Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Every election night, the headlines trumpet voter turnout figures: “Record turnout!” or “Disappointing participation.” But here’s the thing about those numbers—they can tell completely different stories depending on how they’re calculated.
The same election might show 55% turnout using one method and 66% using another. Both numbers are technically correct, but they paint vastly different pictures of American civic engagement.
Understanding how voter turnout gets measured isn’t just a numbers game for political nerds. These statistics shape public perception about whether Americans are engaged or apathetic, influence policy debates about voting access, and even affect how politicians campaign.
When one calculation suggests widespread voter disengagement while another indicates robust participation, the framing can fundamentally alter how we think about democracy’s health.
What We’re Really Measuring
Voter turnout sounds straightforward: the percentage of people who vote in an election. In reality, it’s a fraction with two parts that can each be calculated differently. The top number (numerator) represents votes cast, while the bottom number (denominator) represents some defined group of people. Change either number, and you get a different turnout rate.
Voter participation rate is often used interchangeably with turnout, especially when talking about casting ballots. While broader civic participation includes activities like volunteering for campaigns, donating to causes, or attending protests, this discussion focuses specifically on voting participation.
Organizations like USAFacts.org define voter turnout as “the percentage of people who vote in a given election,” typically measuring “the share of the population who are both citizens and of voting age who cast ballots.” This definition immediately highlights why the denominator matters so much—it determines which groups get included or excluded from the calculation.
Basic Definitions
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Voter Turnout | The percentage of a defined population group that casts a vote in an election |
| Voter Participation Rate | Often used interchangeably with voter turnout for voting activities |
| Political Participation | Broader range of activities including campaigning, donating, protesting |
| Civic Engagement | Actions to address public issues and improve community life |
Counting the Votes: It’s Complicated
Even counting the “votes cast” isn’t as simple as it sounds. Several different numbers could serve as the numerator:
Total Ballots Cast: Every ballot submitted, regardless of whether it was filled out correctly or even left blank.
Ballots Accepted: Excludes spoiled ballots that were damaged or improperly marked, but might include ballots left blank for certain races.
Completed Ballots: Only ballots correctly filled out, accepted as valid, and actually contributing to election outcomes.
In the United States, the most common practice for national elections is using the total votes cast for the highest office on the ballot—like President in presidential election years. This approach exists partly because not all of the thousands of election jurisdictions consistently report detailed breakdowns of undervotes (when voters skip certain races) or overvotes (when voters mark too many choices, invalidating their vote for that race).
The challenges multiply quickly. Not everyone who shows up at a polling place actually casts a ballot—some may be found ineligible, turned away improperly, or sign in but leave without voting. Some voters spoil their ballots accidentally. Others intentionally abstain from particular races.
The method used can subtly influence reported turnout rates. If “total ballots cast” is the numerator, turnout appears higher than if only “completed ballots” are counted. A high number of spoiled or blank ballots, if included, could mask underlying issues like confusing ballot design or voter education problems.
The Denominator Dilemma: Who Counts?
The choice of denominator—the total population against which votes are compared—is arguably the most critical factor influencing final turnout percentages. Different denominators tell completely different stories about voter engagement. Four primary measures are used in the United States:
Voting Age Population (VAP)
The VAP includes everyone in the United States who is 18 or older. Before the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971, VAP typically meant those 21 and older. Crucially, VAP includes people who can’t legally vote, such as non-citizens and individuals disenfranchised due to felony convictions in many states.
VAP figures come from U.S. Census Bureau population counts. It’s relatively easy to measure since age data is widely available, but it almost always produces the lowest turnout percentages because it includes many ineligible people.
Voting Eligible Population (VEP)
VEP attempts to count only those legally eligible to vote. This concept was developed by Dr. Michael P. McDonald of the U.S. Elections Project. VEP starts with VAP and subtracts non-citizens and individuals disenfranchised due to felony convictions (which varies by state). It also tries to include eligible U.S. citizens living overseas.
VEP provides a more accurate picture of participation among people who actually possess the legal right to vote. However, calculating it is complex due to the need for estimating non-citizen populations and accounting for varying state felon disenfranchisement laws.
Registered Voters
This denominator includes only people who have successfully completed voter registration and are on official voter rolls. Data comes from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Election Administration and Voting Survey.
Turnout calculated as a percentage of registered voters often looks impressive—94.1% in 2020, for example. However, this measure overlooks the significant portion of eligible people who aren’t registered, potentially masking barriers to registration itself.
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
CVAP includes all U.S. residents who are 18 or older and are citizens—essentially VAP with non-citizens removed. This data comes from Census Bureau sources like the American Community Survey. Organizations like USAFacts.org use CVAP for their turnout statistics.
CVAP is more accurate than VAP for assessing turnout among those meeting basic citizenship and age requirements, but like VAP, it still includes people ineligible due to felony convictions.
Comparing the Denominators
| Denominator | What It Includes | Typical Impact on Turnout % | Key Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voting Age Population (VAP) | All U.S. residents 18+ | Tends to be lowest | Broadest measure but includes many ineligible individuals |
| Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) | All U.S. citizen residents 18+ | Higher than VAP | Removes non-citizens; used by USAFacts.org |
| Voting Eligible Population (VEP) | U.S. citizens 18+ eligible to vote | Higher than VAP/CVAP | Most accurate estimate of actual eligible pool |
| Registered Voters | Individuals who completed registration | Tends to be highest | Shows turnout of those who overcame registration hurdle |
The Myth of the Vanishing Voter
For decades, a troubling narrative dominated discussions of American democracy: voter turnout was steadily declining, suggesting widespread civic disengagement. This “myth of the vanishing voter” was largely based on VAP calculations and fueled concerns about an apathetic citizenry.
The introduction of VEP calculations by political scientists Michael P. McDonald and Samuel Popkin offered a crucial reinterpretation. They highlighted that VAP includes two significant and growing populations of ineligible voters: non-citizens (due to immigration) and disenfranchised felons (due to stricter sentencing laws and varying state policies).
As these populations grew over time, VAP expanded with people who couldn’t legally vote. Even if actual voting rates among eligible citizens remained stable or increased, turnout calculated against this expanding VAP would show decline.
Dr. McDonald’s analysis of the 2004 presidential election demonstrated this dramatically: VAP-based turnout was 55.27%, while VEP-based turnout was 60.32%. The U.S. Elections Project provides extensive historical data showing that much of the perceived “decline” was actually a statistical artifact of using an increasingly inaccurate denominator.
This distinction shifts the conversation from generalized anxiety about vanishing voters toward more specific questions: Who is actually eligible to vote? What barriers prevent eligible citizens from registering or casting ballots? How do policies like felon disenfranchisement laws affect our understanding of voting statistics?
The VAP versus VEP distinction also becomes crucial for accurately interpreting historical trends, especially regarding suffrage movements or restrictive voting laws. Major expansions like the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to increase both the eligible electorate and their participation. Using only VAP might obscure these impacts due to simultaneous demographic shifts like increased immigration.
Where the Numbers Come From
Understanding the sources of voter turnout data is as important as understanding how it’s calculated. Several key organizations provide these statistics:
Primary Government Sources
The U.S. Census Bureau provides foundational population data for calculating VAP and CVAP. After each federal election, it conducts the Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, offering estimates broken down by demographics like age, race, and education. The Bureau also publishes extensive historical data tables.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission conducts the biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey, collecting comprehensive data directly from state and local election officials across all 50 states, D.C., and territories. This covers voter registration, participation, voting methods, provisional ballots, and election administration practices.
Academic and Research Sources
The U.S. Elections Project (Dr. Michael McDonald, University of Florida) is the pioneering source for VEP data and VEP-based turnout rates. The project offers extensive national and state-level data, providing historical series that often extend further back than other sources.
The American Presidency Project (UC Santa Barbara) compiles historical presidential election turnout data, often presenting VAP, VEP, and registered voter figures with corresponding percentages dating back to the early 19th century.
Public Information Sources
USAFacts.org makes government data accessible to the public, providing election and turnout statistics typically sourced from the Census Bureau and EAC. It often uses CVAP as its preferred denominator.
Organizations like the Pew Research Center and Brennan Center for Justice conduct research and analysis using data from these primary sources. Platforms like Ballotpedia compile and present election data, frequently citing the U.S. Elections Project.
The availability of multiple reputable sources is valuable but can confuse the public when methodologies differ without clear explanation. A citizen might encounter different turnout figures from the Census Bureau (likely CVAP-based), the U.S. Elections Project (VEP-based), and news reports (which could use any measure). Without understanding these distinctions, varying numbers might appear contradictory.
What the Numbers Actually Show
Recent voter turnout data reveals distinct patterns in American electoral participation, with presidential elections consistently drawing higher turnout than midterm elections.
Presidential Elections: Recent Trends
According to USAFacts.org, 21st-century presidential elections have averaged 62.8% turnout among voting-age citizens, significantly higher than the 47.8% average for midterm elections.
Recent presidential election turnout shows continued fluctuation but also periods of increased engagement:
- 2004: 60.1% VEP
- 2008: 61.6% VEP
- 2012: 58.0% VEP
- 2016: 59.2% VEP
- 2020: 66.8% CVAP (USAFacts.org), 65.3% VEP—the highest since 1900 or 1992 depending on the measure used
| Year | Total Votes Cast | VAP | VEP | Turnout % VAP | Turnout % VEP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 129,139,997 | 235,248,000 | 222,474,111 | 54.9% | 58.0% |
| 2016 | 136,787,187 | 245,502,000 | 230,931,921 | 55.7% | 59.2% |
| 2020 | 158,481,688 | 252,274,000 | 242,690,810 | 62.8% | 65.3% |
Data from The American Presidency Project
Midterm Elections: Lower but Rising
Midterm elections consistently show lower turnout than presidential races, but recent cycles have seen notable increases:
| Year | Turnout Rate (% of Eligible Voters) |
|---|---|
| 2014 | 36.7% |
| 2018 | 50.0% |
| 2022 | 46.2% |
Data from Ballotpedia citing U.S. Elections Project
The 2018 midterm, with roughly 50% turnout, and the 2022 midterm at 46.2% were notably high for non-presidential years, suggesting increased engagement even in off-year elections.
Historical Context
Historical data reveals fascinating patterns. VAP-based turnout in the mid-to-late 19th century reached remarkably high levels—81.2% in 1860 and 81.8% in 1876. However, the early 20th century saw significant drops, with figures like 49.2% in 1920 and 48.9% in 1924.
This early 20th-century decline wasn’t random. The 19th Amendment in 1920 enfranchised women nationwide, but initially women participated at lower rates than men. Adding this large new group of eligible voters who initially turned out less would statistically depress overall VAP-based turnout percentages.
Simultaneously, Jim Crow laws systematically suppressed African American voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, effectively removing previously eligible voters from participation.
Recent Surge in Engagement
A key takeaway from recent cycles is notable increased participation. The 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections had some of the highest turnout rates of their respective types in decades. The 2022 midterms saw the highest voter registration rate ever recorded by the Census Bureau.
This surge occurred amid intense political polarization and high perceived stakes—the Trump presidency, COVID-19 pandemic, debates over abortion rights. This aligns with political science findings that heightened electoral competition and greater perceived stakes drive up participation.
However, these national trends don’t apply uniformly across demographic groups. The 2022 midterms, despite high overall engagement, saw lower turnout for youth, women, and Black Americans in some states compared to 2018. This indicates that broad turnout numbers can mask complex underlying dynamics.
What Drives People to Vote (Or Not)
Multiple interconnected factors influence whether someone votes, broadly categorized into institutional, political, and individual factors.
Institutional and Legal Factors
Voter Registration Laws: Easier registration consistently correlates with higher turnout. Research shows that eliminating registration deadlines could increase turnout by over 6%. Election Day Registration, allowing people to register and vote simultaneously, typically increases turnout by 3-9%.
Modernization Efforts: Policies like Automatic Voter Registration (where eligible citizens are automatically registered when interacting with government agencies unless they opt out) and Online Voter Registration aim to reduce barriers. Studies suggest online registration increases youth registration rates, though not necessarily youth turnout—indicating registration is only the first step.
Voter ID Laws: The impact of identification requirements remains debated. Some studies suggest stricter photo ID requirements depress turnout, particularly among demographic groups who find it harder to obtain qualifying IDs, while other studies find no significant aggregate impact.
Voting Methods: Early and mail-in voting can increase convenience. States with more flexible voting processes tended to see slightly higher turnout in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated mail-in voting, with 43.1% of all 2020 votes cast by mail according to USAFacts.org.
Election Type and Frequency: Turnout varies dramatically by election type—highest in presidential elections, lower in midterms, often significantly lower in primaries and local elections. The sheer frequency of American elections may contribute to “voter fatigue.”
Felon Disenfranchisement: State laws vary widely regarding voting rights for individuals with felony convictions. Some states permanently disenfranchise certain felons, others restore rights after sentence completion, and a few allow voting while incarcerated. These laws substantially impact VEP size and turnout calculations.
Electoral and Political Factors
Electoral Competitiveness: Close elections tend to drive higher turnout as voters believe their individual vote has a greater chance of affecting outcomes. Turnout was generally higher in 2020’s competitive “battleground” states.
Perceived Stakes: Elections seen as highly consequential or where candidate differences are stark often motivate more participation. The unusually high 2018 and 2020 turnout rates are partly attributed to heightened perceptions of what was at stake.
Campaign Mobilization: “Get Out The Vote” efforts by parties, candidates, and interest groups can significantly boost turnout, often focusing on mobilizing established supporters.
Individual and Demographic Factors
Age: Older citizens consistently vote at higher rates. In 2020, 51.4% of citizens aged 18-24 voted compared to 74.5% of those 65 and older, according to USAFacts.org.
Education: Higher formal education strongly correlates with higher voting likelihood.
Income: Individuals with higher incomes and socioeconomic status tend to vote at higher rates.
Race and Ethnicity: Historical and persistent factors have created turnout differences among racial groups. In 2020, USAFacts.org reported turnout rates among citizen voting-age population as: White non-Hispanic 70.9%, Black 62.6%, Asian 59.7%, and Hispanic 53.7%.
Psychological Factors: Strong civic duty sense, political interest, belief that voting makes a difference (political efficacy), party identification, and past voting habits all influence participation.
The Interconnected Web
These factors don’t operate in isolation but create reinforcing cycles. Individuals with lower income and education may have fewer resources to navigate registration or get to polls. They may experience lower political efficacy or believe the system is unresponsive. If campaigns target “likely voters”—often those with higher socioeconomic status and voting history—this creates feedback loops where structural, individual, and political factors reinforce each other.
Similarly, while reforms like online registration address logistical barriers, they may not overcome deeper motivational factors for habitual non-voters who cite lack of political interest, system distrust, or feeling their vote doesn’t matter. This suggests that boosting participation requires multi-pronged approaches addressing both procedural hurdles and underlying engagement issues.
Why These Numbers Matter for Democracy
Voter turnout statistics aren’t just academic exercises—they’re vital signs for democratic health with profound implications for governance, representation, and legitimacy.
Democratic Health Indicator
High turnout widely indicates robust democracy, suggesting citizens are engaged and feel their participation matters. Low turnout can signal disengagement, disillusionment, or systemic barriers preventing vote casting. The record 2020 turnout (66.8% of citizen voting-age population—highest since 1992) was interpreted as heightened civic engagement during significant national challenges.
Representativeness of Government
Democracy’s core principle holds that elected officials should represent the people’s will. However, low turnout or significant demographic participation gaps can result in government not accurately reflecting entire citizenry preferences and priorities.
Studies consistently show nonvoters often have different demographic profiles—they tend to be younger, more racially diverse, with lower incomes—and may hold different policy preferences, like greater support for government services or income inequality interventions. When these voices are absent, the political landscape can be skewed.
The Brennan Center for Justice emphasizes that growing racial turnout gaps mean American democracy is becoming less representative of its diverse population. If the racial turnout gap had been eliminated in 2020, an estimated 9 million additional ballots would have been cast—far exceeding the national popular vote margin.
Policy Impact
The electorate’s composition directly affects election outcomes and subsequent policy decisions. While research suggests overall high turnout doesn’t consistently benefit one party over another, politicians are generally more responsive to groups that vote at higher rates.
Even if high turnout doesn’t change partisan control, it can significantly alter which factions or priorities gain prominence within parties. If demographic groups with distinct concerns—like younger voters prioritizing economic issues such as job creation, affordable housing, and student debt—turn out at higher rates, candidates from all parties might address these issues more directly.
Legitimacy and Trust
Higher participation enhances perceived legitimacy of elected governments and democratic processes. When large, broad cross-sections participate in selecting leaders, resulting governments are more likely seen as having genuine popular mandates.
Low turnout can link to lack of faith in the political system, beliefs that voting doesn’t matter, or that the system is unresponsive or “rigged.” Such widespread sentiments can erode foundational trust necessary for democracy to function effectively, regardless of which party holds power.
Community Benefits
Voting connects individuals to communities and broader democratic society. Research suggests links between civic participation, including voting, and broader community well-being. Communities with higher turnout sometimes exhibit better self-reported health outcomes and greater social cohesion.
This suggests voting isn’t merely an isolated political act but also a social one, reflecting and reinforcing community ties. Efforts to improve community health might positively influence electoral engagement, creating virtuous cycles where engaged citizenry contributes to healthier communities, and healthier communities foster greater civic participation.
Making Sense of the Numbers
Understanding voter turnout and participation rates ultimately isn’t about mastering statistics—it’s about comprehending citizen engagement dynamics, democratic process inclusiveness, and how collective voices shape governance.
The next time you see a headline about voter turnout, ask yourself: What denominator was used? Are we comparing votes to all adults, all citizens, all eligible voters, or just registered voters? The answer fundamentally shapes what story the statistics tell about American democracy.
These measurements matter because they influence how politicians campaign, how policies get prioritized, and whether the government truly represents the governed. In a democracy, the people who show up help determine not just who wins, but what issues get attention and which voices get heard.
The recent surge in turnout during 2018, 2020, and 2022 suggests Americans can be highly engaged when they perceive high stakes. The challenge lies in maintaining that engagement across all communities and all types of elections—not just the high-profile contests that dominate headlines.
For those seeking current information about turnout statistics and voting data, resources like the U.S. Elections Project, USAFacts.org, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s voting data provide comprehensive, regularly updated information with clear explanations of their methodologies.
The story of voter turnout in America is ultimately a story about who gets counted, who shows up, and who gets heard. Understanding how those numbers are calculated is the first step toward understanding what they really mean for democracy itself.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
