Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Cap'n Ed notices something odd about the numbers. He's right: for all the noise about how this is a massive election, about how Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as before and so on ad nauseum, turnout dropped. Four years ago, Bush and Kerry netted a total of 121,069,054 votes; this year, McCain and Obama netted a total of 119,957,571.
Update, 1/11/10: After this post was written, those numbers were revised. The final total seems to have been 129,449,751. An increase, then, but a modest one: since the U.S. population grew from 293,655,404 in 2004 to 301,621,157 in 2008, actual turnout rose from 41% in 2004 to a dizzying 42% in 2008.
Our RSS feed
Yeah, I noticed something
Yeah, I noticed something similar in the numbers for Florida. Florida was actually up a bit, but percentage of registered voters was down. I really think a lot of people did not vote who had been voting and not as many of those new voters came out like they thought. However, the differences were enough to swing the election.
Not to try and take the fly out of the ointment or anything,
but did Captain Ed count absentee abllots in his consideration? According to this, the turnout was the highest since at least 1964, and most likely 1908. There seems to be some confusion in the numbers.
Don't get me wrong, Dems shouldn't overstae their mandate. Even though a few long-standing GOP strongholds (VA, OH, FL, NM, CO) went blue, it's true that the Dems did increase their base, while many Republicans merely stayed home.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
It does seem like, at least
It does seem like, at least in Florida, that early voting and absentee ballots simply reduced the numbers voting on the actual election, making the process run smoother.
This was an estimate and not a real number. CNN has a 99% counted number of 120.3 million votes. There may be enough votes outstanding to get to 2004; but almost all should be in that count, including absentee since many are now counted the same night as normal ballots. It looks like total will likely come up about the same as 2004.
Fair point. At the end of the day, it looks like while the same
amount of people voted, one side was clarly more engaged than the other.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
Still counting, but ...
Simon, they're still counting the votes. But as of this morning (7:19 AM Eastern as I write) the two main candidates are still about 1 million votes short of 2004 totals.
Rafique, I saw the 64% number yesterday. I thought that looked wrong so I looked at the numbers from 2004. That 64% turnout simply can't be correct, even for 130 million voters, which looks to be wildly optistic.
People just didn't care that much about the choices.
Still counting, but...
Simon, they're still counting votes. But as of the time I write THIS comment (8:07 AM eastern) the two main candidates are still about 1 million votes short of the Bush Kerry totals.
Rafique, I saw that 64% turnout number yesterday and thought it had to be wrong. So I looked at the FEC's final totals from 2004 and then did some math. It turns out that the 64% number simply can't be correct. Also, that 130 million voter total looks to be overely optimistic in any event - absentee and provisional ballots will need to amount to 11 million voters at this point in time.
Editor: Comments from unregistered users are often stuck in the moderation queue. Please register to avoid the queue. We promise not to send you junk mail. However, you ARE automatically entered in our drawing for free puppies and kittens.
Note that the major news
Note that the major news sites are not really reporting ballots cast for third party candidates or write-ins in the results, so their totals are automatically larger than the sum of Oabam + McCain. Don't know about nationwide, but in my neck of the woods that 3rd party vote adds up to 2.4% of ballots cast in the presidential race. Then there's ballots with no vote marked for that race, and disallowed provisional ballots.
To the extent that voter rolls have been successfully cleaned up, the "turnout percentage" figure rises even if the actual number turning out does not change. It's not just the numerator! A fair chunk of the purported apathetic no-shows are actually people no longer in the voting district, having died, moved, etc. But their registrations often remain in the lists, making turnout look lower. This is one of the playgrounds of vote fraud, BTW, so keepng the lists clean is important in rpeventing fraud.
Also locally, advance and absentee ballots were over 50% of votes cast, and some few late-mailed absentee ballots postmarked by close of voting (and thus legal) are still arriving. "Official" figures are those eventually certified by county voting commissioners to the state's Secretary of State, which can take a while.
So comparing final totals from 2004 to today's non-final figures for Tuesday is not yet an apples-to-apples comparison.
Turnout Percentage May End up Lower Than 2004
Tully, the numbers for other candidates can easily be calculated by the percentages of the two major party candidates. At the moment, the minor candidates are attracting about 1.2% of the vote vs. 1% in 2004. Total votes counted thus far for all candidates is just in excess of 122 million, a smidgen less than total votes for all candidates in 2004. The idea that there are over 26,000,000 votes still uncounted is quite simply unbelievable. The total voting age population has grown almost 5% since 2004, so a total vote count in excess of 128,000,000 is needed for turnout to exceed 2004. That leaves 6,000,000 ballots as yet uncounted. That might be true. We shall see. That said, the story that this was the greatest turnout in history will live forever. OTOH, it would be remarkable to discover that 148,000,000 people really did vote and somewhere between 15 and 20% declined to cast a ballot for President. Now that would be a historical first.
Without dredging through
Without dredging through those numbers, I think you're missing my point, which is that "percentage turnout" claims are generally mostly arbitrary numbers that don't really mean much of anything.
For example, the Infoplease link you provide purports to measure "Turnout of voting-age population (percent)." But current US population growth is largely driven by immigration, legal and otherwise. An increase in voting age population does not translate directly to an increase in legally registrable, eligible voters. Comparing votes cast to actual registrations is more reasonable, but see my above.
Nor does the Infoplease site provide its specific basis for claiming 148 mil turnout. (Saying you got it from X, Y, or Z doesn't mean anything unless you point to the specific derivation points in X, Y, or Z.)
I completely agree that the idea of there being 26M phantom voters running around is ludicrous, and the idea that 15+% of voters did not cast a Prez vote likewise. I can see (HAVE seen in the past, AM looking at it in local results right now, literally on a precinct level) an "undervote" variance between presidential votes cast and total votes cast, but it's more on the order of 0.5% than 5% or 15%, though that does include write-ins. Move to the downballot races and THEN you start getting larger undervotes compaed to total ballots cast, but 15%? Only in unopposed races.
the numbers for other candidates can easily be calculated by the percentages of the two major party candidates.
Sorry, I'm a professional. I calculate for estimates and pre-election projections, I count votes cast for elections actually held.
My original post on the
My original post on the other thread was based on reported turnout and not vote casts. I expect a lot of changes between now and the end of the month when things are certified. I would not even begin doing any major look at the numbers until they are certified.
I do suspect that a lot of the new people signed up to vote in this cycle did not vote. Now I have no idea the percentage and that will be hard to pin down. We make it easy to register to vote; but it still takes an effort to go vote. I fully expect the percentage of voter turnout to be lower in most areas. That is not to say it will be lower in all areas. I think we will find a rise in traditional Democratic areas and some battleground areas and a drop in traditional GOP areas. The county I live in, a Democrat stronghold, set a record for 85% beating the 1992 record of 84% (number of registered voters is much higher now, though).
I also have to say I am glad that Florida showed it can hold an election without insanity.
In AZ
Arizona Republican points out here that likely percentage turnout will be lower than '04. Absolute numbers may be higher. Highest percentage turnout was 1980. And yes this does count "absentee" votes. The only issue now is provisional ballots.
And a couple other AZ election facts:
-Republicans lost a US House seat for northern AZ. Incumbent (Rick Renzi) didn't run due to corruption scandal. Republican nominee too conservative for this moderate/mixed district. Does this scenario sound familiar?
-As everyone knows the Constitutional Ban on gay marriage or better put, defines "marriage" as between one man and one woman, easily passed. So what changed from previous measure's defeat. I just described the sum total of that proposition. This time nothing about limiting benefits, etc. Effective statewide campaign. Its simplicity seemed to appeal to a broad swath of voters, not just the "value voters"
-Going against the tide. The Arizona House and Senate actually ADDED Republican seats.
-So far it appears that extra democratic money didn't add much to election results. Personally (I live in John Shadegg's district and was thought to be vulnerable) I found the ads funded by the national Democratic campaign as generic and somewhat mean-spirited.
-We're all waiting to see if our moderate Governor moves to Washington.
So are we unique in AZ or do we say something about where the Republican Party "should be" nationally?
Chris