Welcome.
We're ready to get started.
I'm Susan Smith from the office
of the dean at the Columbia
School of Social Work.
Before we get underway, I'd
like to share a few things.
First, we ask for your
patience and flexibility
with potential
technical challenges.
If you have any tech
issues during the session,
you can write a note in the chat
box or email swit@columbia.edu.
The chat box will be open from
the beginning of the session.
Later in the program,
it will be muted,
and we will move to Q&A.
All questions should
be entered via the Q&A feature.
Questions can be
entered at any time.
The panelists will
get to the questions
during the Q&A period that
will start around 1 o'clock.
Now to the program.
It is my great pleasure to
introduce the host for today's
session, Dean Melissa Begg.
Dean Begg became the
18th dean of the Columbia
School of Social Work
on September 1, 2019.
She is an accomplished
scholar, committed educator,
and creative
administrative leader.
Her work has
focused on convening
interdisciplinary
teams, developing
innovative curricula,
creating mentorship programs,
and enhancing diversity
in graduate education
and the research workforce.
She is deeply committed to the
school's social justice mission
and the pursuit of better
science for a better society
through scholarship, education,
practice, and collaboration.
Dean Begg.
Thanks, Susan.
Welcome.
And thanks to everyone
for joining us.
Today, we'll have the
pleasure of hearing
from an outstanding
group of panelists
in an in-depth discussion
of voting rights, voter
suppression, and
access to voting.
I think we'll all come away from
today's session better informed
and better prepared to stand
up and take action, to train,
organize, and mobilize so
that our constituents can vote
for the candidates
who share their values
and who will best
represent their interests.
As we get underway, I
just want to underscore
that social work
is, as you know,
the work of social justice.
Social workers, with their
commitment to social justice
and advocacy and their strong
partnerships with community
based organizations,
are uniquely positioned
to raise awareness,
mobilize for action,
and increase voter engagement.
Social workers understand
from long experience
that the key obstacles
to well-being
are structural and
systemic, enacted
through social and
economic policy.
They see the consequences of
problematic policies every day.
They recognize that
policies must change.
The route to better policy
is through better government.
To begin, let me
state clearly that I
am no expert on voting issues.
But you don't need
to be an expert
to be alarmed by developments
in voting rights.
We see concerted efforts
to restrict voting rights
in states across the country.
We face what may be the
most consequential election
of our lives while
we're also confronting
the global epidemics of
COVID and anti-Black racism
and the extreme economic damage
being inflicted on the most
vulnerable among us.
It comes down to this.
Voting is one of our
most fundamental rights.
And social workers must be
ready to defend that right.
I am so proud of the
school's Social Work Votes
campaign, led by
faculty and students who
are on today's panel.
We are delighted to be
working hand-in-hand
with other critical voter
engagement initiatives led
by the Latino Leadership
Institute and the National
Social Work Voter
Mobilization Campaign.
At this point, it's
my pleasure and honor
to introduce our
esteemed panelists.
Moderating today's session
is Dr. John Robertson,
a faculty member here
at Columbia Social Work.
He is an expert in social
policy, advocacy, and community
organizing.
In addition to engaging in
community social work practice
in Brooklyn's
Bushwick neighborhood,
Dr. Robertson has worked
on national policy research
initiatives related to poor
families, employment and family
issues, and the reintegration
of the formerly incarcerated
into family and communities.
He is joined by
wonderful panelists.
Dr. Jaime Estades is adjunct
professor at Columbia
and co-founder and president
of the Latino Leadership
Institute.
The Institute provides
education on the fundamentals
of campaign management
and public policy
and hosts civic
engagement projects
for high school students.
His work focuses on issues
of immigration, housing,
voter registration,
and family entitlement.
Doctor Estades is also
the author of many plays,
including Five Sessions,
which will be published
as a novel in December.
Dr. Rob Hartley is assistant
professor at Columbia.
He is an applied
microeconomist whose research
focuses on labor and
public economics related
to public policy and family
outcomes across generations.
His research addresses
the role of social policy
on the persistence of
poverty and dependence.
Dr. Hartley's recently
published report
on the potential voting power
of poor and low income voters
is receiving considerable
national attention.
Sarah Jamgotch is in her
final year of the MSW program
at Columbia, where
she's concentrating
in policy practice with a focus
on contemporary social issues.
She is a Mental Health Caucus
co-leader, orientation pack
leader, and a member of the
Social Work Votes campaign.
She's interested in developing
social work values and ethics
in political and
congressional spaces
to cultivate innovative,
equitable legislation.
Dr. Charles Lewis Junior is an
alum and an adjunct professor
at Columbia Social Work.
He is the director of CRISP,
the Congressional Research
Institute for Social
Work and Policy,
a DC-based nonprofit whose
mission is threefold--
to expand social workers'
engagement with Congress,
to ensure awareness of
social work research
among policymakers, and to
increase field placement
opportunities for
students in government.
A former staffer on
Capitol Hill, Dr. Lewis
is a leading advocate
for social workers'
involvement in policy and
politics at the federal level.
Xinrui Lyu is a continuing
MSW student at Columbia
in the social enterprise
administration program,
concentrating in the world
of work practice area.
This summer, she completed
her field practicum
with Social Work Votes.
She is interested in
developing social work values
in the areas of rural
to urban migration
and aging in order
to empower people.
Last but not least, we
have Tess Ariel Weiner.
She is a second-year Columbia
MSW student in the accelerated
policy practice
program, focusing
on contemporary social issues.
She is student co-chair of
the Social Work Votes campaign
and co-chair of
the Policy Caucus.
She is interested in the
application of social work
principles at a meso
level to support
individuals and
communities while focusing
on system change.
So grateful to have
all of you join us.
And at this point, it's my
pleasure to turn it over
to Dr. Robertson.
Thank you very much, Dean Begg.
It's a great pleasure
to have you all here.
When I started doing my
doctoral work at Columbia,
I shared a floor with Richard
Cloward, who at that moment
was working hard on the effort
to have social workers become
engaged in voter enablement and
to build the Motor Voter bill.
We were pretty successful
on the Motor Voter bill.
We're still working on the
social work engagement.
So in a world where we're
addressing white supremacy,
we're addressing
patriarchy, and we're
addressing the history
of classism in America,
our voting system has been
designed in such a way
to exclude rather
than to include.
And so our efforts here
are really to drive this
and to change this.
Yesterday, I was on
a session with a man
who's been working in political
organizing in the United States
all around the
country for 25 years.
And he says now that when
he goes into any community
and starts working with
people that are thinking
about political reform,
political and electoral reform,
he says social workers are
there and in the lead of it.
That should be good
news to all of us.
It's very exciting to me.
And I want to see that we
continue to build our capacity
to support the people we serve
in having their interests
served by government.
So I'm going to
introduce Charles Lewis.
Charles began working in
neighborhood work in Brooklyn.
And that effort took him
both to graduate school
and to Congressman
Ed Town's office
and to work in developing
the Congressional Social Work
Caucus.
And he has then built
on that to build
CRISP, which is building social
work's capacity on Capitol
Hill.
So he's here with us today
to talk about social work
and legislation.
So welcome, Charles.
Thank you, Dr. Robertson.
I am very pleased to lend
my support to this effort
by the Columbia University
School of Social Work
to mobilize and motivate voters
for the November 3 election.
Hats off to Dean Begg and Dr.
Robertson and all the students
who are participating,
because there's
a lot at stake in this
year's presidential election.
But as John often
reminds me, there
are elections all
the way down ballot
that we also must be aware of.
If you got a chance to watch
former President Barack
Obama last night, he
spelled it out very clearly
in his speech--
that our democracy may hang
in the balance in this year's
presidential election.
And it's a democracy that
most of us take for granted.
We feel it's always
going to be there.
However, he reminded
us that we live
in a representative democracy.
And that's something
a lot of people
don't give much thought to.
You know, most of
us, most often,
when we elect our
representatives
at all levels of government,
from the White House
to the local school
boards and everything
in between, if the person
we voted for is elected,
we trust that representative
will make decisions and cast
votes for policy
that benefits us.
And if the person we
did not vote for wins,
we usually hold our breath
until the next election.
Many believe that our work is
done when we cast our votes.
The truth is, our
work begins when
we cast our votes, because we
must be watchful of what occurs
in legislative settings to
ensure that our representatives
are truly acting on our behalf.
And as social workers,
we are concerned
about policies and laws that
impact clients and communities
we service.
When I arrived in the
House of Representatives
to work as the
deputy chief of staff
for Mr. Towns, who
is a social worker,
I was struck by the
lack of influence
our profession had in Congress.
Sure, the National
Association of Social Workers
and the Council on
Social Work Education
were engaged on some very
specific issues that directly
affected the profession,
but we did not
weigh in sufficiently on
federal legislation that
impacted the country as
a whole, such as housing,
transportation, education.
I remember being invited
to a doctoral luncheon
at the Society for
Social Work Research when
I was asked to respond
to the question,
does social work research
have an impact in Congress?
Very short speech.
The answer was little to none,
and that was being generous.
So I worked with
Congressman Towns
to create the Congressional
Social Work Caucus, which
would provide a platform
for social workers' voices
to be heard on the Hill.
At that time,
nurses had a caucus.
Psychologists had a caucus.
And so did the spotted owl.
But now we do.
President Obama picked
a very fitting venue
to deliver his
speech last night--
Independence Hall in
Philadelphia, where
the Constitution was signed.
And above his head were
the words "we the people,"
reminding us that if we were
to maintain our democracy,
we need everyone to be involved.
More of us need to be engaged
with our representatives.
We need to know who our
representatives are.
And we need to know what
committees they sit on.
Most of the work done by members
of Congress, state legislators,
and local city council
members is often
determined by the
committee assignments.
So you should know what
issues your representative is
focused on.
And you should know
who is on the committee
responsible for issues
that you care about.
And to be effective, you
must develop relationships
with your representatives.
I encourage schools
of social work
to engage their
congressional representatives
and their staff.
I encourage schools
of social work
to find field placements
in district offices
as well as in Washington.
I have worked on
the Hill long enough
to develop some relationships.
Last week, Congresswoman
Karen Bass' staff
sent me a draft of a
bill she is planning
to introduce on providing
dental service to foster youth
and asked me to look it over.
Not my area, but I
was able to show it
to some friends
in the profession.
When we did our
congressional briefing
on social work and the future
of policing that fruit featured
Dr. Desmond Patton,
Senator Van Hollen's office
asked us to provide
suggestions for a bill.
And we know the Columbia
University's School of Social
Work professors are often
invited to provide testimony
at Congressional hearings.
But we could be more proactive.
For example, I am working
with Dr. Michael Sherraden
at the Brown School on
getting a bill introduced
for child development accounts.
And so we realized
that the last person
who had introduced the bill
was former Congressman Joseph
Crowley.
So we went to Mr. Crowley
and got him interested.
But you know how that ended.
AOC came on.
And so Mr. Crowley
is no longer there.
But what I'm saying is, you
can take ideas to legislators.
So in close, I would like to
say we are working on a project
that you'll soon hear about--
the Social Work Democracy
Project.
Voting is the most critical
aspect of a democracy.
But our civic responsibility
should not stop there.
Thanks very much, Charles.
We'll be interested in hearing
more about the Social Work
Democracy Project.
Do you have a minute to say
just a few more words about it?
Sure.
Duke historian Nancy MacLean
wrote a book called Democracy
in Chains, where
she lays out how
the Libertarians had gained
a disproportionate advantage
in local--
in elections-- and which
also became a disadvantage--
a disproportionate
influence in government.
And she raised the
question, can I, well,
actually, I raised the question,
can democracy be saved?
Can social work
help save democracy?
And we took our presentation
to deans of directors.
And we got a group together
who wanted to do something.
And so we have--
we've been meeting
and decided to launch
this project called the
Social Work Democracy Project.
And it's going to
look at curriculum.
And it's going to look
at and be a clearinghouse
for all those wonderful
things, John, that you--
you know, that are being
done in those communities.
We want to make sure that
we know what's going on
and share best
practices and ideas.
So it should be
launched pretty soon.
Thanks very much, Charles.
We look forward to that.
So next with us
is Jaime Estades,
who has been working up and down
the East Coast of the United
States with the
Latino leadership
Institute for the last
at least 20 years,
building voices of
people in neighborhoods
to prepare them
to run for office.
And he can claim a
significant number
of elected
representatives that have
been through his training
and the work that he's done.
So Professor Estades is going
to spend some time now talking
about engaging in
candidate development
and supporting
candidate development.
So welcome very much, Jaime.
Thank you, John.
And thank you to Colombia School
of Social Work for putting this
together.
I have taught at
different universities--
Portland, Rutgers,
NYU, and Columbia.
And I have to say, I love
all those institutions,
but since I have been
at Columbia University,
it's the only one
that has really
engaged in these type of events
in terms of voting in the way
that we have been
doing during the summer
and working with the students.
John can speak more
about all the projects
that we're doing right now.
But it is really satisfying.
I just want to talk a little bit
about how the Latino Leadership
Institute was formed,
since our goal is basically
to encourage people to enter
into the electoral process.
In 1996, I was selected by
Bill Richardson, who was then
in the United Nations,
and Henry Cisneros, who
was Secretary of Housing,
and Dennis Rivera, who
was the president of 1199, to
run the Hispanic Educational
Legal Fund.
That was my board.
I didn't need more than that.
And basically, my job
was to organize the vote
and register people to vote in
the East Coast of the United
States.
And we did that with the
Southwest Voter Registration
Project that was founded by
Willie Velasquez, who was
the right hand to Cesar Chavez.
I didn't know much about--
I knew about organizing, but I
didn't know much about voting.
And I learned a lot from the
Southwest Voter Registration
Project.
And one of the
things that they had
was an academy in which
they taught people
about the electoral process
and participating in voting
and putting together
political campaigns.
And after that, I decided that
we needed that in the East
Coast in order to
create the same type
of political
empowerment that they
were doing in the Southwest
for more than 30 years.
So the Latino Leadership
Institute-- what we do
is that we basically
teach people
about the electoral process.
But our main purpose, which is
different from other similar
organizations, is for
us to basically empower
people in the electoral process,
since voting in the United
States has always been
from the perspective--
has always existed from the
perspective of privilege,
not us a voting right.
The history on-- the history of
privilege and voter suppression
in the United States is long.
And it has never acted
or been performed
as a right, but as a privilege.
So our job is basically
to democratize
the electoral
process, especially
in New York City and the East
Coast of the United States.
We have had chapters in
Pennsylvania, working together
with Temple University,
UCF in Florida.
And now we're working with CUNY.
We have been working with
CUNY during the last 10 years
to have our courses here.
Now, let me say something
about civic engagement,
since this is what I'm
supposed to be talking about.
I have a problem--
I have always had a
problem with the concept
of civic engagement, because
civic engagement shows only one
face of all the work that
we have to do in order
to have political empowerment.
Engagement is just the
beginning of the work.
What we are trying to
do, what people consider
civic engagement-- but what
we've really tried to do
is to empower communities
politically and economically,
at the end of the day.
There is an anecdote
by Martin Luther
King during the
'60s, in which he
was very upset with liberals.
During those times, it
was called moderates,
because they always talk
about inclusion-- the concept
of inclusion, which, of course,
Martin Luther King didn't
have a problem with that.
But he always said that
people are stuck on inclusion.
The struggle was
not about inclusion,
he kept reminding them.
The struggle was about gaining
and sharing political power.
And that's what we do in the
Latino Leadership Institute,
based on that phrase
by Martin Luther King,
that he always kept
reminding people,
this is not about
inclusion only.
Inclusion is only a phase.
It's about gaining and
sharing political power.
And that's what we're trying to
do by basically democratizing
the political process
and the electoral process
in the United States.
The problem that we
found in New York
when we created the
Latino Leadership
Institute was basically--
and it still exists--
that most of the political
process in the cities
are controlled by
political machineries
that basically can
suppress the vote, too,
regardless of parties.
And we're still trying
to change that process
by basically providing
the information of how
to run campaigns and also
understanding public policy
better to poor communities.
Now, I want to make a
little parenthesis here.
Rob Hartley is going to be
talking later about a study
that he made on poor
communities and voting.
Please pay attention.
I just read a little
bit about that study.
And that's the study that
we needed 20 years ago
when we formed the Latino
Leadership Institute.
We would have been
more effective.
So it will show
you how communities
of color and poor
communities are
excluded from the process of
voting in the United States.
It goes back to more
than 200 years ago.
But especially now, both
parties have made sure
that they select the voters
in terms of the voters
selecting the elected officials.
And that's the work
that we try to do.
These are the classes
that we teach in order
to make sure that people
know how elections work.
We have a class on petitions,
how to collect petitions.
We have a class on
campaign finance.
We have a class on message.
We have a class on
get out the vote,
building base, field
operations, ethics,
which is extremely
important, and fundraising.
But something that
we're proud of--
very proud-- is our
second semester,
which is the semester in
which we teach public policy.
Everybody that comes to the
Latino Leadership Institute
take the classes for free.
We have never charged
and we will never
charge for the classes.
But public policy is the one
that we are really proud of,
because that's the one in which
we help activists in New York
City to get the data--
for example, the data
in that study from Rob.
That data is extremely
important for activists
in poor communities, not
only in New York City,
but throughout the state of
New York and in other states,
because they're activists
in the areas of health care.
So we have a policy
course, policy courses,
on environmental justice,
community development,
housing policy, health care
policy, and education policy.
And what we do is
that we have experts
in each one of those
areas providing
data and information to all
the students taking that class.
And they come from very--
all of them-- they come
from very poor backgrounds.
Many of them don't have
high school diplomas.
Some of them are lawyers.
Some of them are
engineers, health care.
Everybody's equal in the
Latino Leadership Institute.
And we have help, through
the public policy course,
providing them
the data that they
need so they can lobby
for their communities
better when they go to hearings
at the state, federal, and city
level.
So every year, we get comments
from the people who participate
in our policy courses
about how helpful
was the data that was
provided by our experts
in each one of
those areas in order
to empower their communities.
So this is the way of
democratizing elections.
Like I said before,
elections are a privilege
in the United States.
And especially after the
Citizens United decision
by the Supreme Court, which
gave more power to corporations,
it gave more power to
the elites in elections
instead of providing more access
and more power to the people.
It also-- that was
exacerbated also
by the decision of
the Supreme Court
in Shelby versus Holder that
basically almost destroyed--
and it has been diminished-- the
power of the Voting Rights Act.
So what we see is a pattern
of taking people out
of the democratic process
even more and more and more.
So everything that we do at
the Latino Leadership Institute
is basically to empower people.
And as I said, we
do it for free.
But we do it in collaboration
with institutions
that care about the
work that we do,
like CUNY, Columbia, UCF in
Florida, Temple University.
And we do everything for free.
We don't make money out of this.
However, there are
other organizations
that charge $5,000,
$4,000 for what we do.
And they do it in one weekend.
We do it in two semesters.
And everything is out of love.
So I just wanted to
talk about what we do.
And I hope that people can
replicate in your communities
what we do.
So John, tell me.
Am I done?
Thank you very much, Jaime.
Terrific.
We'll have more time in the Q&A.
OK.
So I want to introduce to
you Professor Rob Hartley
and a little more background,
as I understand it, on the work
that he has done.
Rob is working with the
Poor People's Campaign
out of North Carolina.
And he has been working with
them on what difference would
it make if poor people voted.
So this is an academic paper.
It's fine research.
It's using the best data.
But in research, it all depends
on who asks the questions.
And here, Rob, working with
the Poor People's Campaign,
has asked a question that
should really matter to us.
So welcome very much, Rob.
Thank you so much for
the introduction, John.
And I really appreciate
the great natural segue
that Jaime kind of presented
when discussing my work.
I appreciate that.
So I'm Rob Hartley.
I am an economist.
And I teach economics and
policy at Columbia School
of Social Work.
And my research usually focuses
on how social policy affects
those in poverty.
But this project was a really
interesting opportunity
to think about how those who
are living in poverty or those
with low income can actually
influence the social policies
that affect them so much.
And so the Poor
People's Campaign
reached out to me
about this project.
And I'm going to share some
of the kind of highlights.
But one of the things
that Jaime said--
I was going to preface this
by saying that, usually, I
think of data as
being very motivating.
But this is a very
motivated crowd.
Jaime really put it into
context with how much power
there really is in knowing
the potential of the data,
the potential of these
populations that a lot of you
care about.
And also, John, you
said that they're
kind of based out of
North Carolina, which
is partially true.
Repairers of the Breach
is out of North Carolina.
And Reverend Barber is
out of North Carolina.
But the policy and research side
of the Poor People's Campaign
is rooted at the Kairos
Center, which is actually
just right across
the street, almost,
from the School of Social Work.
So I think my office looks
right out at their office.
They're very close by.
OK.
So I'm going to talk about
some of the data that's
looking into the question
of, how much are poor people
and low income people voting?
And we're defining low-income
here by those with income
below 200% of the official
poverty threshold.
So first of all, just
descriptive trends
and how much are they voting,
and then what I'm going to do
is move toward how
much potential they
could have in elections
and what that means.
So low-income families,
individuals, do vote less.
They vote less often than
those with higher incomes--
above 200%, everyone above 200%.
And what you see
here are the trends
for both presidential elections
and midterm elections.
There's always higher turnouts
in the presidential elections.
And low-income voters
are-- or eligible voters--
are about 20
percentage points less
likely to show up at the polls.
But that doesn't mean that
they don't and that they aren't
influenced by what's going on.
So as you see, the trends in
voter participation turnout
really move together.
The same kind of things
that really motivate
higher-income folks to
show up at the polls,
you can see that lower-income
folks are responding as well.
They're just less
likely in each year.
But they also have the same,
similar kind of potential
to really increase turnout.
If you look at what
happened in 2018,
our most recent elections, there
was about a 10 percentage point
increase for both low-income
and higher-income folks
over a four-year period
from the 2014 midterm
to the 2018 midterm.
So for lower income
folks, that's
a 33% increase, about a one
third increase in their voter
participation, which
is really large.
And actually,
that's a number that
matches up with some of
the kind of statistics
that I'm going to talk
about in a second.
So given that a
lower-income electorate
is less likely to
show up to vote,
that also means that
they represent a larger
potential voting
group out there.
And so what I'm going to do is
move through a series of maps
that think through, how large
is the low-income eligible
non-voting population?
And first, I'm going
to just compare it
to the total electorate.
And so that's what
I'm doing here.
So you can see that in states
like Arkansas and Mississippi
and in coal country states like
Kentucky and West Virginia,
the low-income non-voting
population is about one fifth
of the total electorate.
So this is-- just
in raw numbers,
this is kind of a large,
substantial group of folks.
I'm going to come to later some
reasons why they're not voting.
And some of you, with your
social work perspective,
are fully aware of some
reasons they're not voting,
right, because of illness,
disability, transportation,
or voter suppression.
But there's also kind of more to
the story in how they respond.
As we saw in the trends
in the graph before,
they're responding to the
campaigns and the issues that
are being talked about.
So-- OK.
They are a large percent
of the total electorate.
But next, I wanted to say,
well, how much could they
possibly matter?
And so this graph is
comparing the size
of the low-income population
of eligible nonvoters
to the most recent margin of
victory for the 2016 election.
And so basically,
it's asking, OK,
what percent of the
low-income nonvoters
would equal that
margin of victory?
And in states like Michigan,
it would just be 1%.
1% of the low-income
nonvoters, if they had voted,
they would match--
they would equal the 2016
margin of victory in Michigan.
In Pennsylvania, it was 4%.
And even in places like Florida,
in the south, it was 7%.
So there's, again, more
evidence of potential.
But that would only
change the outcome
if 100% of those new voters
all voted the same way.
Right?
And we don't think that
that would be the case.
We do think that
the low-income--
any non-voter is likely
different from those who have
selected and decided to vote.
And the low-income
population tends
to be more concerned about
health care and income
maintenance type policies.
OK.
I wanted to take the data
one more step and say,
so we know that 1% in
Michigan, for example, would
equal the margin of victory.
But how much would it take
to actually turn an election?
And this part is hard
to answer, slightly,
because you have to kind
of pin down a number--
what percent of how many
people would it take?
Or given this many people--
so basically, I had to
make the choice of picking
a number of how many
people would be voting,
and then saying
what percent of them
would have to vote against
the party that had won before?
So the experiment is, what
if the low-income voters
voted at the same participation
rates as higher-income voters?
If they did and they
split their votes 50/50,
then there's no
change in outcome.
But what percentage
above 50% would
have to vote against the
winning party in 2016
to swing that election.
So that's the thought
experiment that I show here.
So low-income voters--
imagine they're
voting at the same rate
as higher-income voters.
And if you look
again at Michigan,
this is an example where
it doesn't take much.
It takes a very simple
majority in Michigan--
51% of those new voters--
to change the outcome there.
And similar in
Pennsylvania-- it would only
take 55%, a very small majority.
But in states like Georgia,
North Carolina, and Florida--
and as a matter of fact, I'll
include Mississippi and Texas--
these are all states that,
under the Voting Rights Act,
had at least some
preclearance conditions
about changing their legislation
because of the history of voter
suppression and particularly
racialized voter suppression.
So in some sense, it's
sort of remarkable
that some of these states
are potential states that
actually could turn if
low-income voters showed
up more.
But in another sense,
these measures of potential
are really measures of how
much low-income voters are not
participating.
And so you might
see the evidence
of Texas, Florida, and
Georgia showing up here as--
the potential there has
been built up artificially,
in some sense, by voter
suppression in those states.
So these preclearance conditions
were overturned, actually,
in Shelby versus Holder, which
was just mentioned earlier.
But these are states
that could matter,
and with numbers
that are plausible.
So it kind of points back to how
much we are able to move people
to the polls.
This is kind of the
work of social workers,
right, that there is a chance
that you can make a difference
in people's ability to show up.
But that difference
can also really make
a very plausible difference
in our political outcomes.
So I'm going to say just
a short comment here
about why people are saying
that they aren't voting.
So you're all aware--
and I mentioned before--
illness and disability
is a bigger reason
for low-income voters.
But very similarly
across income groups,
on average, for lower-income
and higher-income,
people are saying
that they're not
voting-- about a quarter of them
are saying they're not voting
because they don't
think candidates
or issues are speaking to them.
And so from the Poor People's
Campaign perspective,
this is really a
call for candidates
to not just speak
to the middle class
or to the moneyed
interests, but to really
speak to this large population
of potential voters,
because I think that they would
be likely to show up if they
felt like it did matter.
And you can see in
2016, there's really
a spike in disillusionment.
And there is a spike
in disillusioned voters
for both lower-income
and higher-income.
But this graph
doesn't tell us why
people won't be voting in 2020.
Right?
So we have new obstacles.
We have the health pandemic.
And we have attacks
on voting by mail.
I will just say
that voting by mail
has been increasing across
multiple characteristics.
Lower-income and higher-income
are incredibly similar trends
about voting by mail over time.
So voting by mail really
should be a way of increasing
accessibility, especially now.
But this is a great
opportunity to figure out
what people's voting plans
are, help them executing
their voting plans,
whether it's by mail
or whatever that may be.
So an exciting time for social
work to play a pivotal role.
And I'm also excited to be
sharing this presentation
time here with some
of our students
at the Columbia School
of Social Work who
are going to be following up.
I'll be joining some of them on
the podcast Social Work Votes
soon, and I'm
excited about that.
But it's really great to
see the level of engagement
for our school, our dean hosting
this panel, faculty showing up,
but also student-led initiatives
to really get involved.
So thanks.
I'm happy to be part of this.
Thanks very much, Rob.
This has the potential, I
think, of really moving our mind
on what's possible
here, in a way
that we have not
routinely done that.
So I've had the
pleasure all summer
of working with Xinrui Lyu on
our Social Work Votes campaign.
And in the middle
of the work she's
been doing in New York in
America on Social Work Votes,
she's discovered an election
in her neighborhood in Beijing.
And so she's here today
to talk about some
of the Social Work
Votes activity
that she's been doing
in Beijing this summer.
So welcome very much, Xinrui.
Thank you so much for the
introduction, Dr. Robertson.
And today, I'm going to share
my experience in my home country
about the small election.
But before I share
my experience,
I would like to talk about
the related experience
in the Social Work Votes,
because that is really related
to my experience in China and
also inspired my activities
in China.
Actually, as an international
social work student,
I was not very familiar with
the voting system in the United
States before.
And actually, it
was very new to me.
But after talking to my
professor and schoolmates
several times and
doing some research,
I got to know that there were
still many people suffering
from the voter suppression.
So I really hope to
stand up for human rights
and make the voice of
those discriminated people
to be heard.
And thanks for the
Social Work Votes,
I got to figure out
what I can do to support
our potential clients.
For example, I worked with
my schoolmates and people
who were really interested
in Social Work Votes writing
newsletters, interviewing
different people
in the podcast, and designing
the Social Work Votes website.
And in this process, I
gradually found that,
although I am an international
student and cannot vote,
there are still many
things I can do to help,
because it is nonpartisan
and should not be restricted
by the citizenship but related
to the social work values
and ethics.
So the similar experience is
that in my community in China,
in Beijing, there was
also a small voting
to elect the owner committee.
And to be specific, the owner
committee is responsible to--
it's how they understand the
owners opinions and suggestions
and supervise the property
service duties of the property
service personnel and supervise
the use of special funds
and carry out the
activities to enrich
the life of those owners, the
residents in the community.
So I worked to help and
collect the candidates basic
information, design their
publicity materials,
assist the publicity of
candidates information,
and help to set up the ballot
boxes and collect the votes.
So I think the voting is
our fundamental rights,
no matter for a country
or just for a community.
And we can do to
contribute to protect
our rights in our
own ways, because it
is an influence on the way
we live in our countries
or live in our communities.
So what I would like
to share is that,
because of my identity as
an international student,
I think for international
students or immigrant students,
although we cannot vote, we can
still engage in different ways
other than voting, like doing
something else to support
marginalized people
during this process.
And from my understanding, for
example, from the macro level,
we can help our clients
get access to registration.
And from the meso
or macro level,
we can also do some,
like, advocacy work
in our field agencies.
So that's my simple
understanding.
And my takeaway is that,
don't set any restrictions
to ourself, because we are--
I think we are creative.
We believe in social justice.
And we have the power to
empower people and communities
to influence the social change.
Yeah.
So that's my takeaway from that
experience in the Social Work
Votes and also in my
home country voting.
Thanks, Xinrui.
You are demonstrating what
Social Work Votes is about.
It's about finding a place
where it makes a difference
to support people in
accessing the vote.
And there's no place
that you can't do that.
So I really appreciate what
you bring to us, Xinrui.
Students, as Xinrui and
Tess Weiner and Sarah, who
are joining us now,
have been really
at the center of all of this.
It's really hard to
emphasize how much energy
has been put into this campaign
by students at the Columbia
University School of Social
Work, and increasingly working
with us by students at Bryn
Mawr and students at Penn
and students at Mary Wood
in Northeastern Pennsylvania
and students at Central
Florida University.
So it's my pleasure
now to present
one of the leaders of the
Social Work Votes campaign
at Columbia, Tess Weiner.
And she will be
talking to us now
about the issue of
voter suppression, which
motivates a great deal of
the work that we're doing.
Welcome very much, Tess.
Thank you for the
introduction, Dr. Robertson.
Yes, voter suppression--
my favorite-- one
of my favorite Professor
Estades quotes, which is,
"voter suppression is
American as apple pie."
Right?
I like the John
Lewis quote as well.
Right?
"The vote is the most powerful
nonviolent change agent
you have in a
democratic society.
You must use it, because
it is not guaranteed.
You can lose it."
And we see that happening
all the time through voter
suppression tactics.
Voter suppression
has existed, I mean,
as long as our electoral
system has existed.
There are lots of
different tactics
that are used, from
purging voter registration
rolls to requiring
identification
or even having fees or poll
taxes in order to vote.
There's also gerrymandering
and disinformation campaigns.
All of these tactics affect
many different groups of voters
and prevent them from voting.
We would be amiss if we
did not name the underlying
racist and classist structures
that specifically target
low-income communities,
Black communities, immigrant
and indigenous communities
in these voter suppression
tactics.
And let's not forget
either, right,
those who are denied
voting rights completely.
This might include
undocumented immigrants that
are an important part
of our society, refugees
and other immigrants
that are non-citizens,
people who are
currently or previously
have been incarcerated.
And most of these groups
are non-white and poor.
As we celebrate the
hundredth anniversary
of women's suffrage,
it's important to note
that Black women were not
included in this major step
forward, until 1965.
And as Dr. Lewis said
earlier for us, right,
we live in a
representative democracy.
So this begs the question, who
is being represented, actually,
by our government?
And we've seen lots of voter
suppression tactics being
used, again, since the beginning
of our electoral processes.
But in the past year, there
have been an increased amount
that we can talk about.
For example, in Louisville,
in Kentucky, for the primary,
there were many
polling sites closed
in majority-Black neighborhoods.
So yes, there was one really
big central polling location.
But what if you
don't live close by,
and you don't have
transportation?
What if you're working?
These are targeted,
again, and specifically
in Black communities.
We saw also, in Texas, they
closed over 500 voting places
between 2012 and
2018 in counties
that were experiencing the
greatest increase in Black
and Latinx populations.
In just Brazoria County, which
is majority Black and Latinx,
over 60% of the polling
locations were closed.
It makes it that much
more difficult for someone
to cast their ballot, which
is allegedly something they
should be able to do easily.
Right?
We've also seen, you know,
voter registration purges.
So in Wisconsin, for
example, democratic areas
were targeted, such as
Madison and Milwaukee,
where more than 200,000
voters were removed
from the registration rolls.
We're now seeing issues
with the census, which
is really important, right?
The census has really low
completion rates right now.
And they just kind
of moved up the date.
So the time frame in which
information is being collected
is being shortened.
And the census is
being used to decide
the number of representatives
that are representing
a district, not only
just how many resources
are allocated to that district,
for the next 10 years.
So if not counted properly,
an incorrect census
would have dire
effects on communities
as well as their representation.
And notably, right
now, in a pandemic,
we're seeing an attack on
USPS, the postal service,
and voting by mail,
which would offer voters
a really safe
alternative to cast
their ballots from the
safety of their own homes.
And this voter suppression
tactic right now
is, like, very multi-level.
Right?
We're seeing a disinformation
campaign, both on social media
and traditional media outlets,
about fraud around mailing.
We're seeing the
removal of mailboxes
and sorting machines at
actual post office locations.
We're seeing the
difficulty people
have of registering to vote
online, which is not allowed
in all states, or even
asking for an absentee ballot
for certain reasons.
Sometimes COVID is not a
valid reason in all states.
So these are all really
pointed tactics, right,
to keep certain
people from voting.
And as Dr. Hartley's eye-opening
presentation kind of showed us,
we know that even small
margins of nonvoters
can make a huge difference
in election outcomes.
And all of this about voter
suppression, this really brief
overview of some recent
tactics that we've seen,
I think it really
ties in also with what
Dr. Hartley was saying about
why non-voters aren't voting.
The success of voter
suppression tactics, along
with minimal accountability
for elected officials--
it contributes to this idea
that one's vote does not count
or one's vote does not matter
or one's vote can't be counted.
Right?
So some people are
disconnected intentionally.
But others lack the
resources to engage.
They feel alienated or
isolated from a system
that they find confusing,
corrupt, and irrelevant.
But there's luckily a
lot of advocacy work
that we're seeing right now to
address some voter suppression
tactics.
One thing, for example, is
automatic voter registration,
which would allow eligible
citizens to be registered
to vote automatically in
any government agency,
such as the DMV, unless
they decide to opt out,
which would increase the
number of registered voters.
In some states that have
adopted this policy,
it's been up to 30%
more registration.
And it would also help
to combat illegal voter
purges by having, automatically,
their names on the books.
There's also been more
of a push for states
to allow online
voter registration
or offer a universal
vote by mail option,
specifically for this election,
given the context of COVID-19.
And I think that's really
where we come in, right,
as social workers.
How can we make
the voting process
more accessible to the
communities we're working with?
How can we provide resources
and tool kits for social workers
to bring into their agencies?
How can we partner with
community-based organizations
and enact nonpartisan
voter engagement strategies
to make all of this confusing
system a little less confusing
and a little easier to access?
We can use those social
worker skills, right,
of engagement and
assessment and intervention
to make the process easier.
And I think that this
will kind of maybe
segue nicely into what Sarah
will say, a little bit more
about where our campaign is
hoping to make a difference.
Thanks very much, Tess.
The voter suppression
topic is very big.
It expands in many directions.
And the fundamental role
that we as social workers
have in making sure
that access is possible
is, I hope, really
something that we're
getting through today.
So now I'm introducing
Sarah Jamgotch,
who is the person
who's done probably
a lion's share of a great deal
of work with us this summer.
She's built our newsletter.
She's been developing
our podcast.
She's helped work
on the website.
She's just put enormous energy
into all that we're doing.
And she's been working with
us on the Purple Campaign.
So I'm going to turn
it over to Sarah
to let you know what Social Work
Votes at Columbia looks like.
Thank you so much,
Dr. Robertson.
And thank you, Dean Begg, for
hosting this wonderful panel.
So I did want to
talk today about more
kind of concrete things.
Where do we go from
here now that we've
heard from all these
wonderful panelists?
How can we sort of start doing
actions in our communities?
Oftentimes, when I was
doing this campaign,
I was thinking about what kind
of resources could I bring?
What kind of skills can I bring?
You know, we're in
this tech age now.
What can you do
with social media?
Can we post flyers
and podcasting?
We're doing podcasting at the
Social Work Votes campaign.
And Zoom-- hosting registrations
and events on Zoom.
A way that we can get involved
is by being poll workers
if we're able to, if we feel
healthy and comfortable enough,
as well as create ways to
transport people to the polls.
If you have time from
now until November,
phone banking and text banking
through the Social Work Votes
campaign or with
other organizations,
is a great way to reach many
people to get them involved
in voting and civic engagement.
And then, if you have any
other knowledge or language
or any skills that you
think could be helpful--
it's all creative.
It's all fun.
There's really no limit
to what we can do in order
to increase this engagement.
And I think it's
important that, you know,
this is a really serious topic.
And this is really--
can be really life-changing
and life-threatening.
But it's also good to
find joy in the solutions,
trying to bring in
our communities.
And it can't be therapeutic.
Voting and civic engagement
can be therapeutic and healing
for so many communities
and populations.
I think one of the hardest parts
with trying to get young folks
and people to vote
is feeling hopeless,
feeling like their
vote doesn't matter.
And often, I found that
speaking in terms of values
and how their vote affects on
a day-to-day in their lives
is really helpful.
You know, rent, health,
education-- everything
is affected by voting.
So speaking about
values, for me,
has been the way to start a
conversation to get this going.
But I think one of the
most important things,
too, is to check in with
yourself during this work.
We definitely don't
need to be experts
in order to get involved
and to start doing things
in this process.
Social workers-- we
have a lot of skills.
And we connect with communities
in such unique ways.
And when we do this work, it's
important to be comfortable
and go into this knowing if
we are able and comfortable.
We never want to put ourselves
in uncomfortable situations
when we do this work.
So Social Work Votes
has been doing,
like we've talked about, a lot
of fun and engaging things.
We've had our podcast,
which is Social Work Votes
Podcast on Spotify,
Apple, and Stitcher.
We've interviewed
some lovely panelists
that here today, as well as
other folks in the community.
And we talk about a
lot of different ways
to get involved, a lot
of barriers, and voter
suppression, things that
we've talked about today.
We also have a website that is
coming out hopefully this week.
This will have a lot of
specific circumstances, ways
that other communities might
have barriers and ways that we
can combat those
barriers-- aging, voting
with disabilities,
voting and incarceration,
voting with those who are
experiencing domestic violence.
And then, finally, we
have a newsletter that
is compiling the latest updates
and news on voting rights,
voter suppression, and voting
access in the United States,
as well as New York City.
So one of the best ways that
you can get involved with us
is to contact us.
Our email is
SocialWorkVotes@gmail.com.
And I'm also going to share
my screen for a moment.
So this is what our
website does look like.
We have essentials on
first time for voting,
upcoming election
dates, registrations,
really interesting and
important information
on getting out the vote.
We also have special
circumstances,
like I mentioned, and
then other resources
for organizations and students.
Field placements--
a lot of students--
there's a place at our field
placements t get involved.
Our Purple Campaign--
we are outreaching
with Florida and Pennsylvania.
There's a lot of--
we're trying to get
involved in purple states
as much as possible.
We also have a lot of
important information
on voter suppression.
And then events-- we hope
to have an event every day
during the semester.
And then also you can contact
us here at our forum as well.
I will be sending
this in the chat.
This is a really great way
to get in contact with us
immediately after today.
You can put in your
name, email information,
and just briefly how you would
like to get involved with us.
And we would happily
talk to everyone
to try to get this going.
So those are some
sort of concrete ways.
And I just wanted
to thank everyone
again for this
panel and Dean Begg
for allowing us to speak today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Sarah.
Thanks for all that you've done.
So I'm going to invite
all of the panel
to come on camera
in gallery view,
so we can talk about the
questions that have been asked.
One of the things that we've
done quite a lot of work
with, with the field
department at Columbia
and with field instructors,
thinking about,
how do we build this
within agencies?
And there's a
separate video that
was done on that and
various information
on the web page about how social
workers in our agency setting
can really continue
to develop this.
So there's been a lot of action
in the chat about a couple
of groups of people
that people have
deep concern about engagement.
And the first group is college
students and young people.
And so I'm wondering, why
don't I give this first
to Tess and Sarah?
And then anyone
else can jump in.
What makes a difference?
Why do people get involved?
That is a great question.
Sarah, maybe you have a
better answer than I do.
I think, for me, the reason
I kind of got involved
in this campaign or got
interested was just,
you know, through the
privilege of my education
and having great professors
that were bringing this
into the classroom, bringing
this into kind of my world.
And really, for
me, you know seeing
the links between how my vote or
how voting or civic engagement
affected my own life and that
of my friends and of my family
and then, you know,
of other populations
that I maybe didn't know-- but
starting to really understand
those links was kind of what
brought me to this campaign
now.
I don't know if you want
to add on to that, Sarah.
Yeah, sure.
So I think what's--
it is very discouraging for
young folks right now in this.
And I mentioned
before, but just--
what's hard is seeing how
important and impactful voting
is.
There is such a
disconnect by age.
You know, if we could all
speak to each other-- it seems
like we're in echo chambers,
where young people only talk
about it with young people.
You know, older people
talk about it just,
you know, amongst themselves.
So I think it's important
to just continue
conversations with people that
aren't around you normally.
That's a great
way to get started
and to show that you
value a young person's
vote and their engagement--
is my thoughts on that.
So does anybody else have
some thoughts on this?
Charles, do I see you
reaching for your mute button?
Yes.
It's leadership.
OK?
It's having young people
who are willing to speak
out and inspire.
I mean, the story of
Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez is very inspiring.
I believe there's
a movie about it
that you could just check out.
And it takes leaders like
Dean Begg, who will support
these efforts, you know.
So I think it's leadership.
I would recommend you check
out the Justice Democrats.
That's the organization that
supported AOC and others.
They just scored a couple
of victories in New York.
I forgot the name of the young
man that unseated Eliot Engel.
But he--
Jamaal Bowman.
Yes.
Jamaal Bowman.
And then Cori Bush in St. Louis.
So they are doing some
very innovative things
that would, I think, inspire
some of you out there.
So the second half
of this is people
with developmental disabilities,
people who are home-bound,
people who are aged.
And what are the
methods that we have
to reach out and make a
difference in those people's
lives?
So maybe I'll-- if anybody wants
to click their unmute button
to take this.
And if not, I'm going to let
Jaime take a first cut at that,
and we can keep
talking about it.
Well, thank you for
volunteering me, John.
I wasn't prepared for that.
Just joking.
Well, that category
of disabled people
is the same category of poor
people, working class people,
that are discriminated
in terms of voting.
But the most important
thing is message.
And this is one of these things
that we teach at The Latino
Leadership Institute--
how to put together
a message that goes
directly to the target group
that you want to
bring out to vote.
So there is a big message
that campaigns put together.
But there are sub-messages
that they also put together
for the differing categories.
But there are also obstacles
for people, but especially
for people who vote.
For example, where I vote
here, there is a school.
They have a ramp for
people who are disabled.
But that ramp hasn't been
fixed, like, in 10 years.
So disabled-- the
disabled community
understands where are
the problems in terms
of physical access throughout
the community, things
that we, the
non-disabled community,
basically don't
pay attention to.
So voting is
extremely important.
So when Rob and
Charles were talking
about the importance
of mailing, that's
an issue of access
that make everything
possible for everybody,
regardless of their ability
to go to the poll site and vote.
But you also need to
have a message for them.
And that message has to
be based on your platform
as a candidate in
order to make sure
that people come out to vote.
There is a question
in the Q&A that
says why Latinos don't
vote, which I hate.
But it's a good question.
It's not that
Latinos don't vote.
Latinos vote.
But the campaigns don't invest
in the Latino community.
The candidates don't invest
in the Latino community.
They take it for granted.
The same they do with the
African-American community.
And I'm going to give you a
little example, because, you
see, John, you asked me to.
Now I'm getting agitated.
So this is the thing.
I supported-- me--
not anyone else,
not the Latino
Leadership Institute--
I supported Bernie Sanders
in the last two elections.
In the first election, they
called me from the campaign.
And they told me, if
I could find a place
in East Harlem where Bernie
Sanders could come and talk
to the people.
The day before, he
raised $10 million,
because he had a
victory in Wisconsin.
$10 million.
So I said, there is a place, the
only place that can accommodate
thousands of people,
because I think
it's going to cost
from $7,000 to $10,000.
And they told me, no,
that's too much money.
Now, they put-- all candidates--
they put thousands and thousands
of dollars on the suburbs.
They put where white
people live, to be honest--
they invest there.
But they are taking us,
people of color, for granted.
They also take the
disabled for granted.
There is no message for us.
So what happened?
He went to South Carolina after
he won Iowa and New Hampshire.
He had to go--
eight years ago, he had to
go to South Carolina, where
the majority of the vote was
basically African-American
in the Democratic primaries.
And he lost.
You know what, he
didn't learn his lesson,
because he went again to
South Carolina and lost.
So these are people
that we support,
because the platform is
something that is interesting.
But you need to come to us and
invest your time and your money
like you do with
every other community,
and not taking us for granted,
because then things like that
happen.
And then you wonder
why you lost.
So I can go on,
but I'm going to--
Well, I'm going to spend
a little bit more time
on voting for shut-in
elderly and the disabled.
In almost every state now,
you can get mail-in ballots.
And those mail-in ballots can
be taken apartment by apartment
to people.
And you can, with
discretion, let
people fill out their ballots.
So social workers
have a big role here
at a senior's luncheon and
many settings like that.
And around the corner from me
is a home of adults with autism.
And they have a point of
view about this society.
And if you speak and listen
to their point of view,
they will make that point of
view as something that matters.
And there are reasons
for them to want to vote.
But no one makes
that connection.
No one builds the link there.
So again, social workers
have this capacity
to really make a big difference
on building those links.
So I'm going to
read a question here
that I think it would be
fun for us to kick around.
I'm curious how we
as social workers
and other professionals should
respond to the individuals who
choose not to vote due to
feelings of homelessness
or being historically
disenfranchised
or feeling voting is
pointless in a way that
is respectful and empathetic.
So Charles, I'm going to
get you to start on this.
And then we'll move it around.
OK.
This is one of the things
that President Obama
addressed last night--
that, you know, part of the
effort to suppress voting
is to have people
feel that cynicism,
that the system doesn't work,
and that my vote doesn't
matter.
But the point--
and I think there
was another question in the chat
box about, why should I vote?
Because every vote matters.
OK?
You're one person.
OK?
You can only cast one vote.
But when you cast that
vote, and others--
and others cast votes, you're
going to make a difference.
I really feel that
young social workers
are going to be the catalyst
to get their generation moving.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm right.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Dean maybe is
shaking her head yes.
But I think that's part of--
we-- yeah, you've got
to convince people
that not voting
is just giving up.
And then it's over.
Yeah.
I think I want to add on a
little more there as well--
that some of it is, like,
fake it till you make it.
You know, if you're
enthusiastic about voting
and you're really
involved and, you know,
I'm posting on Facebook,
I'm talking about it
in my communities, and
they see that I'm engaged,
that that's a way that maybe
other folks can think, OK,
yeah.
Maybe I should start
looking into this.
And, you know, Sarah
is a good friend
or she's a colleague
or someone I know,
and I can look into it more.
So kind of almost faking
till you make it too.
It can work.
Definitely, Sarah.
I think that can work.
And I want to bring light to
[AUDIO OUT] said something
in the questions as well
about vote shaming, which
I think is really an
important part of this,
which I see all the time kind
of amongst my kind of friend
group.
Right?
And I think we see it
on social media a lot.
And I think it's really
important that we understand
as social workers doing this
kind of voter engagement work,
we're understanding why people
are not wanting to vote.
Right?
We're having these
kinds of conversations
where we're looking at the
structural systemic barriers
that have been put in place
that keep people from voting.
We're lending space
to that and then
using the social work skills
that we have, like engagement
and assessment to--
if the conversation maybe
wants to move forward--
maybe to unpack some
of their history
and why you might
not want to vote.
Or maybe it's finding
other ways for them
to be involved in
their community.
Right?
Voting is not an
end all, be all.
It is really important.
But it is not an
end all, be all.
So what are some other
ways that we can still
engage with people if voting
isn't the way that they want
to engage, and making this
conversation a little bit
bigger than just, you have to
go to the poll in November,
specifically, right, for
the presidential election.
So talking about other ways
that people can engage, I think,
is important for us as well.
Could I--
Go ahead, Rob.
Could I jump in?
So I've heard this critique.
And even the New York Times
was a little flippant about,
this report shows that
higher-income voters still
vote more than lower-income.
I mean, it was a very kind
of dismissive sort of stance.
And I've seen-- I've
seen people asking,
well, politicians,
candidates, issues
aren't targeting lower-income
folks because they don't vote.
But I think that some of
this, when we talk about why
an individual person should
vote-- does their vote matter--
I think a culture
of voting matters.
Like, if there's a culture of,
we do show up, we do go vote,
then that can lead to sort
of a transformation of who
does get represented.
So we don't have to sit
back, because no one's going
to come and just change
everything for those
that have the smallest voice.
But you can start
making your voice known.
And something I often think
about as very motivating
for me is that I consider the
government as representing me.
So if we are separating
children from families
and holding them
in cages, then I
think of that as being
done on my behalf.
And so when I vote, it's a
time when I can actually say,
I don't consent to the
way I'm being represented.
So even if you're
cynical and upset,
go and just take
an act of saying,
I don't consent to this.
So that-- I don't know.
Maybe it helps you
kind of get by better.
But I think a culture
then actually starts
to lead to change.
In the next couple of
weeks, I'm starting
a motivational interviewing
class at Columbia.
And the thing that
social workers know
is that things are accomplished
when we talk to people, when
we actually listen
to what people
are saying, when we
allow people to tell us
what they care about.
And nothing else really works.
And so social workers
have the skill of,
you know, who are you?
What do you care about?
What matters to you?
And maybe, for some, it
will never be voting.
But for many people, it's just
no one's ever taken the time
to build the link.
So there's a series of
questions in the questions
about our system--
the two-party system.
Does democracy work in America?
How can we change
the people who are
saying it's all voter fraud?
So what do each
of you have to say
about why you would work in this
kind of complicated society,
this complicated
political system?
How do we do that with a
two-party system, and so forth?
So who would like
to start on this?
Rob, why don't I
get you to start?
You were just
talking about this.
That's great.
I was going to try
to look up a link
that I could share
in just a second
here while someone else talked.
But the thing that
comes to mind for me
is going back to
the voting by mail.
So there are studies that
show that voting by mail
is non-partisan.
It's not advantaging one
party over the other.
It's just a matter of
increasing accessibility.
So if there is one short
answer that I might give,
it would just be that
accessibility doesn't
have to be a partisan issue.
And it's kind of baffling that
it has become so right now.
So Jaime, do you have
thoughts about this?
Yeah.
You see, this one I like.
Well, you know, the
thing is that parties
have become franchises
during the last 20 years.
For example, you have
socialists parties entering
into the Democratic Party.
You have people who
are independent who
have to pick in order
to run, like Bloomberg.
They can pick the
Democratic Party.
They can pick the
Republican Party,
depending on their ambitions.
So the parties have become--
especially since
Citizens United,
they have become franchises
like McDonald's and Burger King.
John knows the joke.
You know, like McDonald's
and Burger King.
The only difference
is that one of them
gave you a little
bit of more ketchup.
And then you pick
the party that is
going to help you run
based on your ambitions.
Why do we have Ocasio running in
the Democratic Party and not--
because she needs the franchise.
She needs the brand in
order to get elected.
Why Bloomberg went to
the Democratic Party
when he used to be a Republican?
Because that was the
brand that basically
helped him to become
a viable candidate.
He couldn't run independently.
So the two parties
have become franchises.
They are not like
they used to be.
Trump, for example--
Trump would vote-- used to vote
anywhere, for any party before.
But he decided that
the only alternative,
the only brand that would help
him was the Republican Party.
He could have used
the Democratic Party
if he thought that brand
was going to help him.
So what I'm saying
is that the parties
have become this
figure, especially
since Citizens United, because
money has become the number one
element in terms of elections.
So now you can put
a lot of amount
of moneys in certain parties.
And if you don't have
the money, then you
look at the one in which you
can organize the better, which
is the case of Ocasio.
So that's my take in
terms of the parties.
We're going to see
a disfiguration
of the parties even more and
more and more in the future.
And the principles
of the parties
are not going to
matter that much.
For example, there
are Republicans now
in the Democratic
Convention, talking
in the Democratic Convention
like it's the Republican Party.
But once this is over,
they need to decide,
what are they going to do.
Are they going back to
the Republican Party,
or are they going to stay
with the Democratic Party?
So you can see this process.
I cannot tell you what
the result is going to be.
But the notion of parties
that we used to have
is being diminished.
It's transforming itself.
So Charles, do you have
thoughts about this?
Yes.
There is some
transformation going on.
First of all, there is
almost a third party
in terms of party
identification,
because a third
of people roughly
consider themselves Democrats.
And a little less
than a third consider
themselves Republicans.
And I believe independents
are the largest segment
of the population,
although they tend
to lean one way or the other.
And the reason why two
parties is so entrenched
is because it's a
winner takes all--
our system of government.
You know, whoever wins gets
all the power in the House.
Or whoever loses has no power.
And so as long as that
lasts, there will be.
Now, I've been around a little
longer than some of you guys.
And my father was a Republican.
In fact, he ran against
Shirley Chisholm
for the state legislature.
So it was a time
when parties were not
as polarized as they are now.
And the reason they were--
the reason they
are so polarized is
because, during the
time of Richard Nixon,
they started on the Southern
strategy, where they used race
to divide the country.
And we're seeing it happen
again with Donald Trump, who
is, you know.
But we also know that this--
after that-- if we can deal
with race in a reasonable way
in this country, I think it
will reduce the need for--
it will reduce the
polarization for sure.
And I think particularly
as younger people move up
the ladder.
So Tess, Sarah, Xinrui,
do you have anything
you want to add about
our hopeless democracy
and our terrible
two-party system?
I think there are
some great ideas that
are floating around though.
Like, this isn't
just set in stone.
You know?
We can still adapt and change.
You know, it's not just
hopeless, I think, for me.
I think that's something--
this is something
that frustrates me a lot.
So I'm not sure I
have answers, per se.
But I think one
thing that is related
is, for me, really
thinking about the election
beyond the ballot box.
And I think a lot of us
think voting stops on the day
that you vote.
But really integrating
like, how do we
hold our elected officials
accountable, then,
to what we actually
voted for them for?
And yes, you know, it's still
within this two-party system,
but having different
ways, easier ways,
to hold our representatives
accountable for what
we want them to do
would, in some ways,
mitigate some of that
tension of having these two
very divisive parties.
So, Dean Begg, do you
have any thoughts on this?
I do.
Thank you, John.
I read a quote from--
I think it was Cory
Booker recently,
who talked about
hope without naivety.
And I think that's what this
panel is contributing to.
You are contributing information
and background and motivation
to people of all walks of
life and at all levels.
And that's what we need.
To quote John
Robertson, it's not
going to change unless we
change the elected officials.
So this is how you do it.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Well, that's kind of
our time for today.
I want to say that the reason
that I'm involved in this
is that these people
decide what money we're
going to spend on
housing, what money we're
going to spend on health care.
They decide whether we're going
to have a child care system.
They decide what
kind of policing
and what kind of
criminal law we have.
This is where that is.
You can't go someplace else
and make those decisions.
This is where those
decisions are made.
And so I'm going to keep my
foot in it, because it matters.
It matters for the
people I serve.
It matters in my life.
And so I hope you
will all join us.
It's great to see alumni with
us and many other people.
We have a website.
We have podcasts
and a newsletter.
We're building tools.
But basically, it's not
so much that as finding
the will in your gut to say,
this matters enough to me
that I'm going to do
something about it.
So welcome.
It's been really
great to have you all.
You can reach out to
any of us, I'm sure.
And we'll be glad to
engage further in this.
So thank you very much, Charles,
Jaime, Sarah, Xinrui, Tess,
Rob, and Dean Begg
for convening us.
Thank you, John.
Thank you, everyone.
It was fantastic.
And remember, voting is a
tool for social justice.
