The Sliver Who Decide

I think I'm starting to figure out what's happening in America.

Traditionally, the United States was a 30/30/30/10 electorate: thirty percent registered Republicans, thirty percent registered Democrats, thirty percent registered Independents, and about 10 percent unaffiliated. However, the thirty percent of Independents weren’t truly independent—they usually leaned toward one party or the other. This effectively created a 45/45/10 split, roughly speaking. This balance has become increasingly tribalized since the 1990s, coinciding with the rise of cable news and the segmentation of information consumption.

Over the past 20 years, social media’s algorithmic influence through personal devices has further hardened this fragmentation. Social media ensures that people consume information from sources that reinforce their beliefs, rarely exposing them to alternative perspectives. As a result, the 45/45/10 divide has solidified. The results of the 2024 election bear this out: as of Monday afternoon, Trump stood at 49.94% of the popular vote, while Harris was at 48.26%. As late ballots from California are counted, this margin will likely shrink, but the election, as most polls predicted, was essentially a coin toss.

It all comes down to turnout—and not just any turnout, but specifically the turnout of the 10% who decide elections. The question is: who are they, and what motivates them?

This 10% represents the lowest-propensity voters—individuals who are least interested, least informed, and least engaged. They are just as likely to skip voting as they are to participate. These voters often glean information passively from the "informational ether" rather than actively seeking it out. They are particularly susceptible to rumor over fact because rumors spread more easily in today’s fragmented information environment. They are more likely to be influenced by emotional appeals, fear, and anxiety and to favor familiar names over the unfamiliar.

Many commentators point to the educational divide in American politics as a key factor, and while education plays a role, it’s not simply about distrust of elites. Less educated voters are often less likely to seek out diverse information sources. The familiarity of a candidate like trump, combined with his simple, emotionally charged messaging, contrasted sharply with Harris’s substance-driven style. This dynamic favored trump, especially with the low-propensity voters who now hold outsized sway.

Two facts from the 2024 election illustrate this:

Lower Turnout: Approximately 5 million fewer votes were cast in 2024 (153.5 million) compared to 2020 (158.5 million). Lower turnout tends to favor Republicans, partly because of targeted voter suppression efforts in swing states. The turnout numbers suggest that Harris struggled to motivate low-propensity voters.

The Rise of Bullet Ballots: A "bullet ballot" is a vote cast only for the top of the ticket, with no down-ballot selections. Historically, these have accounted for less than 1% of total votes, even in recent elections like trump’s win in 2016 or Biden’s in 2020. In 2024, however, bullet ballots surged in swing states, making up 7.2% of votes in Arizona (123,000 votes) and 5.5% in Nevada (43,000 votes). These numbers are significant enough to determine outcomes. While some suggest foul play, it’s equally plausible that disengaged voters only chose the most familiar candidate—trump—at the top of the ticket.

It’s not that Americans are "getting dumber" as some claim; in fact, this is the most educated and literate population in its history. The issue is that elections are increasingly decided by the least engaged and least informed segment of the electorate. Reaching and motivating this group has become the entire game. This isn’t their fault—it’s the result of systemic polarization. However, the locked and hardened nature of the two major voting blocs creates a "tyranny of the minority." This dynamic poses a serious threat to democracy, paving the way for autocracy.

The challenge is clear: finding ways to engage this disengaged segment is critical to preserving democratic institutions. Without systemic changes, the influence of the least-informed voters will only grow, creating a fragile and volatile electoral system.