Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2004 voter turnout 63.8% not 55% as has been stated

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:45 AM
Original message
2004 voter turnout 63.8% not 55% as has been stated
the msm and others have reported 55% as the turnout for 2004 based on US population 18+. I was looking at the US census report on 2004 voting and found these numbers intersting:

Total 18 years and over
215,694,000

Not a citizen
18,688,000

Reported Voting
125,736,000

Since not US citizens cannot vote, the eligible electorate is 197,006,000

This would put voter turnout at 63.8% of the vote, along the lines of the modern record of 63% in 1960 (there were many fewer immigrants coming into the country at that time percentage wise than now, immigration laws were not reformed until the 1960s).



Just a point to consider...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting... buuut...
...PLEASE don't call them the "MSM!!" There is NOTHING "mainstream" about their agenda of greed and manipulation. Please call them what they are, the Corporate Media.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Not an MSM issue -- this is the official way of calculating turnout
Edited on Sat Nov-19-05 01:55 AM by flowomo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. that's a better term than MSM, thanks, i'll incorporate it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. others have noticed this -- look here:
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm


VOTER TURNOUT

Statistics on voter turnout presented here show that the much-lamented decline in voter participation is an artifact of the way in which it is measured. The most typical way to calculate the turnout rate is to divide the number of votes by what is called the "voting-age population" which consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States. This includes persons ineligible to vote, mainly non-citizens and ineligible felons, and excludes overseas eligible voters. When turnout rates are calculated for those eligible to vote, a new picture of turnout emerges, which exhibits no decline since 1972. (See graph of voter turnout.)

The response to these facts have been mixed. The Census Bureau and the Center for the Study of the American Electorate now report citizen-voting-age-population turnout rates, which does account for the largest ineligible group, non-citizens. Many professors around the country assign the publications accompanying this research to their classes. Still, many pundits and academics continue to opine about voting declines. Some are actively trying to discredit the research since it refutes a large volume of academic research (what one leading set of authors described as the "most studied, most conjectured, and most important trend in the study of American government"), and it brings into question the necessity of overhauling the American electoral system to correct the perceived crisis of voter apathy.

Please see the FAQ for answers to commonly asked questions.


Opinions
Michael P. McDonald. "Wrong Conclusion on Redistricting." The Washington Post. Letter to the Editor, Nov. 1, 2005.
Michael P. McDonald and Kimball Brace. "EAC Survey Sheds Light on Election Administration." Roll Call. Oct. 27, 2005.
Michael P. McDonald. "Up, Up and Away! Voter Participation in the 2004 Presidential Election." The Forum (2):4. Dec 2004.
Michael P. McDonald. "2004 May Signal More Voter Interest." Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Nov 27, 2004.
Michael P. McDonald. "California Recall Voting: Nuggets of California Gold for Voting Behavior." The Forum (1):4. Dec. 2003.
Samuel L. Popkin and Michael P. McDonald "Turnout's Not as Bad as You Think." The Washington Post. Nov. 5, 2000.


Reports
2005 Virginia Turnout Up from Four Years Ago
Report on the Election Day Survey to the Election Assistance Commission
Critique of the Berkeley Voting Study
Brookings Report on eligible voters for the 2004 election.
Brookings Report on aggregate registration statistics (1996-2004) plus selected demographics of registration from the 2002 Current Population Survey.

California Recall Pre-Election Turnout Prediction




2004 Election Data
Summary
Bush

62,041,268

50.73%
Kerry 59,028,548 48.27%
Total
(all candidates) 122,293,720 Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks for the reference and I am glad professionals are researching this
I wish this was better known, google 2004 voter turnout and most sources have the 55%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. yes, that is the official federal way of calculating... and it's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ditto EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not critical to the book's arguments, but Mark Crispin Miller's book
"Fooled Again" cites Brian Faler, "Election 2004 Turnout Was Highest Since 1968" for a percentage of "60.7%, the highest in 36 years", on page 6, and says 2000 was 54%.

This would be an approximate increase in turnout of 6.7% although the area behind the decimal point is not necessarily a "significant digit".

But, I agree that the "crisis of voter apathy" is in significant part a misleading or manufactured crisis. By calculating in a somewhat misleading way, it leads to lots of inferences that would help protect the federal government: activists are dispirited from asserting greater public control, figuring they'll never overcome the "huge apathy" the whole issue of the larger and larger percentage of the public that is disfranchised is avoided by omission, and so on.

By the way, there have been many states that at some point in their history allowed non-citizens to vote. It was often part of an attraction for settlers to emigrate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree with you, I think it's safe to say, depending on the
measurement, voter turnout really was between 61% and 64% in 2004, close to a record showing extreme interest by the electorate. And even higher if one factors in those who are legally prevented from voting (prisoners and felons in many states to one degree or another). And yes, it works in the powers that be interests to keep people feeling as if there work is pointless because huge amounts of Americans are indifferent.

And non-citizens should be given the vote in many elections. If the immigration system was not so backlogged there would already be millions more eligible voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The message of their numbers is: every suppressed vote or lost vote
or person working two jobs and unable to vote or unaware or afraid to take time off allowed by state statute is an "apathetic voter"! So who cares about 'em, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2019, 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC