Every Vote Counts: Simplified Political Materials for People with Intellectual Disabilities

February-September 2025

-

Research on the political competence of persons with intellectual disabilities remains sparse, often outdated, and lacking in systematic analysis. Importantly, no empirical study has ever conclusively demonstrated their alleged political incompetence. Yet, the presumption of incompetence—never empirically established—has historically justified, and continues to justify, restrictions on voting rights. The data provided in this dataset addresses two major gaps in the literature. First, it provides an evidence-based assessment of the political competence of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the context of Swiss direct democracy. Second, it examines how linguistically simplified political materials affect their political competence. These objectives are closely intertwined: the ability to express political competence, and ultimately to make autonomous political decisions, depends on the broader context in which citizens operate. The research project in which this data was collected is grounded in a relational conception of autonomy. Among the external conditions shaping political autonomy, access to accessible information plays a decisive role. This issue is especially pressing for citizens with intellectual disabilities. The originality of this dataset lies in both its empirical analysis of the political capabilities of persons with intellectual disabilities and its participatory design: political representatives collaborated in producing simplified short videos presenting their political views, while persons with intellectual disabilities verified the accessibility of these materials. By reassessing the political competence of persons with intellectual disabilities, this paper reopens broader debates on the scope of the electorate, the conditions of access to it, and the minimal competencies—if any—that should be required of citizens.

Participants with intellectual disabilities overwhelmingly found short-form videos useful, and mean total ACAT-V scores were higher in both groups exposed to videos compared to control groups. However, improvements were not consistent across individual questions, and linear regression analysis did not establish a statistically significant relationship between video exposure and overall score increases. Across all groups, participants appeared to struggle with assessing the consequences of a referendum, both at the individual and general level. At the same time, decreases in mean scores—on Question 1 for participants with intellectual disability and Question 2 for those without—highlight limitations of the short-form video format. While short-form videos may not enhance political competence, they may still foster a sense of inclusion and value, encouraging individuals with intellectual disability to see themselves as active participants in political life. The covariates that our research accounted for also paint a very interesting picture of the relationship between intellectual disability and political competence. Notably, the statistical significance of cognitive index —a field-based heuristic combining information from each beneficiary’s file with the pedagogical coordinator’s expertise—emerges as a strong predictor of higher ACAT-V scores, both overall and at the level of individual questions. Overall, our results show that the ability to formulate a political opinion—whether in favor, against, or opting for a blank vote—is widespread among persons with ID, at levels comparable to those without ID. This capacity does not appear to be significantly hindered by cognitive impairment, as measured by Question 1