How did the 2020 election compare to previous elections in terms of voter turnout?

1. The Headline: A Century-High Turnout Claim That Grabs Attention

Multiple pieces present the central claim that 2020 saw unusually high participation, with one analysis quantifying turnout at 65.9% of the Voting Eligible Population and another noting nearly two-thirds of eligible voters, a 7-point rise from 2016 ^{[2] [1]}. These sources date from January 2021 and November 2024, reflecting both immediate post-election tallies and later historical reanalysis; the 2024 piece frames 2020 as the highest turnout since 1900, whereas earlier coverage emphasized the highest level in decades, back to at least 1980. Both claims point to a clear upward departure from recent mid- and presidential-cycle norms ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Numbers and Scale: How Big Was the Shift Compared to 2016?

Contemporaneous reporting placed the raw magnitude at about 150 million votes cast and a turnout rise of roughly 7 percentage points above 2016, a notable jump for a single four-year interval ^{[3] [1]}. The 7-point figure comes from a January 2021 analysis that used eligible-voter metrics and early official tallies ^[1]. Later historical reconstructions maintain the overall conclusion of exceptional turnout but stress methodology—differences in denominators (Voting Age Population vs Voting Eligible Population) and post-election updates can slightly change percentage points, so precise comparisons depend on the chosen metric ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Why Did Turnout Rise? Competing Explanations in the Record

Analysts attribute higher participation to political polarization, the salience of the contest, and mobilization efforts, as noted in a historical analysis that highlights the intense partisan environment of 2020 ^[2]. Contrastingly, empirical work on voting methods finds that vote-by-mail had surprisingly little effect on overall turnout, suggesting convenience itself did not drive a large portion of the increase; many mail voters would have voted in person otherwise ^[4]. These perspectives are not mutually exclusive: heightened political motivation could raise turnout while procedural changes redistributed where people voted rather than expanding the electorate much further.

4. Pandemic Effects: A Complicating Global Context

International research on the pandemic’s electoral effects shows the COVID-19 context could both suppress and shift turnout, depending on local conditions. A study of Italian local elections found increased elderly mortality correlated with small turnout declines, indicating health shocks can depress participation ^[5]. For the U.S., pandemic-driven shifts in administration, communication, and access—plus intensified stakes—likely interacted with voter mobilization to produce the observed totals; however, the provided U.S.-focused sources do not quantify a direct causal effect of COVID on aggregate turnout, leaving room for differing interpretations ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Who Turned Out? Demographics and Uneven Participation

Post-election analyses report persistent demographic patterns and some notable shifts: white turnout rates were higher than nonwhite turnout in 2020, and gender and age differentials showed changes compared with 2016 ^{[6] [3]}. One source highlights a large racial turnout gap—70.9% for white voters versus 58.4% for nonwhite voters—underscoring that overall highs mask subgroup disparities ^[6]. Other reporting notes a slight widening of the gender gap and sharp divides between older and younger voters, pointing to heterogeneous mobilization rather than uniform national surges ^[3].

6. Methodology Matters: Different Measures, Different Stories

Analyses use varying denominators—Voting Age Population (VAP), Voting Eligible Population (VEP), and reported ballots cast—producing different headline percentages. One 2024 historical reanalysis emphasizes the VEP-based 65.9% figure as a long-run comparator, while earlier 2021 reporting framed the surge relative to recent elections without as deep a historical baseline ^{[2] [1]}. The divergence in framing explains why some narratives say “highest since 1900” and others say “highest in decades”; both are defensible given their chosen metrics and historical scope ^{[2] [1]}.

7. What’s Missing and Where Sources Diverge

The corpus lacks comprehensive causal consensus: while turnout totals are consistently reported as high, the relative contributions of polarization, pandemic effects, and procedural changes remain contested. Vote-by-mail research downplays its aggregate effect ^[4], yet other sources emphasize mobilization and demographic shifts without isolating mechanisms ^{[2] [3]}. Additionally, international pandemic studies show local suppression effects but do not map neatly onto U.S. national turnout dynamics, leaving open questions about cross-national comparability and omitted variables like state-level policy changes ^{[5] [4]}.

8. Bottom Line: A High-Water Mark with Unresolved Causes

The evidence across these analyses converges on a clear finding: 2020 was an unusually high-turnout election in the U.S., with substantial voter participation and demographic complexity ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Researchers disagree on the mix of causes—polarization, mobilization, and procedural change each appear to play roles—while international pandemic research and vote-method studies temper simple explanations ^{[5] [4]}. Readers should treat precise percentage claims with attention to the denominator used and note that subgroup patterns and causal mechanisms remain active areas of research ^{[2] [6]}.