Which age groups showed the biggest turnout gaps in the 2024 presidential election?
Executive summary
Young voters showed the largest turnout shortfalls in 2024: multiple sources put overall youth (ages 18–29 or 18–34 depending on the study) turnout far below older groups—Census data shows 65.3% of the voting‑age population voted overall while CIRCLE and related reports estimate roughly 42–47% turnout among 18–29 year‑olds (Census: 65.3% overall; CIRCLE: ~42%–47% youth) [1] [2] [3]. Gender and finer age slices within youth amplified gaps: CIRCLE reports 41% for 18–19 year‑olds vs. ~50% for all 18–29, and Rutgers documents a 7.1‑point gender turnout gap among 18–24 year‑olds in 2024 [2] [4] [5].
1. Youth turnout lagged the most — the headline gap
Analysts and the Census agree the clearest age‑based turnout gap in 2024 was among young people. The Census’s CPS shows 65.3% of the voting‑age population cast ballots in 2024 while CIRCLE’s post‑election estimates place turnout for 18–29 year‑olds at roughly 42% (CIRCLE also offers a higher aggregate youth estimate around 47% in some file‑based calculations), signaling a gap of roughly 18–23 percentage points between overall turnout and the youngest cohorts depending on the estimator used [1] [3] [2]. Different methods (survey versus voter‑file aggregation) produce different youth estimates; CIRCLE’s data show both a 42% survey‑based figure and a near‑half estimate from voter files, so the precise gap depends on which CIRCLE figure one cites [3] [2].
2. The youngest voters—18–19 and 18–24—were the weakest links
Within the youth category the steepest shortfalls were at the bottom of the age distribution. CIRCLE reports turnout among 18–19 year‑olds at about 41%, six points lower than their full 18–29 estimate and well below older cohorts [2] [4]. USAFacts and other summaries note that fewer than half of 18–24 year‑olds voted, making them the least likely age group to participate in 2024 [6]. These intra‑youth differences matter because first‑time and newly eligible voters face registration and access barriers that suppress turnout relative to older adults [2] [4].
3. Gender widened the age gap — young men turned out substantially less
Turnout disparities were not only age‑based but also gendered. CIRCLE documents a nine‑point participation gap in youth — roughly 50% turnout among young women versus 41% among young men — and Rutgers highlights a 7.1‑point gender gap specifically among 18–24 year‑olds, the largest since their records begin [2] [5]. These patterns helped shift the youth vote composition and were implicated in changing candidate support among younger cohorts [2] [7].
4. Party and turnout interplay: who showed up mattered more than switching
Pew’s validated‑voter work emphasizes that differential turnout — not just defections between parties — drove vote changes; Republican‑leaning eligible voters were more likely to turn out in 2024, and some of this differential plays out by age because older voters historically turn out at higher rates [8] [9]. Pew also documents that among younger adults eligible in both 2020 and 2024, turnout differences by prior 2020 vote were modest (about a three‑point gap among ages 22–34) but the broader pattern is clear: lower youth turnout reduced the size and influence of younger Democratic‑leaning blocs in the electorate [8] [9].
5. Measurement matters — survey vs. voter‑file vs. CPS produce different gaps
Interpretation depends on the data source. The Census CPS provides the authoritative population‑level benchmark (65.3% turnout overall) but does not always align with youth‑focused surveys or CIRCLE’s voter‑file estimates. CIRCLE reports both a survey/poll‑based youth turnout near 42% and a near‑half estimate from aggregated voter files; other outlets like USAFacts and The Civics Center stress that headline youth numbers are estimates and can reflect registration differences [1] [3] [2] [10]. Analysts warn readers to note whether a youth turnout percentage is among all citizens or among registered voters — that choice changes the reported gap [10].
6. What this means politically and where reporting may obscure facts
The combination of lower absolute turnout among young adults and the internal skew (younger within‑youth cohorts and young men participated at lower rates) changed the electorate’s composition and likely the margin dynamics in competitive races [2] [5] [9]. Reporting that cites a single youth figure without clarifying method (registered vs. all citizens, survey vs. voter file) risks obscuring these nuances; several sources explicitly caution readers about these methodological distinctions [10] [2].
Limitations and unanswered items
Available sources give consistent direction but different magnitudes; the exact size of the youth turnout gap depends on the data source and whether estimates are restricted to registered voters or all citizens — sources do not provide a single universally accepted numeric gap for each precise age bracket across all methodologies [1] [2] [3]. If you want, I can extract the specific age‑by‑age turnout percentages from any one dataset (Census CPS tables, CIRCLE’s voter‑file estimates, or Pew’s validated‑voter breakdown) and lay those side‑by‑side for a clear numeric comparison [1] [2] [8].