Youth Turnout Far Lower Than Older Voters

 Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.Com has a story today that includes figures on the turnout rate by age groups. In the 2006 elections younger voters turned out at a rate far below older voters. Only 25.5% of voters 18 - 29 actually voted compared to 63.1% of voters over 60.

 

06-29%20mcdonald.png

 

In the same story Blumenthal also looked at early voting patterns. Early voting may have a significant impact in 2008 with as many as 15 states having early voting in the presidential election before Iowa. In 2006 33.2% of California voters cast their ballots in the weeks before the actual election date.

 

 

 

The overall percentage of the electorate reporting voting before Election Day is 18.5%, down slightly from 20.0% in 2004 and up from 14.2% in 2002. California and Washington saw an increases in early voting to 33.2% in 2006 from 29.9% in 2004 (CA) and to 71.8% in 2006 from 60.6% in 2004 (WA), however, increases were reported in only 15 states. This may reflect a tendency of early voting to drop off in midterm elections, so I would caution that 2006 is probably not indicative of a new downward trend in early voting which has increased strongly in every election since 1998 from 11.2%.

http://www.pollster....

 

 

 



Display:


tell that to Hunert Humphrey and Norm Coleman (none / 0)

in Minn circa 1998 when younger voters are interested in a candidate they show up.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:55:18 PM EST

Re: tell that to Hunert Humphrey and Norm Coleman (none / 0)

That was in a 3 way race that Jesse Ventura won.
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if Obama can massively raise turnout (none / 0)

among younger voters, more power to him. I'm all for that. It would be a positive thing in building Democratic Party identity among the under-30 generation.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0)

my point was that when younger people give a damn they show up in higher numbers as they did in  that race.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:11:43 PM EST

Re: true (none / 0)

That is rare though going all the way back to the 60's.
BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true, but in Iowa (none / 0)

the younger voters are packed into a smaller number of precincts. There are a lot of precincts in which very few people under 30 live. That is going to hurt Obama if he can't raise his support among older voters.

This is part of the reason why I think Richardson does have the potential to surpass Clinton and/or Obama in Iowa (though I don't think he has already). I think many of those older voters will be attracted to a moderate governor.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true, but in Iowa (none / 0)

does the total number of votes get released in the Iowa caucus? becuase since the caucus is mostly about momentum not delegates wouldn't the "popular" vote winner just declare victory regardless where the votes come from?


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true, but in Iowa (none / 0)

yes, they do release the totals.  the caucuses themselves choose county delegates, which then choose regional delegates, then state delegates and then the delegates to the national convention.  but the media focuses on the overall vote because it is a vote, something tangible.  i don't believe jimmy carter came in second among the iowa delegation to the 1976 democratic convention...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: true, but in Iowa (none / 0)

It's also why the "movement candidate" Howard Dean crashed and burned. It should be a note of warning that the netroots can provide a distorted view of the electorate.


by hwc on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Youth Turnout Far Lower Than Older Voters (none / 0)

You are missing the real story here.  Look at how much the youth electorate increased compared to other portions of the electorate.  Additionally, more young people voted in 2004 than did voters over 65.

That 25% was an uptick.  The second one in a row in a major election.  Young people are more engaged than at any point in decades and getting more engaged every day.

Don't feed the media narrative that youth are apathetic.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:31:29 PM EST

Re: Youth Turnout Far Lower Than Older Voters (none / 0)

Exactly..this is what i was about to point out...The diaryst failed to point out that the young votes is actually trending up,not down.

Yes,it's not a huge trend up,but it's going in the right direction which is good news...

I will predict those numbers will continue to trend up..By how much?, no one knows..This is why all those polls are so meaningless because the majority of them fixate their data according to previous turn out rates....What if the youth votes increase their turn out rates from 2006 to about 15-20%...I dont think this is impossible since Obama is exciting them and has enormous presence on campus while the others dont.


by JaeHood on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Youth Turnout Far Lower Than Older Voters (none / 0)

Well, the other thing is that comparing turnout in a midterm to one in a Presidential is Apples and Oranges.  In 2004, youth turnout was 49% vs. 67.7% for the rest of the electorate.  A much closer gap.

With youth turnout trending upwards, and the ACTUAL NUMBER of young voters also increasing.  You can look at the turnout rates all you want, but the size of each segment of the electorate matters, and in 2008, there will be 50 million Millennials eligible to vote.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In between (none / 0)

1998 and 2000 were low water marks for turnout, as triangulation had made 'there's no difference between the parties' a common belief. Voters 30+ increased turnout in 2002, but not voters under 30. In 2004 and 2006, young voters caught up and exceeded the 30+ gains, but are still much less likely to be registered, and much less likely to vote than older voters.

As for more engaged than at any point in decades, maybe, maybe not. 2006 youth turnout was up from midterm turnout in 2002 and 1998, but below any of the previous six midterm elections going back to the lowering of the voting age. 1982 was about 25% higher than 2006.

It is BS for the media to paint all youth as apathetic, but not everyone under 30 is paying attention.


by IVR Polls on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then Clinton & Edwards are in trouble (none / 0)

because if Obama is not getting the youth vote to plunk down their cash, then he is kicking everyone's ass in exactly the segment they think is going to put them over the top. Nearly 256,000 people, 350,000 donations.


by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:44:01 PM EST

Re: Then Clinton & Edwards are in trouble (none / 0)

The youth are a famously and reliably fertile demographic to have spend money, however.  If money was votes, Johnny Depp would be president.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.