MyDD :: Improving on 2000 Turnout Will Be Very Difficult

Improving on 2000 Turnout Will Be Very Difficult

by Chris Bowers, Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:28:35 AM EST

For some time now, many of us, myself included, have hoped that Democratic turnout will significantly exceed its level from 2000. While there is some evidence suggesting that voter turnout this year could indeed be very high, I would warn against banking on high turnout to be our savior. This is because, as I have just discovered, turnout among self-identifying Democrats and self-identifying Republicans is already a lot higher than one might expect. The decline in voter participation across the country seems to be a result of a massive decline in turnout among voters who do not identify with either major party.

The discussion this weekend about party ID and poll weighting gave me an idea. By using the Party ID numbers from exit polls in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections provided on Alan Reifman's page, comparing them with Party ID surveys from those same years conducted by Harris and Pew, and then comparing those numbers to the national voter turnout figures provided by Dave Leip, it is possible to estimate voter turnout among Party ID sets for each of those three elections. I have done just that, and here are the results:

Voting Age Population, Turnout By Party ID
	2000   1996   1992
Dem	 63%	54%    54%
Rep	 70%	56%    65%
Other	 35%	38%    50%

Registered Voters, Turnout By Party ID 
	2000   1996   1992
Dem	77%    73%    77%
Rep	86%    77%    92%
Other	43%    51%    71%

While these are estimates, they are not wild estimates. These numbers show that turnout is already very high among self-identifying partisans, and are at nearly full-participation levels among self-identifying partisans who are registered to vote. Over the last three cycles, an average of 76% of registered Democrats voted, and an astonishing 85% of registered Republicans voted! By comparison, those who do not identify with either major party rarely vote at all. If I had access to data before 1992, I bet these numbers would also show that Perot drove independent / other turnout through the roof, and that the lower the share of the national third-party vote the lower the participation of independents / others in the political process. In fact, and while this is purely speculation, I would bet that the long-term decline in voter participation in American elections is directly a result of the decline among those who do not identify with either of the two major parties.

In Presidential elections, registered voters who identify with one of the two major parties vote at levels equal to or greater than almost every worldwide Democracy. It is going to be very difficult to improve on that. Democrats have more room to grow than Republicans, but still are already seeing very high turnout among self-identifying Democrats who are eligible to vote on Election Day. A good goal--and a huge coup--would simply be to equal what Republicans are able to accomplish with turnout. However, even if we accomplish that feat, don't except untold and unexpected millions to suddenly manifest on November 2nd and create an unexpected landslide. We are already a lot closer to maxing out than many people believe.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

Fascinating stuff (none / 0)

This is a really good analysis of turnout among self identified partisans. As far as a slient majority of Democrats that have yet to appear, it would have to come from two sources.

"McCain independents" -- people who as a matter of principle will not identify with a party, but are for all practical purposes Democrats. [I believe there have been studies that show a large number of independents are closet Democrats].

Young non-voters. It's unlikely they'll show up, but this is the only other place they might materialize from.

by niq on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:58:22 AM EST

Great work! (none / 0)

I hadn't seen anything like that previously.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:12:43 AM EST

This works both ways-So Kerry wins! (none / 0)

It means Rove will have a hard time boosting wingnut fundie turnout, as well-especially since R turnout was 9 points higher than D turnout last time, so he may have an even HARDER time than we do. Plus, as mentioned previously, I think most indepentents (who turn out in low numbers) will lean D, especially in this election. There is plenty of territory to mine there.

This means Kerry wins. Basically, R turnout can't possibly increase more than D turnout does this election-and that is the only way that Bush can win-by a massive increase in evangelical votes for him. Also, as I pointed out earlier, three times as many people are switching from Bush to Kerry as are switching from Gore to Bush. PLUS, Nader will probably get half of what he got last time, with many of those votes going over into Kerry's column.

Kerry wins-it's a nearly an absolute certainty (assuming the voting machines aren't fixed, etc.). Ignore the polls, think logically. With these numbers, how can Bush win?

by Geotpf on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:28:47 AM EST

Re: This works both ways-So Kerry wins! (none / 0)

Also, considering that Bush lost the last election with 86% turnout, just how many of those voters will still support him, after 1000+ dead in Iraq, 400 + billion debt and an ailing enconomy. (and he will be needing every last one of them.) Kerry has the ability to blow it all in the debates however. If he speaks in his drawn out northern protestant preacher voice and comes across as arrogant and aloof, it's all over. Barring that, I agree, this election is Kerry's to lose... of course, assuming the voting machines aren't fixed, and that in itself is quite a stretch!

by Slapmaxwell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unless I'm missing something (none / 0)

...in your argument you're confining yourself to already-registered voters. Effectively, you're only looking at the numerator (registered voters who vote) and not the denominator (all registered voters for a given party) as something that can change. The concerted effort by the parties and ACT etc. serves to take people from the Other category (hopefully, from the numerator [i.e., voters] of the Other category and move them into the pool of D's and R's. To the extent that they're successful, there is room for expansion of turnout in absolute terms.

by paperbag on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:35:22 AM EST

Who is motivated? (none / 0)

Compared to the three previous elections, who is motivated?

Clearly the Dems are substantially more motivated against Bush II than they were in any of those elections. I haven't seen this much unity and anger from Democrats anytime since I first voted in the 1960's.

Repubs are motivated, but it is hard to see how they are more motivated than they were against Clinton in 92, their peak turnout among RV's. I find it hard to believe that more people have gone from other to Rep than in 92.

What about the 'others'. Bush enthusiasm does not appear to have grown in this group - and Rove has barely tried to appeal to them. However Kerry has specifically targeted the independents, the Dem-oriented 527's have appeared out of nowhere, and there are many reasons this time for unaligned voters to be emotionally involved: the war, the economy, Bush's turn away from the 'compassionate conservative' image he projected 2000, and anti-US feelings around the world.

I think dems may appraoch or exceed their highest turnout since WWII, many Repubs are sickened by Bush and the war, and independents have real emotional reasons for tuning in. All the markers seem to run in Kerry's favor and he seems to understand that his crop will be bigger if he motivates the independents.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:18:12 AM EST

Re: Improving on 2000 Turnout Will Be Very Difficu (none / 0)

The drop off of participation by other/independent is astounding.

In fact, and while this is purely speculation, I would bet that the long-term decline in voter participation in American elections is directly a result of the decline among those who do not identify with either of the two major parties.

I would agree. I just picked up this little book from 1980 to hopefully glean something about that, American Parties in Decline.

It's two-fold, while among those who vote, it's become more partisan than ever, among the overall population, the opt-out has become as much as ever, but the latter vote less and less, making the partisan turnout more and more important.

This is why Rove chose the strategy of turning out the base vote. And it was Dean's strategy too. Kerry has a strategy well suited for a higher than average turnout among independents, with bases that are not relyed upon to be fired up.

The casual voters (that plurality that gave him the early wins in IA and NH) favor Kerry. You can read Greenberg's Two America's to see the strategy that Shrum has been following. They are banking on a higher than average turnout among the independent/other voters. Most polls show Kerry leading by 5-15% among this group. And it's not going to be until October, for us to know if that's going to materialize or not.

It's entirely possible that it will. Voter turnout in US Presidential elections is cyclical, we are at a low point, and the upturns are usually dramatic.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:32:26 AM EST

I suspect that independent turnout is normally low (none / 0)

In 1992, I'll bet a lot of them voted for Perot-that's why the numbers for 1992 are high. There hadn't been a significant third party challenger before then since Anderson in 1980.

With all the noise about Nader, he has never been a significant challenger. He got 2.74% of the vote in 2000-enough to tip the election to Bush, but not much compared to Perot (either time), or Anderson. Remember, Perot could have won in 1992-he was leading at one point over both mainstream canidates. He ended up with 18.87% in 1992 and 8.40% in 1996. Anderson got 6.6% in 1980.

by Geotpf on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:11:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But.... Curtis Gans Says (none / 0)

How do you square this data with what Curtis Gans said on C-SPAN on Friday, that he estimates turnout this year at between 58-60% ? This would be the highest turnout since '68, and a much higher turnout than in recent elctions.

Btw, I'm a little confused by the table called 'registered voters'. What do you mean by that ?
Doesn't everybody have to be registered in order to vote ?

by ira on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:48:20 AM EST

No Need for Estimation (none / 0)

The U.S. Census has already done it for you. In 2000, the turnout of REGISTERED VOTERS was about 85%, which is about normal. The confusion many (including some above) have with the usually reported turnout number is the denominator. The media almost always reports turnout of over 18 adults (including non-registered voters and non-citizens). That indeed is about 55% for a presidential year. But turnout of registered voters is much much higher. And to answer Chris' comments, you don't need very much of a bump in turnout to affect an election this close! And if registrations as a percentage of eligible voters goes up -- which many organizations are working hard to accomplish -- then anything could happen.

by AS on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:35:14 AM EST

Re: No Need for Estimation (none / 0)

That indeed is about 55% for a presidential year.I think it was less than 50% in 2000?

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Need for Estimation (none / 0)

Nope. 54.5% according to Dave Leip.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Independents are sick of Bush (none / 0)

Anecdote: I'm registered Democrat, my wife was a Registered Independent. We both voted for Bush in 2000, a lot of it had to do with Pro-life issues.

I have since seen the light and my wife is so sick of Bush that she change party affiliation to Democrat in 2003 to vote in the Democratic primary.

I dare say that there are few responsible adults who don't think that so much is at stake in this election. I think we can confidently say that the Independent turnout will be significant. It has been throughout the primaries and if I'm correct, polls have been showing a very high level of interest in the election overall.

by Ono on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:15:07 PM EST

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.