Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What was the voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election compared to 2024?
Executive Summary
The clearest verifiable claim in the materials is that the U.S. 2024 presidential election had a voter turnout of 65.3%, with about 154 million people voting, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in April 2025 [1]. The provided analyses and documents do not contain a direct, sourced comparison figure for the 2020 presidential turnout, so any numeric comparison cannot be drawn from these materials alone; the other documents emphasize voter attitudes and coalition dynamics without supplying turnout percentages [2] [3]. This review extracts those key claims, highlights data gaps, and outlines what follow-up sources or methods are needed to make a rigorous 2020–2024 comparison.
1. What the Census reported for 2024 — clear headline figures and their limits
The most concrete data point supplied is the Census Bureau’s tabulation that 65.3% of eligible U.S. citizens voted in 2024, totaling roughly 154 million votes [1]. That figure is presented as the authoritative headline from a national statistical agency and is dated April 30, 2025, which means it reflects post-election processing and tabulation. The document itself does not attempt a longitudinal comparison in the quoted analysis; it lists 2024 voting and registration tables but does not juxtapose them with 2020 turnout numbers in the extracted text, so the 65.3% stands as a standalone statistic rather than part of an internal trend analysis [1]. The Census framing implies reliability but does not, by these excerpts, contextualize year-to-year movement.
2. The other supplied analyses avoid turnout figures — what they focus on instead
Two additional items in the packet explicitly refrain from giving vote rate statistics and instead discuss voter attitudes, expectations, and coalition dynamics surrounding 2024 and the period 2020–2024 [2] [3]. These sources characterize differences in who voted and the composition of voting blocs, along with qualitative experiences of voters and nonvoters, but they do not present numeric turnout rates for either election in the provided extracts. Their omission matters: they can explain why turnout may have shifted — changes in coalitions, motivation, or barriers — but they cannot quantify the direction or magnitude of turnout change between 2020 and 2024 on their own [2] [3].
3. Why the packet can’t answer “2020 vs 2024” turnout definitively
Because the only numeric turnout figure in the supplied materials is the Census Bureau’s 65.3% for 2024, and because the remaining documents explicitly lack turnout percentages, the packet fails the basic evidentiary requirement for a year‑over‑year comparison. A rigorous comparison requires either (a) a comparable Census or authoritative agency figure for 2020 included in the same tabulation series, or (b) a calculated comparison using consistent denominators (e.g., voting‑age population vs. citizen voting‑age population), which the materials do not provide. The absence of a 2020 percentage in these excerpts is therefore decisive: the packet cannot substantiate statements about whether turnout rose, fell, or stayed roughly the same from 2020 to 2024 [1] [2] [3].
4. How to interpret the qualitative analyses alongside the numeric 2024 data
The qualitative reports in the packet suggest shifts in voter experience and coalition composition that could plausibly influence turnout, such as changes in motivations or barriers to voting [2] [3]. Those discussions offer useful hypotheses — for example, that different demographic groups were more or less mobilized in 2024 — but they cannot substitute for numeric comparison. To move from hypothesis to conclusion, one would need aligned turnout metrics for both years and clarity on denominators used (registered voters, voting‑age population, or citizen voting‑age population). The packet therefore provides contextual explanation without the parallel numeric baseline needed to measure magnitude of change [2] [3] [1].
5. Practical next steps to close the evidence gap and verify trends
To produce an authoritative 2020–2024 turnout comparison, obtain the Census Bureau’s comparable table or another consistent national source that reports 2020 turnout using the same denominator and methodology as the 2024 65.3% figure; only then can a valid difference be calculated [1]. Alternatively, the qualitative reports’ insights can be used to interpret any numeric change once that comparative figure is in hand, helping explain demographic or institutional drivers behind an increase or decrease. The current materials point investigators precisely to where the missing 2020 metric must be sourced before firm conclusions are drawn [2] [3].
6. Bottom line — what is credible now and what remains unanswered
What is credible from the provided documents is the Census Bureau’s 65.3% turnout and 154 million voters in 2024; what remains unanswered is whether that figure represents an increase or decrease relative to 2020 because no comparable 2020 turnout number is included in these materials. The qualitative reports highlight possible mechanisms for turnout change but do not quantify it, so any definitive statement comparing 2020 to 2024 would exceed what the packet supports. For a fact-based year‑over‑year assessment, retrieve the matching 2020 turnout table using the same methodology as the cited 2024 Census tabulation [1] [2] [3].