On a mild Friday afternoon earlier this month, Sadia Mansoor shuffled up a cracked sidewalk in Worcester’s Main South neighborhood, knocking on doors to let people know about the election on Nov. 4.
Sometimes, no one answered. Other times, she’d hear a dog barking. But the residents who did open their doors offered similar responses: they’re too busy to vote, don’t believe casting a ballot will matter, don’t know who’s running, or don’t understand how to vote early or by mail.
“We [tell] them, ‘Hey, if you need any help, we can come back,’” said Mansoor, a volunteer with the nonprofit Worcester Interfaith. “But most of them are not much interested in the overall political process of Worcester.”
Her conversations reveal what the city’s election data has long shown: Worcester is full of potential voters who don’t cast ballots. Turnout in the city routinely ranks among the lowest in Massachusetts — but that wasn’t always the case. Decades ago, residents voted at more than double the rate they do today. And this year, civic organizations are hoping their grassroots efforts will help restore some of the enthusiasm voters used to have.
Low turnout fuels the division between haves and have-nots
In Worcester, turnout has hovered between 17% and 20% in municipal election years like this one, when mayor, city council and school committee are at stake. When there are so few votes, races can be decided by a few hundred people.
“That makes the adage that ‘every vote counts’ especially true at the municipal level,” said Paul Matthews, executive director of the Worcester Regional Research Bureau.
Low turnout can also lead to disproportionate representation. In wealthier neighborhoods of Worcester, voter turnout can top 40%. In lower-income areas like Main South or Great Brook Valley, it usually sinks to 14% or 15%. That discrepancy translates to people with higher education levels and incomes having more of a say in who gets elected citywide. Some residents say the result is that Worcester officials overlook their needs.
Princess Morales, who’s lived in Main South for more than 20 years, said she plans to vote in a city election for the first time next month. She wants the city to do more for young people. Her son loves basketball, but she said there’s no nearby court where he can play safely.
“We keep seeing things being built for adults and the new people that are coming in,” she said. “But there’s really nothing for the youth besides the Boys and Girls Clubs and the YMCA, which you have to pay for. And a lot of families in this community don’t have the money.”
When neighbors complain about city decisions, Morales reminds them: “You could have been part of it and voted.”
Nearby, Delines Diaz nodded in agreement. She’s planning to vote this year too.
“A lot of things need to change,” she said, pointing to housing costs.
Many other residents, though, don’t have the same hope that Morales and Diaz have. They don’t plan to vote because they don’t believe it does any good for them.
“I think the system is a joke,” said Edwin Suarez, who lives in Main South. “Nothing is getting done. … Why should I vote for somebody when I know that person ain’t gonna do nothing for me?”
José Diaz said he doesn’t plan to vote either. “It doesn’t make a big difference,” he said. “I just don’t have a lot of faith in it.”
On the other side of town near Elm Park, an area full of renters and grad students, Liz Inman and her partner, Jacob Love, said they vote, but local outreach feels almost invisible.
“It’s not, like, the fault of the individual citizens that the voter turnout is low,” Inman said. “It’s the fault of the local government and the candidates themselves that there’s not more communication around the logistics of the election”
Love said many people don’t realize how directly local government shapes their daily lives.
“Most people get their services from local government,” he said. “It’s important to be voting for the people that have your interests in mind.”
The challenges of outreach
Ann Lisi with the League of Women Voters in Worcester said Love’s experience is common: she often hears from voters who don’t believe the government impacts their everyday lives. She said part of the problem is that outreach campaigns often target people who are already likely to vote, instead of those who would benefit most from additional information.
“To increase turnout, you have to reach low-propensity and newly registered voters,” she said, “which is inherently difficult.”
The League has hosted debates, distributed guides through Vote411.org, and partnered with community groups and colleges to reach first-time voters.
Additionally, Deputy City Clerk Clare Robbins said her office has partnered with the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and neighborhood groups to host registration tables and attend community events. The clerks even visit high schools to pre-register students as young as 16.
Matthews, from the Worcester Regional Research Bureau, says Worcester’s turnout problem looks a lot like other Gateway Cities in Massachusetts. Lowell, Springfield, New Bedford and Chelsea, for example, rarely see voter turnout in municipal elections top 20%.
“These figures show that midsized urban centers with many of the same struggles often experience comparable turnout levels, driven by many of the same structural and demographic factors,” Matthews said.
Costas Panagopolous, a political science professor at Northeastern University, said those differences aren’t surprising, because people’s income and education level have a major effect on whether they vote.
“Often people are working two, maybe even more jobs or have other considerations for themselves and their families that prevent them from going to the polls on Election Day,” he said.
Worcester’s data library chronicles this steady thinning of civic participation. Though many of the city’s older election logs were handwritten and not as detailed as modern records, the trajectory is clear: a slow, stubborn erosion of local participation.
City Clerk Niko Vangjeli said the city used to see 40-50% turnout for municipal elections — far above the 17-20% the city expects this year.
“I don’t know what transpired,” he said. “I don’t know what happened in the ‘90s in these elections [that brought the voting numbers down].”
Vangjeli hopes Worcester’s 2025 election — with new voting guides, postcards and outreach — will finally nudge the numbers upward. But he acknowledges that recent changes to make voting easier, like mail-in ballots, early voting and drop boxes in nearly every neighborhood, haven’t yet translated to higher turnout.
Civic groups also say change will take time. The League of Women Voters–Worcester Area said the group will measure success this year by any increase over Worcester’s typical participation rate of about 17%.
Matthews argued that engagement is as much about policies, like mail-in and early voting, as it is about habit. “Building community in this way strengthens trust, even when there are differences, and helps people feel more connected to the future of their city,” he said.
By the end of her afternoon route in Main South, voter outreach volunteer Mansoor had knocked on dozens of doors and spoken with just a handful of residents. Most were polite but noncommittal. Still, she plans to keep showing up — one block at a time, trying to chip away at Worcester’s deep civic hesitation.
This story was reported as part of a collaboration between GBH News and The Worcester Guardian.
