They Don’t Show Up Because Nothing Shows Up for Them
The problem isn’t data, it’s connection.
Another article comes out about the abysmal turnout in Cleveland, and at some point we have to stop pretending this is some mystery. Brent Larkin
It’s not.
And we also have to be clear about whose responsibility it is.
Now, that does not mean there are not external factors at play. There have been clear and sustained efforts, particularly from Republicans, to make voting harder in certain areas. We have seen stricter ID laws, reductions in early voting windows, limits on drop boxes, aggressive voter roll purges, and fewer polling locations in high-density or lower-income areas. Those things disproportionately impact the same communities we are talking about. They create friction, confusion, and in some cases, real barriers to participation.
But that is not what I am here to focus on.
I am here to talk about Democrats and whether we are doing everything we can to overcome that and actually engage people in a way that makes them want to show up.
This is on the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. This is on the lack of creativity, the lack of vision, and the lack of willingness to actually engage people where they are. Because what keeps happening is we analyze turnout like it’s some abstract data problem, when in reality it’s a lived experience problem.
People who don’t turn out don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like their vote matters. And even when they know it’s time to vote, they don’t feel like they have enough information or confidence to make a decision. So they don’t. And over time, that becomes a habit. Then it becomes a culture.
And the data backs that up.
In Cleveland, turnout has collapsed in certain areas, especially on the East Side. In the 2024 election, one precinct in Hough had turnout as low as 8.4%, and Cleveland accounted for 28 of the 100 lowest-turnout precincts in the entire state, despite being only about 3% of Ohio’s population. At the same time, suburban precincts are hitting turnout numbers above 85%.
That is a complete disconnect between the people and the system that is supposed to represent them.
If you actually listen to people in those neighborhoods, the reason is not complicated. They do not participate because they do not believe the system is working for them. That belief is not abstract, it comes from lived experience over time.
So this is not really a question of why turnout is low.
The real question is what is being done to make people care enough to show up.
And right now, the honest answer is nothing.
The Party Structure Is Built Backwards
Let’s start with the obvious.
The Democratic fundraising dinner every year is boring. It’s the same thing over and over again, and worse than that, it taxes the people who already do the most work. The volunteers, the donors, the people knocking doors, the people showing up to meetings, they’re basically being told, “Hey, thanks for everything you’ve done, now pay us!”
That’s not engagement. That’s extraction. It is insulting. A slap in the face. Trust me, I have heard that exact statement from many Dems.
At the same time, the party has a massive physical presence in the middle of Cleveland, and it sits mostly empty. Offices get handed out to campaigns for a few months, interns cycle through, and then it goes quiet again. There is no consistent presence, no sense that this is a place for the community.
So you end up with a system where the party is asking for support, asking for turnout, asking for votes, but not actually showing up in people’s lives in any meaningful way.
And it is not just the party infrastructure. You also have elected officials who are incredibly popular and have a built-in platform to actually move people, and they are largely absent from this conversation. Where is Shontel Brown on this?
There are people with reach, credibility, and a microphone, and yet you are not seeing a coordinated effort to address the very turnout problem that is being written about over and over again. And that raises another question. If the party chair is not getting meaningful help from these incumbents, why is that not being called out directly? Why is there not more pressure internally? Is it because no one wants to challenge their own side? Because if the problem is this obvious, then the lack of urgency from people in positions to do something about it becomes part of the problem itself.
What Should Actually Be Happening
If the problem is disengagement, then the solution has to be engagement. Not in theory, not in messaging, but in actual, visible, consistent action.
The fundraising model needs to change. The annual dinner should not just be a closed-door event for insiders. It should be turned into a community event, something like a democracy fair. Go into low-turnout neighborhoods. Set up booths. Have candidates there answering questions. Bring in food trucks, games, activities. Make it something people actually want to attend. Still raise money, but do it in a way that builds relationships instead of reinforcing the same small circle.
Use the space you already have. If you have a large office sitting in Cleveland, then use it. Open it up. Make it a place where kids can come study. Organize tutoring. Offer some level of childcare. Create a physical presence that says, “We are here, and we are part of this community.” Because right now, the party shows up during election season and disappears the rest of the time. That does not build trust. Make this a space where people can actually walk into and engage.
Restructure how the party operates internally. Right now, you have money going into multiple salaries, administrative roles, and overhead, while the actual on-the-ground organizing is thin. Consolidate roles where you can. Combine administrative and operational leadership, and put more resources into organizers who are actually in the community. People who are building relationships, running events, and engaging voters consistently. That is where the return is.
Invest in the next generation directly. Offer scholarships. Connect with high schools, colleges, churches, and community organizations. Create pathways for young people to get involved, earn some money, and feel like they are part of something. A few $500 or $1,000 scholarships in low-income areas can go a long way, not just financially, but psychologically. It shows that someone is paying attention. It creates a connection. Get the Chair to talk to students, high schools, Tri-C.
Actually show up for people in real ways. This is the part that gets talked about the most and done the least. Organize help for seniors. Lawn care, snow removal, small repairs, rides to work, help carrying groceries. These are not massive policy initiatives. These are basic acts of community. And right now, people are missing that. They are missing connection, and they are missing any sense that the people asking for their vote are also willing to help them in their daily lives. Look at Mamdani. They got people shoveling.
Because here is the reality.
You are asking people to show up for you, when you are not showing up for them.
This Is Not About Turnout. It’s About Trust.
None of these ideas are going to magically fix turnout overnight.
But what they will do is create visibility. They will create consistency. They will create a sense of presence. And over time, they will build something that is completely missing right now.
Trust.
Because when people see the same organization showing up over and over again, helping, engaging, answering questions, being part of the community, that changes how they think about participation. It changes how they think about voting.
Right now, the perception is that the party shows up, asks for votes, holds closed-door fundraisers, spends money on printing and salaries, and then disappears.
And in neighborhoods where turnout is 8% or 10%, that perception is not wrong.
If you want people to show up, you have to give them a reason.