Understanding the Reality Behind the Amish Vote
Recent headlines have amplified the significance of the Amish community in the 2024 presidential race, suggesting they might have played a pivotal role in swaying Pennsylvania’s outcome. However, insights from Steven Nolt, a respected historian and director of the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College, challenge these narratives. Nolt emphasizes that while estimating exactly how many Amish individuals voted remains complex and ongoing, it is clear that their collective participation did not determine Pennsylvania’s electoral result.
The Overhyped Narrative of the Amish Electoral Power
Media outlets have extensively reported on an unprecedented surge in Amish voter turnout and influence, often claiming that their votes could be a decisive factor. Such stories tend to inflate the community’s electoral weight, sometimes even suggesting that the number of Amish voters exceeds the population of Amish residents in certain regions. While attention to the Amish community’s voting patterns has increased, it is essential to recognize that their actual impact remains marginal when considering statewide results.
Steven Nolt: Clarifying the Amish Community’s Electoral Influence
Nolt explains that determining the exact number of Amish voters will take months, involving meticulous comparison of voter registration data with Amish church directories—documents intentionally not digitized to protect privacy. Nonetheless, preliminary analysis indicates that any Amish voting bloc within Lancaster County did not significantly influence the overall election outcome in Pennsylvania. As Nolt notes, the key to understanding the state’s result lies in the broader shifts among populous counties such as Philadelphia, Erie, Northampton, Berks, and Luzerne, which collectively swung the vote toward Donald Trump.
Furthermore, statistical data from sources like the Associated Press reveal that Lancaster County’s voting patterns remained largely unchanged from 2020. The county’s vote did not contribute to the flipping of Pennsylvania’s overall results. Trump carried Lancaster County comfortably—approximately 57-58%—but this consistent percentage did not alter the broader election landscape. The decisive factors were the increased votes in major urban and suburban counties that shifted in favor of Trump, thereby changing the statewide outcome.
Local Voting Data and Implications
Steven Nolt provided detailed vote tallies from 22 precincts with significant Amish populations. These figures suggest that in 2024, the number of votes for Trump in Amish-heavy districts did not significantly deviate from those in 2020. Some townships saw marginal increases, others slight decreases, and overall, the data reflects natural population growth rather than a dramatic rise in political engagement among Amish voters. This pattern indicates that the community’s voting participation remained relatively stable, and no substantial influx of new Amish voters altered the electoral landscape.
Counterarguments and Alternative Explanations
In discussions with a Republican activist, Nolt explored the possibility that some non-Amish rural voters might have abstained, being replaced by new Amish voters. While theoretically plausible, this scenario appears unlikely based on observed voting behaviors, community activities, and public displays like yard signs and voting lines. The rural voter turnout remained consistent with previous elections, and the overall voting patterns in Lancaster County did not reflect significant demographic shifts that could have impacted the election outcome.
Amish Community and Polling Convenience
Post-election coverage often highlighted instances of Amish individuals being driven to polling stations by non-Amish volunteers, fueling speculation about changing voting behaviors. However, Nolt clarifies that such practices are longstanding and well-established within the community. Historically, figures like Harold Hess have organized transportation for Amish voters since the 1980s, making the current media attention on rides a reflection more of sensationalism than a new development. The key point is that transporting Amish voters is not prohibited and has been commonplace for decades, irrespective of recent media narratives.
The Media’s Portrayal Versus Reality
Overall, Steven Nolt emphasizes that while the notion of a powerful Amish voting bloc captures media interest, it does not hold up under scrutiny. The Amish community’s influence on elections remains minimal, with their votes constituting a small fraction of the overall electorate. This aligns with prior skepticism and suggests that the community’s voting impact is more narrative-driven than substantively significant. Looking ahead, as the Amish population potentially doubles and their political engagement becomes more consistent, this dynamic might change. For now, however, the “Amish vote” is primarily a media story rather than a decisive electoral force.
Steven Nolt is a distinguished professor and scholar specializing in history and Anabaptist studies at Elizabethtown College, providing expert insights into the community’s voting patterns and influence.