DCist: Voter Turnout Didn't Come Close to Breaking Record

greenesd

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:55:58 -0500

The problem is the data used by the DC Board of Elections and the Examiner is faulty. Turnout as a percentage of registered voters does not provide an accurate picture. Registration numbers are a poor denominator because election administration of voter rolls varies greatly between states and even within states and varies over time - essentially not comparing apples to apples when using registration data. Also, voter registration does not capture the total number of people actually eligible to vote including the millions of unregistered citizens. A more accurate turnout picture is given when using estimates of the voting eligible population. Data found here - http://elections.gmu.edu/preliminary_vote_2008.html - estimates that turnout in DC was around 57 percent of the voting eligible population which could well be a record for the city.

Krisa

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:44:13 -0500

Everybody wants to believe they are living through a historic moment, a record-breaking event, one for the history books! They also say there's never been an election more important, voters more engaged and interested, and on and on. The fact of the matter is this happens more often than anyone cares to think, but because this thing got played up and up over the course of two years, now everyone is shocked when the reality doesn't meet the expectation. Go figure.

Stanton Park

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:38:43 -0500

IMGoph That's not all. Some people register when getting their drivers license and again by mail. Or they might re-register instead of correcting a new or misspelled name. They end up on the rolls twice, often with a slight difference in their name (e.g., middle initial on one, middle name spelled out on another). The Board of Elections seems to err on the side of leaving both names on instead of cleaning them up.

IMGoph

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:10:00 -0500

there have been a lot of questions about names on the registration lists in DC too. like, they haven't been purged of people who are dead or who don't live here anymore, so that would keep the percentage of voters who participated artificially low.

Peregrine Solus

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:40:27 -0500

"What could explain the disparity?" The percentage of registered voters that voted this year is bound to a much larger number of actual voters standing in line than even a greater percentage of registed voters in previous years. More people were eligible to vote this year than in previous years, and more people were registered to vote this year than in previous years.

Reid

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:29 -0500

I have been wondering about this too, since just about every article about the election took it as gospel that turnout was "recordbreaking". This was particularly curious, since turnout numbers normally take days if not weeks to calculate. And to the extent they have estimates, what "record" are they talking about? Is "highest turnout since an even higher turnout" count as a record? I understand the press was dying to gush, but it seems like it got sloppy on this point.