Turnout, Turnout, Turnout

[California Dreamer]

Turnout in 2000 was 54.5% This was up significantly from an all time low of 49% in 1996, however turnout has trended downward for decades.

The turnout for the last 9 elections is:
1968   60.8%
1972   55.2%  
1976   53.5%
1980   52.6%
1984   53.1%
1988   50.2%  
1992   55.2%  
1996   49.0%  
2000   54.5%  

So what do you think it will be in 2004?
...and what effect will it have?

[The Dowager Mod]

after the last fiasco it will probably go up this year.
and start going down again after that.

[MasterJedi]

It'll probably be 57-58.8% turnout for this election!

[ilikeverin]

Pretty high, I'm guessing

[Sk]

I disagree. I think turnout will be low (51-52.9%). Both candidates have support but there is a general lack of excitement for them.  

[lidaker]

Turnout for Swedish elections:

1968: 89,3
1970: 88,3
1973: 90,8
1976: 91,8
1979: 90,7
1982: 91,4
1985: 89,9
1988: 86,0
1991: 86,7
1994: 86,8
1998: 81,4
2002: 80,1

[PBrunsel]

With all these attacks I doubt many people will vote on Election Day.

[Nation]

Here's the standard follow-up question: Does a high turnout help Kerry or Bush?

[lidaker]

Here's the standard follow-up question: Does a high turnout help Kerry or Bush?

Kerry

[Giant Saguaro]

Here's the standard follow-up question: Does a high turnout help Kerry or Bush?

I don't know that you can say.

1968/1972 were high, Nixon won (Republican).
1980 and 1988 were fairly low - Republicans won.
1996 was low - Democrat won.
2000 was in the middle - Republican won.
1992 was in the middle - Democrat won.
1984 was in the middle - Reoublican won.
1976 was in the middle - Democrat won.

Actually, turnout in the fifties is technically fairly low, so it depends upon where the turnout is.

[© tweed]

LOW

[Lunar]

According to Vorlon, the Democrats benefit whenever the turnout is very high or very low.  Republicans do well about the 50% mark.

[California Dreamer]

well Just take a look at the latest poll from Gallup/USA Today

All Adults: Kerry 51 / Bush 43
'Likely' Voterss: Kerry 47 / Bush 48

clearly with 100% turnout...Kerry would win. Polls use questions, weighting and estimations to come up with the 'likely' voters. One of the reasons that Gore did better on election day is because more people came out to vote then the pollsters were estimating.

This is why the GOP is going to do everythign it can to supress turnout, especially amongst minorities and women.

And why the Dems will do the opposite, one extra bit of help they will get this year is a group called America Coming Together, which is one of those 507 groups funded by Soros, but unlike the Media Fund or moveon.org, they are focussing on registration and GOTV.

[??????????]

Turnout will be low because of the negative campaigning, barring of course a terrorist attack. The GOP will not try to 'supress turnout' as some may accuse the GOP of. They think we stole the last election and are going to try and steal this one. lol lol lol

[ericadler]

I don't much care what turnout will be.  I'm going to vote.  In fact, the lower the turnout, the more my vote counts.  

[classical liberal]

Of course the GOP will try to suppress opposition turnout.  So will the Dems.  You would have to be horribly naive to think that anyone in power is not going to use that power to further their views.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I disagree. I think turnout will be low (51-52.9%). Both candidates have support but there is a general lack of excitement for them.  

I agree with your analysis.

I would add that the percentages used are based on Voting Age Population.  Since much of that population is ineligible to vote (alliens, convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored - in most states, and people not registerd - in most states) the actual percentage of eligible voters voting is significantly higher.

[California Dreamer]

I checked with Gallup and it seems their polling assumes a 50% turnout. This would actually be a big drop in turnout since 2000. And since the Convential Wisdom (and Gallups polling itself) indicates that the higher the turnout, the better for Kerry, it seems that lowballing turnout also lowballs Kerry.

So with every poll you look at with 'likely voters' you have to ask what are they assuming in turnout (rise?, drop?, stay the same?). With the election so close, the answer to the 'turnout assumption' effects who is leading the poll.

[angus]

I disagree. I think turnout will be low (51-52.9%). Both candidates have support but there is a general lack of excitement for them.  

I agree with your analysis.

I would add that the percentages used are based on Voting Age Population.  Since much of that population is ineligible to vote (alliens, convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored - in most states, and people not registerd - in most states) the actual percentage of eligible voters voting is significantly higher.

I think I disagree.  The people were fat and happy back in 2000, so turnout was low, but not as low as previously.  This year people aren't quite as fat or as happy, so they'll want to "do something" and since most people actually seem to believe their personal conditions are affected by the identity of the president (and for some it is arguably true) they'll vote.  I voted 53-55 percent, about the same as last time.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

2000 showed us how much one vote can matter.  Turnout will be around 59-60% IMO.  I think the Dems are going to benefit from this on a state level, cause in states that were close in 2000 like IA, MN, and WI, prolly have alot more Dems than Reps, and higher turnout will mean the Dems are automatically picking up votes.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Dude,

Don't know what you're smoking, but, turnout (if you're talking VAP) hasn't been that high since 1960!

Also, of the three states you cited, only one, Iowa has partisan voter registration.  Current figures in Iowa show Republicans outnumber Democrats 575,758 to 562,210.

Actually turnout in 2000 was unusually high as the Democrats had a sucessful effort in several states to herd their voters to the polls.

If you look at registration in close states in 2000 where registration is by party, there has been a slight improment in most states for the Republicans and a slight loss for Democrats (talking in percentages not raw numbers).

[pieman]

Turnout is about motivating your side and demoralizing the otherside. So we get a combination of attack ads to suppress the otherside's turnout and campaign rhetoric to excite the base so they work and turnout.

The turnout number itself does not tell the whole story. It is also important to see WHO is turning out, in addition to HOW MANY.

For example, DOLE lost because the christian conservatives didn't turn out in 92.

Look at the the change in the 2000 vote from 5 days before the election compared to the election results. Bush's base was demoralized and GOre'sbase energized because of the DUI reported 4 days before the election.

It is true, though, that in general, those less politically active (ie vote less frequently) generally vote DEM.


 

[classical liberal]

I hate the phrase Christian Conservatives.  They're really not conservative at all; their entire agenda is pushing for government to interfere in things that the constitution does not empower.  They assume that they know what is best for people and wish to use government unconstitutionally to impose their thoughts on others.  In that reagard they are as much liberal elitists as John Kerry and his ilk.

On a lighter note, I think that we should let gays get married since if we do, we will know where they live and can deal with them accordingly.

[ilikeverin]

I hate the phrase Christian Conservatives.  They're really not conservative at all; their entire agenda is pushing for government to interfere in things that the constitution does not empower.  They assume that they know what is best for people and wish to use government unconstitutionally to impose their thoughts on others.  In that reagard they are as much liberal elitists as John Kerry and his ilk.

On a lighter note, I think that we should let gays get married since if we do, we will know where they live and can deal with them accordingly.

You have 777 posts!  You win the jackpot!



*cough*

Erm...

ignore me

[opebo]

I disagree. I think turnout will be low (51-52.9%). Both candidates have support but there is a general lack of excitement for them.  

I agree with your analysis.

I would add that the percentages used are based on Voting Age Population.  Since much of that population is ineligible to vote (alliens, convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored - in most states, and people not registerd - in most states) the actual percentage of eligible voters voting is significantly higher.

I think I disagree.  The people were fat and happy back in 2000, so turnout was low, but not as low as previously.  This year people aren't quite as fat or as happy, so they'll want to "do something" and since most people actually seem to believe their personal conditions are affected by the identity of the president (and for some it is arguably true) they'll vote.  I voted 53-55 percent, about the same as last time.

Americans are fatter than ever, but you're right they're not as happy.. a lot more tense and anxious.  What with Muslims chopping off heads and the like.  I think turnout will be the same or slightly higher than last time.