Single-issue groups and social or ideological movements are major pathways for political participation outside elections.

The National Archives’ image of the Bill of Rights emphasizes the constitutional foundation for many forms of participation used by single-issue groups and movements. In practice, tactics like protest, lobbying, and public messaging depend heavily on protections for speech, assembly, and petition. Source

They organise people around shared concerns, pressure decision-makers, and try to change what government prioritises and what policies it adopts.

Core ideas: what these groups are trying to do

Both single-issue groups and social/ideological movements exist to affect society and shape policymaking by changing public debate, influencing officials, and building sustained support for a cause.

These groups often develop clear policy demands (pass, repeal, or block a law; change a regulation; alter enforcement priorities) and measure success narrowly, such as a court decision, agency rule, or legislative vote.

Movements are usually broader than a single organisation and can include multiple groups with overlapping goals, ranging from local chapters to national coalitions.

Single-issue groups: structure and strategy

Why single-issue groups form

Single-issue groups commonly form when people believe:

• A particular policy area is under threat or neglected

• Major parties are not representing the issue strongly enough

• Concentrated attention and resources can outperform broader, less focused advocacy

How they shape policymaking

Single-issue groups seek influence by making the issue difficult for officials to ignore:

• Information and framing

  • Provide talking points, research, and narratives that define the problem and preferred solution

  • Emphasise moral claims, rights-based arguments, or cost-benefit claims, depending on the audience

• Mobilisation

  • Turn sympathisers into consistent participants (calls, emails, meetings, turnout)

  • Use pledges, scorecards, and endorsements to reward allies and punish opponents

• Agenda pressure

  • Keep the issue visible through events, earned media, and sustained messaging

  • Push policy “windows” after crises, elections, or court rulings

Organisational advantages and trade-offs

• Advantages

  • Clear mission helps fundraising and recruitment

  • Narrow goals reduce internal disagreement and simplify messaging

• Trade-offs

  • Risk of “tunnel vision,” ignoring coalition needs or unintended consequences

  • Harder to broaden appeal if the issue becomes polarised

Social and ideological movements: building change over time

What makes a movement “ideological” or “social”

An ideological movement is organised around a shared worldview (e.g., beliefs about liberty, equality, tradition, or the role of government). A social movement often targets social norms and institutions as well as policy, aiming to change what society views as acceptable or urgent.

How movements grow and sustain themselves

Movements typically develop through:

• Collective identity

  • Shared symbols, language, and stories that create belonging

• Networks

  • Loose coalitions of community groups, faith organisations, student groups, and online communities

• Leadership and decentralisation

  • Some movements rely on charismatic leaders; others use decentralised organising that is resilient but harder to coordinate

• Resource building

  • Volunteers, donors, legal support, and communications capacity that allow sustained activity over years

Movement tactics that affect policymaking

Movements pressure policymakers indirectly and directly:

• Public visibility

  • Marches, boycotts, sit-ins, strikes, and mass meetings to demonstrate intensity and numbers

• Norm change

  • Persuasion campaigns that shift public opinion and make certain policies politically “normal”

• Institutional engagement

  • Pushing for policy commitments from candidates, influencing party platforms, and targeting local and state policy as stepping stones

• Counter-mobilisation

  • Movements often trigger opposing movements, shaping policymaking through competition over attention and legitimacy

Limits and democratic tensions

Efforts to shape policymaking face constraints:

This diagram illustrates free-riding in a public goods game, where some individuals contribute little or nothing while still benefiting from collective outcomes. It’s a useful model for political participation: even if many people support a cause, incentives to “let others do the work” can reduce consistent engagement and limit a group’s influence. Source

• Collective action problems

  • People may agree with a cause but not participate consistently; leaders must convert sympathy into action

• Political opportunity structure

  • Success is more likely when institutions are receptive (close elections, divided government, or sympathetic courts)

• Public opinion and backlash

  • Rapid change efforts can generate backlash that slows or reverses policy gains

• Representation concerns

  • Highly organised minorities can exert outsized influence, raising debates about intensity vs. majority preference in a democracy