this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
75 points (80.5% liked)

politics

19224 readers
2894 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The 2024 presidential election saw record-high turnout nearing 2020 levels, with over 152 million ballots cast.

Donald Trump won both the Electoral College and the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, defying conventional wisdom that high turnout benefits Democrats.

Key swing states like Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had increased turnout, with Trump outperforming Kamala Harris in battlegrounds despite her strong voter mobilization.

The GOP’s focus on early and mail voting, as well as targeting infrequent voters, proved effective, signaling a shift in Republican turnout strategies in the Trump era.

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carrolade 79 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The 2024 presidential election saw record-high turnout

nearing 2020 levels

Is it just me or do these two statements directly contradict each other?

[–] Lasherz12 39 points 1 month ago

You're right. This reeks of choosing your narrative before looking at the data to me.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 10 points 1 month ago

3rd highest turnout since 1900 is a bronze metal and absolutely one for the record books.

[–] someguy3 57 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Trump basically got the same number of votes as 2020. Someone else didn't show up.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No he didn't. At last count, he's sitting at 77.4 million votes, which is a little more than 3 million more votes than he got in 2020 (74.2).

[–] EleventhHour 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Compared to the nearly 11m dems who stayed home this election, it’s not that much.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's possible and what a lot of people are saying.

It's also possible people who voted for Biden voted for Trump instead.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

"Big voter turnout" to me would still be wrong.
155+ million voters in 2020

Population increases by roughly 6 million

Less than 150 million voters in 2024.

If we consider decreasing voter turnout high turnout, sure, it was high. That said, yes some voters likely swayed, but I'd like 80-90% voter turnout to be considered high, but we never get that.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 2 points 1 month ago

This is literally the third highest turnout since 1900 by VEP, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is hardly a low turnout election. The last 'low turnout' election was 2000, most of the ones since have been average or slightly above.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Less than 150 million voters in 2024.

It's more than 150 million. The current count is about 153 million, and there's still more left to count in California.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

11 days later and still counting, jeez. There as to be better ways to do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

Several states have rules that the mail-in ballots have to be dropped in the mail on election day, and the mail can take a few days to be received, confirmed as eligible/valid, and then counted.

Many states have rules that allow for people to submit provisional ballots to be submitted and set aside while the system verified that the voter is eligible, and they don't actually unseal and count the ballot until they confirm the voter's eligibility.

Some even have rules where if a ballot is going to be challenged for not meeting the criteria for voting, such as matching the voter's signature on file, the voter is given an opportunity to cure the defect. This can take weeks.

Significantly, the largest state, California, does all of these. They do 100% absentee voting, which increases the administrative overhead of counting (each envelope must be validated before being opened, many ballots not received by election day, a long process for disqualifying or curing ballots). So they're the slowest. And they have the most. But they also have high voter participation rates, which is the goal of these voter-friendly policies that slow down counting.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 1 points 1 month ago

Also voters died. Old age, COVID, random accidents

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Big? Trump got elected with only 20% of USians voting for him.
Anything less than 90% turnout would already start being dangerous for democracy.
Voting is not a right, it's a duty.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is literally the third highest turnout since 1900 by VEP, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is hardly a low turnout election. The last 'low turnout' election was 2000, most of the ones since have been average or slightly above.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

That just means that USian democracy is sick for a long time.
Here in Brazil we have lots of problems and room to improve, but I think we do right by requiring everybody to register to vote on turning 18 and if anyone misses an election without justification they are fined.

[–] Prox 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do we have any stats showing what percentage of eligible voters turned out this year? If the US population keeps increasing, we'd expect "record turnout" every election.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

According to Wikipedia, about 155.5 million people voted in 2020 and so far, there are about 150.2 votes counted this time (98% of votes counted). They say that in 2020 we had a 66.6% turnout, but until all the votes are counted, we don't have a turnout number yet. That said, it seems on track to be a little lower than 2020, although not by a huge margin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

According to Wikipedia, about 155.5 million people voted in 2020 and so far, there are about 150.2 votes counted this time (98% of votes counted).

These numbers exclude third parties and independents.

When those are included, 2020 included 158.4 million votes, and the current count so far in 2024 is about 153 million.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 2 points 1 month ago

63 and a half percent. Third highest since 1900, only behind 2020(65.8%) and 1960(high 64s to low 65s depending on source). For context, 2008 was 61.6, 2016 was 59.2, and 2000 was 54.3.

[–] jeffw 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Our population increases every year. I hate when people compare numbers instead of percentages (of eligible voters).

Did you ever stop and compare how many votes Biden got to Reagan? So much for Reagan having the biggest landslide! /s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They never talk about percentages of eligible voters because it would be obvious that nobody wants any of these creeps and this "democracy" is a total sham.

Seriously I've tried to google this information historically. It's not easy. I saw a zine about this a few years ago but I can never find it.

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 1 points 1 month ago

The VEP is the third highest since 1900, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is an extremely high turnout election

[–] themeatbridge 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Lot of accurate criticisms in this thread, but something we should also keep in mind, progressives are OK with that. If voters vote and it doesn't go our way, we don't look for ways to restrict voting or prevent voters from participating in the process. We don't call in bomb threats or create arbitrary obstacles to voting. We celebrate high voter turnout, even when we lose. Democracy is bigger than one election.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Too bad this might be the last one

[–] themeatbridge 1 points 1 month ago

I agree with you, but if the time for another revolution has arrived, we need to remember that it wasn't democracy that got us here, it was corruption. When we win, we should not seek retribution or tit-for-tat oppressive policies.

[–] fluxion 5 points 1 month ago

That's how we felt before 2020 anyway. People actively voting for a party trying to destroy democracy changes the calculus a bit and we can no longer ignore the long-term ramifications of placing these kinds of people in power

[–] Lasherz12 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

6 million less people voted so far than 2020, which is enough to make up the popular vote difference. I think this article's conclusion is both* dismissive of population growth and also too generous in assuming those missing votes would have been split the same as those who did show up.

[–] troglodytis 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We got 60ish% participation of adults, 64ish% of 'eligible' voters.

We need 100ish

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain 1 points 1 month ago

64ish is literally the third highest since 1900, only behind 1960(similar range) and 2020(65ish). It was 54% in 2000. This stuff tends to eb and flow. There was a steady decline from 1960 until 2000 and it's been rising since. 1920-1960 was steady growth, 1870s to 1920s was a decline. Prior to that it was growth more or less since the start