[ad_1]
Whether they voted for or against his agenda, it is now clear that the number of voters is high in 2018. Professor Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, which is a guru of participation, estimates about 118 million people have come to vote. It further calculates that the participation rate of the population eligible to vote would be 50.1%.
This percentage is staggering compared to other medium-term reviews since the 18 to 20 age group was granted the right to vote in 1971 at the 26th Amendment. The average participation rate at mid-term between 1974 and 2014 was only 39.4%. This year's turnout seems to be 11 points higher.
More than that, the participation rate at the mid-point had been relatively stable before. It has never fallen below 36.7% or increased above 42%. This year's turnout was 8 points higher than the previous cap.
If we look only at the gross figure, let us remember that the participation rate at the mid-point in 2014 was only a little over 83 million. This year, about 35 million more people voted.
The turnout is even more amazing when you extend the calendar. The participation rate of 50.1% is higher than any one of the last 100 years. This is despite the fact that many of these elections took place when the under-21s were not eligible to vote. Remember that under-21s are the least likely to vote, so you expect the voter turnout rate for eligible voters to be higher than for eligible voters (2018, for example).
in 2018 is actually more comparable to the presidential election than the mid-term. The participation rate of 50.1% is closer to the average presidential participation rate (56.5%) than to the mid-term turnout rate (39.4%) since the adoption of the 26th amendment and it far exceeds that of the 1988 (52.8%) and 1996 (51.7%) elections.
You may be wondering which side has benefited from the high turnout in 2018. This is not as clear as you might think. This will become clearer through the examination of the electoral files in the coming months.
According to the pre-election polls, the Democrats were generally drawn from both registered voters and likely voters. This is very different from 2010 or 2014, when Democrats were faring less well among likely voters than among all registered voters. A high voter turnout in 2018 has certainly been good for the Democrats.
A review of Congressional District 2018 participation patterns from 2016 suggests that turnout has fallen most in areas in which fewer people have a university degree and in which more people live in higher education. rural areas. Once again, both would have been good for the Democrats.
However, it is also conceivable that the Democrats could have done better if the participation rate was lower. We witnessed several phenomena during the 2017 and 2018 special elections. The Democrats surprisingly performed well in low-level special elections, such as the 4th District of Kansas and the 5th District of South Carolina. . When turnout increased in the midterm elections, Republicans regained their usual dominance in these districts.
Comparing House Democrats versus Hillary Clinton in 2016, the gap between Democrats' performance in 2018 versus Clinton in 2016 is not correlated with high voter turnout.
According to pre-election polls, it seems likely that the increase in turnout was generated by Trump. According to Gallup and the Pew Research Center, 60% of voters said their vote was intended to send a message to the president (in this case, Trump). This is higher than in any mid-term election since 1982 (when the question was first asked).
Trump being probably on the ballot in 2020, do not be surprised if this election also shows a strong turnout. As for 2018, it's unclear who would benefit from a high turnout in 2020. It's really a question of who will come next.
If turnout were restored in rural areas, Republicans could benefit. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Clinton suffered from the low participation of key groups in the 2016 election. If all registered voters had voted in 2016, Clinton would likely have won the election. The Democrats would no doubt have been happy.
[ad_2]
Source link
