Voting and Voters

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares54 Views

    Japan Election 2025: What to Know

    by

    Shigeru Ishiba of the long-governing Liberal Democratic Party could face calls to resign if his party fares poorly in Sunday’s Upper House elections.Polls open on Sunday in Japan, where half of the seats in its Upper House of Parliament will be contested in the first national election since Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba took office last year. The emergence of right-wing populist parties that appeal to younger voters has threatened the long-governing Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner, with polls showing they could lose seats, and perhaps even their majority, in the chamber.Japan faces four big problems: difficult trade talks with Washington, a more assertive China, an aging population and the sharpest price increases in 30 years. Of these, the last has been the single biggest issue with voters, whose incomes have not kept pace. A hot-button issue has been the cost of rice, a vital staple that has doubled in price because of poor harvests and government policies.There is also a growing discontent with the United States, which no longer looks like the reliable partner it once was. Many Japanese have felt betrayed by the Trump administration’s threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on all of their country’s exports to the United States on Aug. 1, unless Tokyo opens up its already troubled rice market and agrees to buy more U.S.-made cars.Immigration has also emerged as an issue, as Japan has taken in an additional million workers over the past three years to fill jobs left vacant by the decline in the working-age population. While foreign residents make up only 3 percent of Japan’s population, populist parties like the Sanseito have won voters with calls to limit immigration.Here is a guide to the election and why it matters.What to Know:What’s happening on Sunday?What are the main issues?Who are the main players?What’s at stake?What’s happening on Sunday?Japan holds Upper House elections every three years; this cycle will decide who holds 124 of 248 seats. Voting takes place from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday, with exit polls released minutes after it ends. Official results will come early Monday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares32 Views

      in Elections

      The Seeds of Democratic Revival Have Already Been Sown

      by

      Now is an agonizing time for Democrats. Some days are dominated by feelings of despair, others by recriminations. But in fact the Democratic Party is on the cusp of a renaissance if it plays its cards right.The claim that a revival may be near at hand might seem bizarre, given that the party is at its weakest point in at least half a century. It is all but shut out of power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Its popularity is at a record low, according to a report by Third Way, a center-left think tank and advocacy organization. Since 2022, according to Gallup, more Americans identify and lean Republican than Democratic, the first time that has been true since 1991. Leading figures in the Democratic Party, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, call the Democratic brand “toxic.” Democratic support has collapsed among non-college-educated voters, who make up some 64 percent of electorate. Voters are leaving blue states for red ones. And if that were not enough, based on current demographic trends, blue states will lose up to a dozen electoral votes after the 2030 census.Despite this, Democrats have an opening. The Trump administration’s wall-to-wall incompetence, and the human suffering that is resulting from it, will become more and more obvious. Disenchantment with President Trump and his party is already spreading. But can Democrats exploit the opportunity?To help figure out an answer, we conducted written interviews with 19 Democrats, from progressives to centrists. They included officeholders, analysts, strategists and state party chairs chosen because they represent a range of views and experiences and have given careful thought to how the Democratic Party needs to change. We also plowed through a stack of white papers, articles and published interviews.These Democrats agree that attacking Mr. Trump is not sufficient; the party must make a new offer to Americans. They also agree on a main theme of that new offer: making the American dream affordable for the middle class and especially the working class. But Democrats across the ideological spectrum, not just on the party’s right flank, also recognize that their economic message will fall on deaf ears if they cannot re-enter the cultural mainstream and stop talking down to ordinary people.Rahm Emanuel, a former Democratic representative in Congress and mayor of Chicago who served as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, was blunt: “If you’re outside the mainstream on culture, the public will never trust you enough to listen to your ideas on economic ‘kitchen table’ issues.”When It Comes to ‘Prosperity’, Republicans Have an Edge. But That Hasn’t Always Been True.“Which political party do you think will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous?”

      Source: GallupBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares67 Views

      in Elections

      The UK Plans to Lower the Voting Age to 16. Here’s What to Know.

      by

      The plan has been described as the largest expansion of voting rights in Britain in decades.The British government said on Thursday that it would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, in what it called a landmark moment for democracy and some of its opponents decried as an attempt to tilt the electoral playing field.Britain has more than 1.6 million people of age 16 or 17, in a total population of roughly 68 million, and the plan has been described as the country’s largest expansion of voting rights in decades. The last nationwide reduction in voting age, to 18 from 21, came more than 50 years ago.“Declining trust in our institutions and democracy itself has become critical, but it is the responsibility of government to turn this around and renew our democracy, just as generations have done before us,” the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, wrote in an introduction to a policy paper that included the announcement.The plan also includes promises to tighten laws on foreign donations to political parties, and to simplify voter registration.Here’s a guide to the change and its implications.Do many places give 16-year-olds the vote?Several nations do, including Austria, Malta and Brazil, while in Greece the voting age is set at 17. Others allow 16-year-olds to participate only in some elections: In Germany and Belgium, they can help choose members of the European Parliament, but they cannot vote in federal elections. Britain has been in that category: Elections for the separate parliaments that control many policy areas in Scotland and Wales already had a voting age of 16.Is this change a surprise?No. The center-left Labour Party has backed votes for 16-year-olds for some time, and the idea was part of the official platform on which it won last year’s general election. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      Should New York City Ditch Its Party Primaries in Favor of Open Races?

      by

      A panel created by Mayor Eric Adams wants to consider using an “open primary” system for elections in New York City. Here’s how the plan would work.For the last century, New York City has typically elected its mayor the same way. Democrats choose a candidate in their party primary, Republicans choose a candidate in their primary, and the twain meet in November.That may soon change.A special panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams is formulating a plan that would scrap the current system in favor of an open primary where all the candidates — regardless of political party affiliation — would be on the ballot.Under the proposal, the top two candidates would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. And all voters would be eligible to participate in the primary election. Right now, only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in their party’s primary contest.The 13-member panel, a charter revision commission, recently released a 135-page report that details several proposals that could be on the ballot this November. The measures could curb the City Council’s power to reject new housing, among other ideas. Voters would need to approve the proposals, which would be listed as ballot questions, for them to be enacted.The commission has not yet decided whether to put open primaries on the ballot, and during a four-hour hearing on Monday, public opinions were clearly divided.Here’s what you need to know about the proposal:How would an open primary system work?The panel is considering moving to a system where all registered voters could participate in local primary elections, and the top two candidates who receive the most votes would face off in the general election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares170 Views

      in Elections

      New Yorkers Embraced Ranked-Choice Voting. Mamdani’s Win Proves It.

      by

      Here are five takeaways from New York City’s second experience with ranked-choice voting, and how it helped Zohran Mamdani secure a decisive victory.Four years ago, New Yorkers had their first brush with ranked-choice voting, but few seemed ready to embrace it. Voters seemed puzzled by the process, and the Democratic mayoral candidates were hesitant to work together and make cross-endorsements to help each other.This year was different.All the campaigns tried to game the system, which allows voters to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. Organizations made group endorsements; campaigns told voters to avoid ranking specific candidates; and several contenders made cross-endorsement deals.Most of this benefited Zohran Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist who officially won the Democratic primary for mayor on Tuesday after ranked choices were counted.He received nearly 100,000 additional votes from New Yorkers who ranked him lower on their ballots.Those votes helped Mr. Mamdani beat his main rival, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, by 12 percent — a decisive victory that shocked Democrats in the city and across the nation.Here are five takeaways from the ranked-choice count.Brad Lander, left, and Zohran Mamdani reached a cross-endorsement deal that added ranked-choice votes for Mr. Mamdani.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesLander’s Endorsement Helped MamdaniFor much of the campaign, Brad Lander, the city comptroller, was stuck in third place.The only citywide elected official in the race, Mr. Lander was expected to be the standard-bearer for the left flank of the party. But Mr. Mamdani’s charisma, social media savvy and focus on affordability catapulted him past Mr. Lander in the polls.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares123 Views

      in Elections

      How Zohran Mamdani Brought New Voters to the Polls

      by

      Mr. Mamdani, the likely winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, drew tens of thousands of new voters to the polls. Here’s how.Upstart challengers in political races often begin with the goal of drawing new or disillusioned voters to their cause. They build excitement, often on social media, but inevitably fall short.Zohran Mamdani proved different.He hit the ground running in the mayor’s race, talking to disaffected New Yorkers in Queens and the Bronx who voted for President Trump. He repeatedly visited mosques to hear the concerns of Muslims, hoping to provide a reason for the uninvolved to register to vote.He won over progressives with a populist message of making the city more affordable, in part by asking corporations and the wealthy to pay more, and he spread his vision through viral social media videos. He accumulated an army of volunteers and small donors, helping his campaign knock on more than one million doors.The polls were slow to capture his momentum, but he was building something the city had not really seen before: a winning citywide campaign for mayor, built from nothing in a matter of months.Mr. Mamdani, the likely Democratic primary winner, still faces what is expected to be another bruising general election in November with a broader electorate. His ability to sustain his momentum will be tested, especially with business leaders already plotting how to undermine him.He will need to further the success he found in immigrant neighborhoods like Kensington in Brooklyn, which is known as Little Bangladesh, and in the enclaves of young professionals, like Long Island City in Queens.New registrations were much higher in 2025Cumulative new registrations beginning 100 days before the registration deadline

      Sources: New York City Board of Elections; L2By The New York TimesAge distribution of voters in New York City mayoral electionsIncludes 2025 mail ballots processed through Thursday morning

      Sources: New York City Board of Elections; L2By The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      If Everyone Had Voted, Kamala Harris Still Would Have Lost

      by

      New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.A voting line in Phoenix in November. Jon Cherry for The New York TimesIn the wake of last November’s election, many Democrats blamed low turnout for Kamala Harris’s defeat.It wasn’t entirely without reason, as turnout dropped in Democratic areas, but many months later it is clear the blame was misplaced. Newly available data, based on authoritative voter turnout records, suggests that if anything, President Trump would have done even better if everyone had voted.The new data, including a new study from Pew Research released Thursday, instead offers a more dispiriting explanation for Democrats: Young, nonwhite and irregular voters defected by the millions to Mr. Trump, costing Ms. Harris both the Electoral College and the popular vote.The findings suggest that Mr. Trump’s brand of conservative populism once again turned politics-as-usual upside down, as his gains among disengaged voters deprived Democrats of their traditional advantage with this group, who are disproportionately young and nonwhite.For a generation, the assumption that Democrats benefit from high turnout has underpinned the hopes and machinations of both parties, from Republican support for restrictive voting laws to Democratic hopes of mobilizing a new progressive coalition of young and nonwhite voters. It’s not clear whether Democrats will struggle with irregular voters in the future, but the data nonetheless essentially ends the debate about whether Ms. Harris lost because she alienated swing voters or because she failed to energize her base. In the end, Democrats alienated voters whose longtime support they might have taken for granted.The 2024 election may feel like old news, especially in the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York City on Tuesday, but the best data on the outcome has only recently become available. Over the last two months, the last few states updated their official records of who did or did not vote in the election. These records unlock the most authoritative studies of the electorate, which link voter turnout records to high-quality surveys. More

    • 75 Shares98 Views

      in Elections

      How Mamdani Won, Block by Block

      by

      <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–>At a raucous rally in Manhattan last week, amid a sea of yellow bandannas, “Freeze the Rent” signs and “A City We Can Afford” banners, Mr. Mamdani took the stage to a groundswell of applause. He […] More

    • 163 Shares197 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Won by Turning Out Voters and Building a Diverse Coalition, Report Finds

      by

      A new Pew Research Center study found that 85 percent of President Trump’s 2020 supporters came out to vote for him again, a better rate than Democrats pulled off.One of the most robust studies of the 2024 election shows that President Trump’s return to the White House was powered more heavily by his ability to turn out past supporters than by winning over Democratic voters, even as he built one of the most diverse coalitions in Republican Party history.The new report, released on Thursday from Pew Research Center, offers some of the most detailed analysis yet of what actually happened last fall, in particular how infrequent voters broke for Mr. Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris.In the end, the math was simple and significant: A larger share of voters who supported Mr. Trump in the 2020 election — 85 percent — showed up to vote for him again in 2024. Ms. Harris earned the support of just 79 percent of former President Joseph R. Biden’s 2020 voters.The analysis showed that 5 percent of Mr. Biden’s voters flipped to Mr. Trump, while only 3 percent of Mr. Trump’s 2020 voters flipped to Ms. Harris.But the bigger factor was turnout: 15 percent of Mr. Biden’s voters did not vote at all in 2024, Pew found.Tony Fabrizio, who was the lead pollster for the Trump campaign, said the new report validated the campaign’s strategic successes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More