2016 Presidential election voter turnout report

[Virginiá]

http://www.nonprofitvote.org/documents/2017/03/america-goes-polls-2016.pdf

• Minnesota has been number one in turnout for eight out of the last nine presidential elections. In 2016, it was trailed by five states – Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin and Iowa – all of which had both same day registration and battleground status.
• The bottom five states in voter turnout – Texas, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Hawaii – have been at the bottom for the last three presidential elections. These were not battleground states. Low turnout can also relate to restrictive voting laws and a less educated electorate. These three factors reinforce a culture of non-voting that seems hard to change.
• Hawaii has finished last in voter turnout for the last five presidential elections in a row. It’s far from the mainland and receives few visits and little attention, in addition to being a non-battleground state having only three electoral votes that predictably go to the Democratic party.
• California, New York and Texas continue to bring down turnout nationwide. Together, the three states represent a quarter of the voting-eligible population. Had they voted at the same rate other states did in 2016, national turnout would have been 1.5 percentage points higher

• The six highest-ranking states offered same day voter registration (SDR), which allows voters to register or fix a registration problem when they vote (In order – Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin and Iowa).
• Voter turnout in states with SDR was seven points higher than states without the option, consistent with every election since the policy was first introduced in the 1970s.
• Notable as well among high turnout states were the “All Vote by Mail” states of Colorado, Oregon and Washington. They ranked 4th, 8th and 12th respectively. Their average turnout was 68%. In each of those states every registered voter receives a ballot in the mail before the election and may return that ballot at their convenience at a local drop box or by mail.
• Voter turnout in contested battleground states has been five to eight percentage points higher than in non-battleground states in each of the last five presidential elections.

This helps (but not completely) in explaining why turnout of certain minority groups, notably Hispanic and Asian American voters, is so low:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In addition, Hispanic turnout is hurt by the fact that a large proportion (up to 45%) of the Hispanic electorate consists of young voters, who have always had lower turnout through history.



America continues to exist in an era of high turnout and elevated political activity





Contrary to the punditocracy, youth turnout remained high

• Youth share of the voting electorate held steady at 19%.
• CIRCLE, the leading national research center on youth civic engagement, estimates youth voter turnout at 50%, five points higher than four years ago.

-------

EAC Report
https://www.eac.gov/news/2017/06/29/newly-released-2016-election-administration-and-voting-survey-provides-snapshot-of-nations-voter-turnout-registration-trends-voting-systems-election-administration-and-voting-survey-eavs-data-media/

https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf

[Virginiá]

A couple notes of my own:

1. California's ranking improved, but remains on the lower end due to its non-competitive status and somewhat less favorable voting laws. CA should be poised to rise even further in the ranks as by 2017-2018, automatic voter registration (AVR) and same-day voter registration (SDR) will be available.

Further, California is shifting to a Colorado-like voting system, where all registered voters will receive ballots in the mail. A pilot program involving limited number of counties (such as Orange) will go live in 2018, and by 2020 most counties will have shifted. Voters will still be able to vote in-person in "vote centers" anywhere in their county.

2. Texas actually slid down a rank this year compared to 2012, despite increases in urban centers. Efforts in the legislature to remove straight ticket voting option will almost surely produce longer lines in 2018 and 2020, given the long ballots TX is prone to.

3. North Carolina's slide in turnout appears to be related to lower interest among African Americans, Hurricane Mathew and a few voting restrictions that were not overturned by the 4th circuit last year.

4. Florida's rise in the ranks may be at least in part due to the restoration of favorable early voting plans, which a reduction of in 2012 caused long lines.

5. States poised to see bump in turnout (relatively) in 2020 based on potential voter access expansion: New Mexico, Illinois, Nevada, California and New Jersey (New York is up in the air currently)  ///  States that might see decrease due to restrictions by 2020: Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

6. Contrary to what many pundits like to parrot, Millennial turnout was actually high this year and political interest among this generation, if anything, is increasing.

[Virginiá]

What about the prospect that a large percentage of Hispanic population are simply non-citizens?

Yes, it does hurt if you look at turnout based on adult population. If you look at it vs eligible voters, not so much.

[Virginiá]

Looks like a lot of the lower turnout states are non-competitive, which probably affects motivation to vote. Feels like a waste to vote in Tennessee when you know the Republican is gonna win anyway.

It depends. There are different circumstances, especially depending on the level of voter access in any given state. For instance, states at the bottom are far from beacons of voting rights - Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, etc, and states with things like all-mail voting, same-day voter registration and/or automatic voter registration are at the top. California is set to have same-day voter/auto voter registration and pilot all-mail voting/county-wide voting centers go live in 2018 (or may be active already), so we should see California move up this list quite a ways in 2020.

If Texas and New York implemented similar reforms, I have no doubt they would see substantial increases in voting. Unfortunately, only New York has a realistic chance of doing so, and even that won't be until at least 2019+ at the earliest.

[Virginiá]

Rats! I only now saw that you posted that stuff here. I just made a big post in the 2016 board regarding the Monkey Cage article.

If interested:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=263866.msg5640927#new

[Virginiá]

EAC Report

https://www.eac.gov/news/2017/06/29/newly-released-2016-election-administration-and-voting-survey-provides-snapshot-of-nations-voter-turnout-registration-trends-voting-systems-election-administration-and-voting-survey-eavs-data-media/

https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf


Some highlights:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^ all states with some sort of pro-voter access reforms, such as same-day registration and/or mail voting.

[Virginiá]

Maybe I am misinterpreting your post, but if you are stating that Oregon has same day registration, that is factually not correct... Assuming a typo on that one, and suspect that Colorado falls into the same category.

Oh no, you aren't. I don't know why I didn't consider Oregon. Colorado definitely does, as they still have in-person voting centers.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx

[Virginiá]

How did they determine those results? Because their figures seem to diverge substantially from the exit polls in some cases - notably for 18-29 and 30-44. Exit polls have Clinton losing 18-29 and 30-44, and losing 30-44 by 17 points.

[Virginiá]

How did they determine those results? Because their figures seem to diverge substantially from the exit polls in some cases - notably for 18-29 and 30-44. Exit polls have Clinton losing 18-29 and 30-44, and losing 30-44 by 17 points.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/how-the-2016-vote-broke-down-by-race-gender-and-age/

ohh I see, it's a post-election survey. they had this to say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so it does have at least somewhat of a dem skew, but we should see better numbers sometime later this summer. i'm really interested to see how that will change the 18 - 44 group.

thanks mondale!

[Virginiá]

The 30-44 white demographic voted Trump?? Jeez those are all Xers and older millennials who skewed right according to those results.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

EP has whites ages 30-44 at 54 - 37 Trump. This is a huge difference. Interestingly enough, the 30-44 age bloc is 51 - 41 Clinton, which because it is a larger sample I assume is more accurate. How could the exit poll say whites ages 30-44 voted THAT bigly for Trump, yet the age group overall still have a double digit lead for Clinton? Is that possible when the whites within that age group are so strongly pro-Trump?

I feel like either there are a huge number of minorities in that group that skews is that way, or the exit poll's 30-44 white vote is wrong and this^ is more accurate. I'm leaning towards this survey being more accurate.

[Virginiá]

30-44 would mean 1973-1987. Meaning that many people who were born during the 80s boom would have been born in that environment. Does that have any relevance here?

When they were born is really irrelevant imo, it's more about when they come of the age where they start being aware of the issues facing their day and start forming opinions on them. Of course, kids can and often do frequently change their thinking during this period, which is why 17 - 22 are probably the most influential years.

Previous studies have shown that young people didn't really start becoming really friendly to the Democratic Party until around Clinton's 2nd term, and when you combine that with 2016's exit polls, it makes me doubt this survey but at the same time I think it has a much bigger sample size... so I don't know. I'd like to see what their final numbers are when they finish it later this summer (as per what the article says)

[Virginiá]

I guess the voter turnout among the 18-29 voting group age should reach at least between 55 % and 60 % in 2020 since all millenials will be eligible to vote, the same for the first post-millenials (Generation Z) born before the end of 2002.

Not really. I think you are grouping together voters that shouldn't be grouped together. The Millennials who will have higher turnout will be the older ones, who will fill most/all of the 30-39 age block. Those are the higher turnout ones. The younger ones will have lower turnout.

Also some non-Millennials will be in 18-29 group, and their turnout will likely be as bad as it has been historically. The 18-29 year olds should have turnout similar to past elections, although I suppose it could go higher if the election has really high turnout and maybe some 2008-like feel to it. But it's not going to go to 60% due to Millennials. The higher turnout due to aging will represent itself as it always does - with older people.

TL;DR nothing is going to change with 18-29 year olds, at least not in any way that hasn't affected past people who were 18-29 years old at some point.

[Virginiá]

test