Youth Are Likely to Vote in 2026—But Want to See Big Changes in Democracy

In April 2026, we released a report in partnership with When We All Vote (WWAV) covering initial findings from a national survey of young Americans. The findings largely affirmed trends CIRCLE has long identified: young people’s desire to participate in civic life, their concern about economic issues, and how lack of information often serves as a barrier to voting and other forms of political engagement. Over the next few months, we will dive deeper into some of the questions at the core of this survey to paint a more complete picture of young people’s attitudes and experiences with our political and economic systems. These insights can inform outreach and action by candidates, campaigns, and youth-focused organizations ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The youth electorate is in the midst of a sustained period of high voter turnout, but for that to continue into the 2026 midterms, young people need to be inspired and supported to participate. CIRCLE and WWAV’s recent poll underscores young people’s energy around politics, while showing how disillusionment and insufficient support threaten their long-term participation.

About the Survey: When We All Vote and CIRCLE jointly developed a 30-question survey designed to capture key attitudes and aspects of Gen Z’s political engagement. Embold Research fielded the survey to a sample of 5,549 adults between the ages of 18-29 nationally in the U.S., and it was conducted between January 26 and February 12, 2026. The sample included oversamples of Gen Z adults identifying as Black or Latino, as well as oversamples of the same populations within specific states of interest. The modeled margin of error for this survey is +/- 2.5%. A detailed accounting of the methodology is available in the full initial report.

More than Half of Youth Say They Will Vote in the 2026 Midterms

Nine months away from the 2026 midterm elections, the majority of young people we surveyed reported being “extremely likely” to vote in the 2026 elections (56%), and an additional 19% say they are “fairly likely” to participate. Only 13% said they were fairly or extremely unlikely to vote.

While self-reported intention to vote usually overestimates actual turnout, our past research has found that the percentage of youth who say they are “extremely likely” to vote can approximate the share of young people who actually cast a ballot. In our 2018 pre-election poll of youth ages 18-24, fielded in September of that year, 34% of respondents said they were extremely likely to vote. We estimated that youth turnout (ages 18-29) in that election was 28%. In our 2024 pre-election poll, fielded in October 2023, 54% of young people said they were extremely likely to vote. Our estimate of youth voter turnout in 2024 was 47%. While all of these surveys were conducted at different moments ahead of each election and used different methodologies, they paint a picture of high youth interest in the upcoming election. Our 2026 findings are particularly notable in relation to the pre-2024 survey, as it is unusual to see similar rates of potential engagement in presidential (54% in 2024) and midterm elections (56% in 2026).

In general, this data is a positive starting point that shows youth are interested and engaged in the 2026 election, but it should not be interpreted as a sign that high participation is guaranteed. As in many surveys, it is likely that civically engaged youth are somewhat overrepresented in our sample compared to the general electorate. In addition, this far in advance of the election, political developments, barriers to voting, and young people’s own experiences in the coming months can shape voter likelihood. Young people who said in February that they would almost certainly vote could still be turned off by foreign wars or skyrocketing gas prices. Youth who were previously unlikely to cast a ballot could become motivated by those issues or many others. Organizations and campaigns must continue to engage and support young voters as they navigate an always-shifting political landscape in order to sustain their interest in participation through Election Day.

There are several key demographic and ideological differences in young people’s likelihood to vote. Democrats are the most likely to vote (68% extremely likely), compared to 49% of young Republicans. This finding aligns with data on how young people view the state of the country: 81% of Democrats agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared to just 21% of Republicans, who are likely more satisfied with the current administration and Republicans’ control of Congress. Independents are the least engaged: only 38% saying they are extremely likely to vote in 2026. Independents also overwhelmingly believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction (65%), but are less likely to have voted 2024 and trail their more partisan peers across other measures of civic participation. Young people’s disconnect from the two major parties can be a challenge to engaging them given the partisan nature of a lot of electoral information and outreach.

This aligns with one of the key recommendations from our initial report with When We All Vote, which outlined the need for nonpartisan paths to political engagement to effectively mobilize Gen Z voters. Our recent research and toolkit on political homes for young people can help organizations understand what it takes to become a political home and support young people’s civic development.

Young women and LGBTQ youth, who are often more civically engaged, express higher intent to participate (58% and 66% extremely likely to vote, respectively) than young men (53%). There are also small differences in likelihood to vote by race/ethnicity, but they are mostly within the margin of error. That is a promising sign for Black and Latino youth, who have had much lower turnout than white and Asian youth in recent years. However, young people of color are more likely to experience barriers to participation, so similar levels of interest may not translate to similar turnout if youth of color don’t get adequate support in overcoming electoral barriers.

Educational attainment remains one of the main drivers of civic inequality. Young people with college experience were 20 points more likely than non-college youth to report that they are “extremely likely” to vote. A smaller but still significant gap existed based on financial status: 53% of young people who were struggling financially said they were extremely likely to vote, compared to 62% of young people who were financially stable. The impact of educational opportunity and financial wellbeing on young people’s electoral participation calls for expanding our view of inequality, and our work to address it, to center socioeconomic disparities—which are often closely tied to race and gender.

Finally, young people’s likelihood to vote is deeply tied to how they perceive the power of their voice within our democracy. While 70% of young people who believe their vote matters are extremely likely to vote, only 31% who disagree that their vote has power say they’ll cast a ballot. Our recent research has also highlighted how socioeconomic factors can shape young people’s sense of political efficacy and belief in democracy.

A Desire for Action and Change Drives Interest in Political Participation

While voting is one of the most common ways young people take political action, it’s not the only way youth participate or try to effect change on issues they care about. As our initial report with When We All Vote details, the vast majority of youth say they are very likely to vote, talk about politics, and sign petitions. More than half say they’re likely to protest, post on social media, and help others register to vote.

Young people vote and engage in other forms of political action for different reasons. Twenty-seven percent of youth say that they participate in politics because it makes a difference. Over a third of youth say they do so because they dislike how politics works and want to change it. Eighteen percent express that they know politics are supposed to matter, but they don’t think it really does. These findings align with our past research which shows that young people have a healthy skepticism and strong critiques of American democracy. However, even when they are cynical or have their doubts about the effectiveness of the political process, they often show up anyway. But that isn’t the case for everyone: 8% of young people don’t participate but would if politics were different.

Though Gen Z is sometimes painted as apathetic and disengaged, only 7% of young people responded that they don’t participate because they just aren’t interested in politics. That said, there are wide gaps between young people’s self-reported interest in various forms of civic participation and their actual youth voter turnout and rates of other forms of engagement. These differences speak to the need to continue providing information, access, support, and opportunities to turn young people’s interest into action.

We also see differences by party identification in how young people are thinking about their political participation. As with their lower likelihood to vote, independent youth are significantly more likely to say, “I don't participate because I'm just not interested in politics and I don't think I ever will be” (19% vs. 2% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans). But they are also more likely to say “I don't participate, but would if politics were different” (16% vs 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans). These young independents are displeased with the status quo, but don’t necessarily see their own participation as a pathway to change, which suggests a need to increase their sense of political efficacy.

Unsurprisingly during a Republican presidential administration, Democrats (44%) are much more likely than Republicans (27%) or independents (25%) to say “I participate because I dislike the way politics works right now and I want to change it.” On the other hand, young Republicans are most likely to participate because they believe it makes a difference (33%), compared to 28% of young Democrats.

Youth Want Structural Reforms and More Responsive Politicians

Because many young people’s attitudes about the country’s political system shape their political engagement, we asked what kinds of shifts and changes would make them more likely to participate in politics. Only 9% of youth said that nothing would make them more likely to participate, which underscores that there is a lot of opportunity to work toward a stronger and more inclusive democracy that will motivate youth engagement.

Young people’s most common responses centered around their potential voice and power in our political system. Half of young people (48%) said that corporations and money having a smaller influence on politicians would make them participate more—the most popular response. This reflects the views expressed by some youth in open-ended questions about their top issue concerns and about what worries them about the county. Across both questions, a major theme was young people critiquing corruption and the influence of the ultrawealthy and corporate interests on the U.S. government.

Two in five youth (41%) said they would participate more if there were different candidates or parties who better represent their generation or if candidates follow through on their campaign promises (41%). A third of young people said they would participate more if there were major changes to the political system on issues like redistricting, eliminating the filibuster, or the Electoral College.  Twenty-nine percent of youth said they would participate more if they felt like their vote and voice mattered.

These responses underscore many young people’s strong sentiment that they are marginalized and disregarded by our political system. That is a reasonable conclusion for youth to make given  the shortcomings of many current systems and structures of American democracy. Young people see a political system where the influence of money in politics during a time of ballooning campaign spending by corporations dwarfs their own power as voters. They hear candidates making promises that they cannot fulfill due to partisan gridlock. And they see political parties that often aren’t structured to produce or support candidates that represent youth or center the issues they care about.

The responses in our survey explicitly link these issues to the lack of youth political participation. They provide political parties, advocates, and organizations with a playbook for achieving higher youth engagement, albeit one that requires a serious commitment to major systemic changes in our politics.

The less common responses to the question of what would increase youth participation also offer lessons; many fly in the face of commonly held beliefs about young voters. Only 6% of youth said they would be more engaged if more of their friends were. The same small percentage said they would participate more if elections were more competitive where they live. The former response challenges ideas about the influence of social pressure in political participation; even though young people trust their peers and turn to them for civic information and conversation, their friends’ political participation isn’t as important as feeling like America has a political system that reflects them and their views. Likewise, while we sometimes hear from young people that feeling like elections are a foregone conclusion where they live can be demotivating, and while youth turnout is usually higher in major battleground states, our survey shows that electoral competitiveness alone is far from the most important factor shaping political participation. This makes the case for investing in youth engagement beyond swing states and districts, including in local elections, and where races that aren’t close can still excite and motivate young people.

Only 11% of youth said that more free time would make them more engaged, and 11% cited a need to ease burdens on the voting process by making registration and voting easier. While barriers to voting are still important to address, especially because of their disproportionate impact on young people of color and amidst ongoing efforts to further restrict voting, these findings highlight that motivational barriers, stemming from young people’s critiques and attitudes toward our political system are of greater consequence.

Notably, young people’s top responses to the question of what would make them more likely to participate were remarkably consistent across most groups of youth. Across gender, age group (18-24 vs. 25-29), race/ethnicity, Party ID, and rurality, every subgroup selected a desire for less corporate influence as the biggest factor. It is remarkable and telling that all of these youth have a similar diagnosis of the main problem with democracy that keeps them from engaging.

At the same time, there were some differences that highlight the varying concerns and experiences of different groups. Young men were more likely than young women (52% vs 43%) to select reducing the influence of corporate money in politics as a change that would drive their increased participation. They were also more likely to select better candidates (44%), compared to 37% of women. Women, on the other hand, were more likely than men to select a desire to see concrete community change (28% vs. 21%), to feel like their vote and voice matter (32% vs. 26%), and to have more information about candidates (27% vs 21%).

We also see some differences by race/ethnicity, including from our oversamples of Black and Latino youth. Compared to youth of color, white youth are more interested in having different, more representative political candidates who will follow through on their promises at higher rates than youth of color. Black youth, on the other hand, were more likely to select wanting changes that would eliminate structural barriers to voting. For example, they were more likely to say they would participate more if they had more free time and more information about candidates and issues.

Black youth, alongside young people without college experience, were also more likely to say that they would participate more if they felt like their voices and votes matter. Unsurprisingly, the same was true of young people who did not vote in 2024, as well as those who responded that they were unsure about or did not believe in the power of their vote. This speaks to the challenge in building political efficacy among historically marginalized young people, underserved youth, and those who have not been already participating. These groups may need more than basic electoral outreach; they require more developmental support to strengthen their belief in democracy and their sense of their own place in it.

This aligns with CIRCLE’s Growing Voters framework, which asserts that merely providing access to opportunities for participation are insufficient if young people don’t have support to participate and, more importantly, if they don’t see a culture that supports youth participation around them. This is a crucial insight for organizations striving to engage current non-voters: it isn’t enough just to register youth, but you must demonstrate to them the power of their vote.

Young Democrats, who turned out to vote at lower rates in 2024 than in other recent election cycles, shared some of the issues and concerns standing in the way of their participation.. Democrats were more likely than their Republican or independent peers to say they want less corporate influence, broad systemic reform, more representative candidates, and tangible impacts in their communities. Meanwhile, independents were far more likely to cite that nothing would make them more engaged: 16%, compared to 5% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans). The higher rates of disinterest and disengagement among youth who don’t identify with either major party is a consistent and worrying finding throughout our survey.

Notably, there were no major differences by age when comparing a younger subset of Gen Z (18-24) to their slightly older peers (25-29). There were also few differences by rurality.

Youth Rely on Social Media—But Want Trusted Sources Online

In our initial report with When We All Vote, we examined Gen Z’s preferred platforms for learning about what’s going on in the world. The findings confirmed what we’ve found in the past: young people still consume traditional news on websites and on TV, but they also rely heavily on digital platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram for political information.

While understanding platform preferences can be helpful for organizations striving to reach young people with their content, it’s also key to understand what kind of content young people are engaging with regardless of platforms. We asked an additional question to capture not only where young people were getting political information, but what types and sources of information they gravitated towards.

Among all youth, the top source of information was social media posts from political, issue advocacy, and/or community organizations that they follow: 45% of young people selected it. That tracks with our research showing that young people trust nonprofits in their communities at higher rates than other kinds of institutions.

Forty-three percent selected articles and broadcasts from traditional news sources, and 40% said social media posts from news organizations, which illustrates that social media isn’t a panacea for communicating with young people, and that traditional news organizations have an opportunity to reach young audiences.

Nearly a third of surveyed youth said they get information from conversations with family and friends, which underscores the importance of in-person communication and of young people’s relationships with peers they trust.

All of these top responses highlight that young people turn to reliable sources and voices for political information, and challenge some common misconceptions about young people’s political media diets. Despite frequent chatter about the power of influencers and celebrities in shaping political culture, only a small percentage of young people said they are getting their information that way: just 14% cited episodes or clips of podcasts hosted by influencers, artists, comedians, or other celebrities; even fewer (9%) said that they get information from celebrity and influencer social media posts.

Where young people are getting information about political issues and elections may also be linked to whether or not they engage and vote. Young people who say they are extremely likely to vote in 2026 are much more likely to rely on traditional news: 47% cited it as a source of political information, compared to 34% of youth who are extremely unlikely to vote. Half of youth who are extremely likely to vote turn to social media posts from community and advocacy organizations more, compared to 40% of extremely unlikely voters. It’s a good sign that some of young people’s most popular political news sources are also highly associated with likelihood to vote. At the same time, it highlights the need for media and civic organizations to expand their audiences and reach more disengaged young people with the trustworthy information that can help them feel ready and motivated to vote.

On the other hand, 23% of youth who say they are extremely unlikely to vote said they get political information from social media posts made by their friends, compared to just 15% of youth who are extremely likely to vote. While trusted friends and peers can be an important part of young people’s civic information ecosystems, this finding may also indicate that young people who are unlikely to vote have less rich civic media diets, making posts from peers a more vital source. That peer-to-peer information is valuable but is not fully a substitute for access to journalism and organizational information and resources.