Reframing the Discussion

Before Generocity delves into this month’s flourishing solutions on voting and civic engagement, we’d like to share one reader’s idea of what it takes to increase civic engagement:

“We need to change the structure of the ‘[get out the vote]’ conversation and create space for nonvoters to be seen, heard, and acknowledged rather than having an iPad pushed in front of them and being told to register to vote. We need to create space for genuine conversation and co- learning.” ~ Generocity Reader

 

Who are the nonvoters?

While most data and stories relate to who voted, let’s take a look at who didn’t vote.

An analysis of Philadelphia’s precinct and ward-level data from 2015 through 2024 highlights persistent disparities in civic engagement throughout Philadelphia, its wards, and precincts. While the conversation often centers on apathy, can systemic inequalities, demographic patterns, and disconnection from political institutions be contributing factors?

Election after election, certain neighborhoods, such as Wards 7, 33, 19, and 43, rank at the bottom of both general and primary election turnout.

• Ward 7, which includes parts of Kensington and North Philly, saw a turnout of just 4.4% in the 2017 general election and 4.3% in the 2025 primary election.
• In the  2024 Primary, five wards saw turnout of less than 10%, while top-performing wards like 9 saw turnout of more than 39%.

These “turnout deserts” may be strongly associated with demographic and structural realities. Based on precinct data and demographic overlays these deserts consist of:

• Low-income, heavily minority, and immigrant-rich precincts— especially those with high renter populations and language barriers — have the lowest voter turnout rates.
• Many nonvoters live in communities that have experienced systemic disinvestment, including underfunded schools, high rates of eviction and mobility, limited internet access, and fewer community-based civic networks.

Reframing the “GOTV” discussion

Traditional get-out-the-vote efforts typically focus on quick wins, including registration drives, election-day canvassing, and automated reminders. However, the Philadelphia data suggests that transactional approaches are failing the communities who may have the lowest levels of civic trust. These approaches and issues with trust could lead to a lack of candidates representative of these communities running for office.

The most persistent nonvoters are at the intersection of exclusion and exhaustion. As long as they are seen as targets for activation, rather than contributors to civic life, voter turnout and civic engagement among the most marginalized will remain stagnant.

What would engagement look like if we started where people are, rather than what we want from them? The answer may not lie in more messaging— but in deeper relationships, “genuine conversation and co- learning.”