Do urban or rural areas tend to have higher voter turnout rates in the US?
Executive summary
Recent reporting and research show that urban areas generally lean Democratic while rural areas lean Republican, and multiple sources report lower voter turnout in many rural places compared with non‑rural or suburban areas (e.g., rural voters are a modest share of the electorate but had lower turnout and can be decisive) [1] [2] [3]. Studies point to infrastructure, access and demographic differences as drivers; several sources document higher turnout in suburbs and many urban areas in on‑cycle elections, but turnout patterns vary by age, race and election type [3] [4] [5].
1. Urban versus rural: the partisan map is settled — turnout is more complicated
Researchers agree that partisanship tracks place: urban counties skew strongly Democratic while rural counties skew strongly Republican, a gap that has widened over decades and was pronounced in recent presidential cycles [1] [6]. That partisan divide is separate from turnout patterns: being a Democratic or Republican stronghold does not automatically mean higher or lower turnout — turnout depends on election type, age composition, access and civic infrastructure [1] [4].
2. Evidence that rural turnout is lower — and why it matters
Multiple analyses report lower turnout in many rural areas and note structural reasons: sparser polling locations, less broadband, fewer civic institutions and barriers to mail voting can reduce participation, and a substantial share of rural counties had turnout rates under 60% in examined cycles [3] [7]. Researchers warn that because rural voters can be decisive in battleground states despite being a smaller share of the electorate (about 14% in one analysis), modest rural turnout shifts can have outsized electoral consequences [2].
3. Suburbs and big cities: high turnout in some places, low in others
Suburban areas frequently report the highest turnout rates; the Carsey/County-level work and other reporting highlight suburbs as turnout strongholds in many races [3] [2]. Large American cities show mixed results: some urban areas recorded turnout above 70% in particular contests, while local off‑cycle elections often produce very low urban turnout — timing and the type of office matter [4].
4. Young and rural — a consistent gap
Youth participation exhibits a clear rural‑urban split: surveys and pre‑election research show urban young people express higher likelihood to vote than rural youth, and file‑based comparisons for 2020 showed lower youth turnout in rural counties versus non‑rural counties [5]. That generational dimension compounds infrastructure and access gaps in rural places [5] [3].
5. Methodology and definitions shape conclusions
How researchers define “rural” versus “urban” matters: federal agencies and academic teams use different thresholds (OMB, Census Bureau, RUCC codes), and that changes which counties count as rural and the measured turnout rates [8] [5]. Studies that rely on validated voter files, surveys, or county turnout totals can reach different magnitudes even while showing the same directional trends [9] [2] [10].
6. Competing explanations: access, demographics and political choice
Sources present multiple causes for lower rural turnout: lack of civic infrastructure (libraries, polling places, broadband), long travel distances to polls, and policy changes like limits on mail voting that disproportionately affect rural residents [3] [7]. At the same time, demographic composition (age, education, race) and differing partisan enthusiasm also shape turnout; some reports emphasize access problems while others stress political realignment as an explanatory factor [3] [6].
7. What the public and policymakers should know
Because small changes in rural participation can tilt close states, efforts to equalize access (automatic registration, expanded mail voting, more polling locations and broadband investment) are the practical levers researchers point to for raising rural turnout; the literature links infrastructure and policy to participation outcomes [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention specific federal bills or outcomes beyond general proposals and program ideas [8] [3].
Limitations: these sources document trends through 2024–2025 and rely on different datasets and place definitions; exact turnout differentials vary by year, election type and measurement choice [9] [4] [8].