In short, where workers ran, they won votes and flipped seats at reasonable rates. Why, then, didn’t more workers run?

We’ve spent the last 15 years trying to understand this thorny problem in the U.S. and in democracies around the world. We’ve chased down explanations that turned out to be wrong, like the idea that working-class people are less qualified or less interested in running (there’s no real evidence for either claim). We’ve considered explanations that don’t take us very far, like the idea that things were better back when labor unions were stronger, and elections were less expensive (they weren’t).

What we’ve learned suggests that workers rarely hold office because, like this year, they rarely run. And they rarely run because of what it means to run for office in our current political system.

Running for office means taking on significant personal burdens, like taking time off work, giving up control over your day-to-day life, and taking massive risks with your reputation and future. Working-class people are less likely to be able to shoulder those burdens. In our research, we consistently find that qualified people in working-class jobs are more likely to express basic concerns about running. As Representative-elect Brian Poindexter said in the opening words of his acceptance speech on Tuesday night, “Who would have thought we’d put a worker in Congress?”