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.
How did independent voter turnout compare to previous presidential elections?
Executive Summary
The evidence indicates that independent voter turnout rose notably in 2024 compared with 2020, with independents accounting for a larger share of voters than in prior cycles and, by some measures, equaling or exceeding turnout among party identifiers; this surge contrasts with sparse or inconsistent historical tracking of independent turnout in earlier presidential elections. Contemporary analyses report independents made up about 34% of turnout in 2024, an 8-point increase from 2020, and were evenly split between Trump and Harris, reversing the 2020 lean toward Biden [1] [2]. Historical sources note high overall turnouts in 2020 and 2024, but they do not provide consistent, long-term series specifically for independents, making direct multi-cycle comparisons imprecise [3] [4] [5].
1. Why 2024 looked different: independents surged and reshaped the turnout picture
Independent participation in 2024 stands out because multiple contemporary analyses place independents at the center of turnout gains: Reuters and Edison Research reported that independents accounted for 34% of voters and that this share represented an 8-point jump from 2020, tying or exceeding the partisan blocs in raw turnout share [1]. Pew Research’s 2024 analysis further documents that independents were evenly divided between the top-ticket candidates, a marked shift from the 2020 electorate when independents favored Biden by nine points; this change reflects demographic and behavioral shifts within the independent cohort tied to age, education, and ethnicity [2]. These sources converge on the conclusion that 2024’s independent surge was both large and electorally consequential, but they rely on post-election surveys and turnout tallies rather than a standardized, long-term independent turnout series [1] [2].
2. What the historical record does — and doesn’t — show about independents
Longer-term turnout datasets and institutional reports document overall turnout patterns — for example, the 2020 general election produced a record-high 67% turnout among citizens 18+, a 5-point rise from 2016 — but these records rarely disaggregate turnout by self-identified independents consistently across decades [3] [5]. Scholarly and governmental compilations emphasize VEP versus VAP measures and national trends (with the highest VEP turnout recorded in 1960 at 63.5% in historical series), yet they do not provide a standardized, decades-long series on independent voter turnout, creating a gap that complicates direct comparisons between 2024 and earlier presidential elections [4] [5]. In short, the historical baseline for “independent turnout” is thin, meaning claims about long-term rise or fall must be treated cautiously and framed as comparisons to 2020 and recent cycles rather than to the mid-20th century record.
3. Different studies, different emphases: why findings vary
The contemporary studies and reports show variation in emphasis and framing: Reuters/Edison foreground the headline that independents topped Democrats and tied Republicans in turnout share in 2024 [1], while Pew’s deeper demographic analysis highlights how age, education, and ethnicity shifted independent voting patterns and turnout rates compared with previous cycles [2]. State-level registration and turnout reports underscore administrative changes and local fluctuations but rarely isolate independents over time with national comparability [5]. Academic work on independent attitudes underscores that many who identify as independents lean toward a party and that their motivations often include negative voting behavior (voting against a candidate), which can produce volatile turnout and preference swings across elections [6] [7]. These methodological differences explain why some accounts stress a turnover surge while others caution against overgeneralizing.
4. Who benefits — interpreting the electoral consequences of independent turnout
High independent turnout can advantage either party depending on which way the swing voters tilt; historically, high-turnout elections have tended to favor Democrats, but 2024 was an exception in which Trump captured a large share of new and returning voters, including significant Hispanic gains among former Biden voters, altering the usual association between turnout and partisan benefit [8] [2]. Pew’s data showing independents split evenly between Trump and Harris and Reuters’ finding that independents’ share rose to 34% together indicate that the partisan impact of higher independent turnout in 2024 was ambiguous and context-dependent, varying across demographic groups and regions [2] [1]. Analysts should thus be wary of treating the raw increase in independents as an automatic net gain for one party; the underlying preferences and demographic mix determine electoral outcomes [8].
5. The gaps that matter and what to watch next
The key gap is consistent, long-term measurement: national turnout records track overall participation reliably, but consistent historical series for self-identified independents are lacking, limiting firm claims that 2024 represented a structural, multi-decade realignment of independent turnout rather than a short-term spike [4] [5]. Future clarity requires repeated, standardized cross-election surveys and enhanced state reporting that separately documents turnout by party identification and leaners. Until then, the most defensible statement is that independent turnout in 2024 rose noticeably from 2020 and altered the balance of turnout shares, but comparisons to older presidential elections rest on incomplete measurement and should be framed with that caveat [1] [3].