I don’t mean philosophically. I just mean, whatever happened to all that hand-wringing in the ’90s about declining voter turnout?
Since the low-point for voter turnout in 1996, turnout increased in 2000, again in ’04, and is likely to break records on Tuesday. So, what changed? There are plenty of theories:
1. Early voting.
This is the technical argument. In 1992, 7% of votes were cast before election day. Now, the total nears 1/3. Um… give people more time to vote, and you likely increase the number of people who vote. We’ll call that the Captain Obvious argument.
2. Close/Exciting elections.
1996 was dull. Clinton wasn’t new, Dole wasn’t fresh, they talked about nothing, and the outcome was never in doubt. 2000 had the benefit of suspense, ’04 suspense + an unpopular war/hated President, and this year (assuming it breaks ’04s turnout) has history + collapsing economy.
3. Media.
A two-fer. First of all, cable networks (from MSNBC to Fox News and even Comedy Central) have certainly raised the profile of elections in a way that wasn’t around in the ’90s. Add to that online media, political/news blogs, YouTube, etc… and politics has a chance to break through in ways it couldn’t before. Here’s the second part of that two-fer: That saturation (particularly online) leads to a fundraising boom, which in turn leads to more TV and radio ads, better ground games to increase turnout, etc…
4. Education levels.
It’s always been true that people with higher levels of education are more likely to turnout and vote. Each generation has sent more people to college than the previous generation. Of course, I kinda dismiss this argument since it doesn’t account for diminishing turnout between ’72 and ’96.*
5. Coincidence.
Two cycles do not make a trend. We have no idea what turnout will be on Tuesday. I don’t buy this argument at all. Two cycles DO make a trend out of only nine cycles in consideration (see the * below). I think we’re about to have a 3rd cycle to add to the evidence – 3 out of 10 cycles, it’s pretty clear something has changed.
Overall, I don’t know. My best guess is that it’s some combination of the first three: early vote, media, and exciting elections. Still, as someone who values “little d” democracy, it’s a pretty cool trend.
*1972 was the first year of the 18-21 year old vote. Since that is the least likely demographic to turn out, it stands to reason that overall turnout percentages dipped from that point on. So, it really isn’t useful to compare any post-’72 race with a pre-’72 race.
Leave a comment