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: How does the 2024 election voter turnout compare to previous elections?
Executive Summary
The 2024 U.S. presidential election produced the largest raw number of votes in American history and, by several measures, one of the highest participation rates measured by the Voting Eligible Population (VEP), but turnout patterns varied widely by state and demographic group. National tallies and expert trackers report about 158.4 million ballots cast for president and a record-high VEP participation rate, while state-level reports show both record-setting participation in places like Michigan and declines in other states, making the overall landscape one of high aggregate turnout but significant local variation [1] [2].
1. What proponents and trackers are claiming about 2024 turnout — big numbers, big headlines
Multiple national trackers and post-election reports emphasize that 2024 produced the highest raw vote total in U.S. history and a top-tier VEP participation rate, with the United States Elections Project reporting 158.4 million ballots cast for president and calling it the highest VEP participation rate on record for a presidential contest [1]. These claims frame 2024 as a participation milestone driven by intense top-of-ticket interest, broad voter registration, and extensive early and mail voting operations. The emphasis on raw totals is intended to highlight scale, but it does not by itself explain who turned out or where turnout rose or fell.
2. Where the national headline meets state-level reality — uneven turnout across the country
State-level analyses show important heterogeneity: some states set local records while others declined from prior cycles. Independent state-focused reports identified Michigan as setting new participation records in 2024, even as other battlegrounds experienced either small declines or only modest gains compared with 2020 and earlier contests [2]. This pattern means aggregate national records can coexist with localized drops; a handful of high-population states posting gains can lift the national total even when many states are flat or down. Strategists and analysts point to turnout infrastructure, mobilization campaigns, and ballot access changes as proximate causes.
3. Demographics: who drove the gains, and where data leave questions
Exit-poll and post-election demographic analyses confirm shifts in the composition of voters, but those data sources vary in scope and cannot fully resolve trends in participation across subgroups. Exit-poll compilations provide breakdowns by age, race, education, and other traits and are useful for turnout inference, yet they do not directly equate to registration or VEP-based participation measures and can miss undercounted populations [3]. Analysts caution against overinterpreting exit-poll share changes as turnout increases without complementary administrative vote totals and registration records.
4. Comparing 2024 to the 2022 midterms and longer-term history — context matters
Midterm participation in 2022 fell relative to 2018 in raw turnout terms even as registration reached midterm-era highs, showing that turnout trajectories differ sharply between presidential and midterm cycles and across years [4]. Historical series tracking turnout back to the 19th century show that presidential contests naturally attract higher participation than midterms; thus, 2024’s record raw total must be read in that long-term context. Scholars emphasize that comparing raw vote totals across different election types and eras requires adjusting for population growth and VEP changes to assess real changes in civic engagement [4] [1].
5. Conflicting signals and methodological disputes — what analysts disagree on
Observers disagree on whether 2024’s gains reflect durable increases in civic engagement or are a spike tied to unique factors like hotly contested races, turnout operations, and high-profile issues. Some organizations highlight record raw turnout as proof of sustained engagement, while others point to uneven state and subgroup patterns to argue the surge was targeted rather than universal [1] [2]. Methodological debates focus on which denominator to use — voting-age population, voting-eligible population, or registered voters — and how to account for administrative changes in registration, ID laws, and absentee voting that affect comparability.
6. What to watch next and caveats for interpreting these numbers
Future assessments should triangulate multiple sources — administrative vote totals, VEP-adjusted rates, state registration databases, and well-designed surveys — to move beyond headlines, because single-source tallies can obscure important disparities [1] [3]. Analysts must also account for differential growth in eligible populations, demographic shifts, and local policy changes that alter turnout mechanics. Policymakers and researchers should treat 2024 as a significant data point but not definitive proof of a permanent turnout regime change until longer-term trends across midterms and subsequent cycles are observed [4] [2].