Let Your Voice Be Heard!

lection season is nearly upon us, and before we know it we’ll be sifting through candidate profiles and campaign messages, reading articles, talking to peers, and watching interviews and campaign videos to determine who deserves our vote. Which candidates have the experience and background to deal with the challenges we face? What issues are most important to me, and who can I trust to represent my interests? Who do I trust to make sound, principled decisions on issues that may arise in the future? Who shares my values?

Yes, elections are serious business and require us as voters to make informed choices — whether we’re talking about the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026 or the CAS elections in July 2026. I encourage eligible members to exercise their rights and responsibilities and vote in both important elections, but as CAS president, I want to focus on our upcoming CAS elections.

The CAS Board noted that participation in CAS elections has dropped in each of the past several years and recently undertook a survey of nonvoting, eligible members to better understand what may be driving this trend. When asked to identify the primary reason for not voting in the most recent CAS election, respondents identified several factors (see Table 1).

About 50% of nonvoters identified not having sufficient information about candidates (whether due to time required to do research, the manner of presentation, or other reasons) as the primary reason for not voting. This is understandable, but unfortunate, as CAS candidates are asked to prepare written and video responses to questions about their candidacy and provide extensive biographical and work experience summaries. We clearly need to do a better job of getting information to voters in a digestible format, so that voters feel better informed and candidates feel their efforts are appreciated. Interestingly, lack of information to make an informed choice is also one of the leading reasons eligible voters do not turn out for U.S. elections.

Forgetting to vote (14%) and lack of knowledge regarding the role of the CAS Board (7%) are areas where the CAS will take action as well.

When asked what the CAS could do differently to motivate eligible members to vote, respondents identified several potential changes (see Table 2).

“Other” recommendations included several common responses:

• Make elections feel meaningful and competitive.
• Improve understanding of the Board’s role, impact, and track record.
• Enhance candidate visibility and engagement.
• Broaden representation and diversity of viewpoints.
• Recognize voting rights and inclusion concerns.
• Acknowledge that some nonvoting is unavoidable.

The CAS will be sending additional reminders this election cycle and will also look at ways to ensure members better understand the respective roles of the board, president, and president-elect. We will also be modifying some of the candidate information to address the need for more distinguishing information to assist members in their voting deliberations. The topic of competitive elections for president-elect has been discussed, and while there could be consideration given in the future, near-term efforts will focus on communication, better candidate information and engagement, as well as better information concerning the roles of the various parties.

On the topic of competitive elections, I think it is useful to remind members that while the Nominating Committee traditionally has identified only a single nominee for president-elect, there is a vehicle for additional candidates to nominate themselves through the preferential ballot process, an outcome that has occurred in past CAS elections. Historically, the time demands of the president’s role have often made it a challenge to identify a single candidate in some years, though with the enhanced capabilities of the CAS staff, the presidential role is somewhat less demanding than in years past, and more candidates might be willing to accept a nomination. The Board elections are already competitive, with eight nominees vying for four seats in recent elections. This has possibly contributed somewhat to the feeling of not having sufficient differentiating information; multiple candidates can have somewhat similar backgrounds and viewpoints on key issues, even as the Nominating Committee diligently works to identify a diverse and representative slate of candidates.

One word of caution regarding competitive elections: the notion of a competitive election can very well encourage some degree of politicization and polarization within the CAS community, which is something we have largely avoided for the past century and more of our existence. My personal view is that I would not want to see competitive elections implemented solely as a tool to increase voter participation, as the unintended consequences may well lead to bigger challenges than low voter turnout.

While the CAS Board and Executive Council implement improvements to the election process and communications in response to the survey results outlined above, I want to encourage eligible members to invest the time needed to be informed voters in the upcoming CAS elections and make your voices heard. This is our Society and we have both the privilege and responsibility to select leaders to ensure the continued growth and success of the CAS for current and future generations of actuaries.