as easy and convenient as possible (elections are always held on a Saturday, for instance; postal voting is easy to arrange). It does appear that non-compulsory voting favours the conservative side of politics, especially when the system makes voting difficult or inconvenient for poorer people.

I've always admired your system!

@pamagain A number of people on the left typically don't vote or write in the person who they thought should get the nomination and didn't. This is a very childlike, self-defeating attitude which sometimes accomplishes just the opposite of what they want by helping to put a Retardlican in office. Then they spend four years whining about the conservative who won. Grow the fuck up. A small step forward is better than two giant steps backwards

@Sticks48 I thought voting was for ADULTS????

@pamagain You are talking about a numerical legal age. I am talking about actually behaving like an adult. The two are not always mutually inclusive.

@pamagain When I was younger I opposed compulsory voting because I assumed that anybody who didn't vote simply didn't care to. I never anticipated the situation that the US seems to have developed where some sections of the political community will actually try to prevent people from exercising their right. Similarly I took it for granted that the overwhelming majority of the population would accept the legitimacy of a vote that went against them. I was an innocent little bastard, wasn't I??

@Carbine We ALL were "innocent little bastards" at one point or another.

@pamagain Quite true! Although I WAS littler, more innocent and more of a bastard than most. 🙂

@Carbine Braggart! 🙂

@pamagain Curses! I've been found out.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:731125
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.