Political Science Professor Michael McDonald has a webpage that posts turnout data for each state. McDonald determines the number of ballots cast in each state, and divides that by the voting-eligible population. “Voting-eligible population” means not only the number of registered voters, but the number of people who could register if they chose to. The webpage shows turnout for all recent congressional and presidential elections. To see the 2014 data, see here. To see the 2010 data, see here.
When one compares 2014 to 2010, one sees that California easily had the sharpest drop in turnout of any state. The 2010 California turnout was 45.8%, and the 2014 California turnout was 30.0%. Comparing those percentages shows that the 2014 percentage was only 67.2% of the 2010 percentage. No other state had a ratio lower than .7. For the nation as a whole, the 2014 turnout was 88% of the 2010 turnout.
One likely reason that California’s turnout in 2014 slipped so badly relative to 2010 is that in November 2010, voters were given a choice of six parties for the statewide offices, whereas in November 2014 California was the only state in which it was impossible for anyone to vote in any statewide race unless that voter voted for a Republican or a Democrat. In November 2010, over 10% of the voters had voted for a minor party candidate for Lieutenant Governor or Insurance Commissioner.
Gee – even more reasons to have —
NO robot party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
—-
Also – how many Elephants have moved OUT of the Peoples Soviet Socialist Republic of gerrymander California ???
obviously affecting the alleged turnout rates.
How nonstop obsolete are voter registration stats ???
The Census Bureau regularly does population estimates of each state, and Professor McDonald takes that data into account.
The decimal places should be moved to the right 2 places.
ratio A x 100 / ratio B
In 2010, California had an open governor’s seat, and a senate race, and Meg A. Millions was dumping literally $bazillions on advertising. In 2014, there was little interest in the governor’s race, and no senate race.
Of the 16 states without a senate race in 2014, 8 (50%) of them had a decline of more than 20%. If the 34 states with a senate race, 4 (11%) had a decline of more than 20%.
Turnout is highly correlated with whether there was a senate race.
Of the other 8 states without a senate race there were:
Wisconsin 109% Scott Walker(R) v. Not Scott Walker(D)
Florida 102% Rick Scott(R) vs former governor Charlie Crist(D)
North Dakota 95% 2010 Senate race was not competitive and no governor’s race (no reason for change up or down)
Connecticut 92% Governor Malloy competitive re-election.
Maryland 89% Republican gubernatorial pickup in very blue state.
Pennsylvania 86% Tom Corbett defeated.
Utah 82% Perhaps pickup of House seat.
Arizona 81% No incumbent governor.
Now the states with the largest increase AND a Senate Race.
Louisiana 113% Mary Landrieu defeated.
Nebraska 108% open seat.
Arkansas 107% Mark Pryor defeated
Colorado 106% Mark Udall defeated, competitive gubernatorial
Maine 105% competitive gubernatorial race,
Alaska 104% Mark Begich defeated, competitive gubernatorial
Kentucky 104% semi-competitive senate race.
North Carolina 104% Kay Hagan defeated
New Hampshire 104% competitive senate race.
Kansas 102% competitive senate and gubernatorial races
Of the states with a senate race, and a large drop.
Mississippi 78% primary was more competitive, and may have caused some voters to not show up for the general, no gubernatorial race
Oklahoma 77% neither senate or gubernatorial races were competitive.
Alabama 76% gubernatorial non-competitive and Senator Sessions was unopposed.
Delaware 72% non-competitive senate race, and no gubernatorial race.
The incompetence of the unaccountable party bosses, the failed reporting of the establishment media and the blanket censorship may have an effect on the interest level in elections.
In 2010, Missouri had a U.S. Senate race. In 2014, Missouri had no statewide offices on the ballot at all except Auditor, and that Auditor’s election was considered such a shoe-in for the Republican that the Democrats didn’t even run anyone. So if any state should have had the biggest drop in turnout between 2010 and 2014, one would have expected Missouri. But even in Missouri, the turnout didn’t drop as much as it did in California.
THe 2014 California gubernatorial race would have been more interesting, and attracted a bigger turnout, if the top-two system weren’t there. Without the top-two system, Peace & Freedom gubernatorial candidate Cindy Sheehan would have been on the November ballot, and Green Party gubernatorial candidate Luis Rodriguez would have been on the ballot. Cindy Sheehan is very well known in California, and so is Luis Rordiguez, who is the poet laurate of Los Angeles and who has a compelling life story.
I agree with you, about the media. Most states with US Senate, gubernatorial, or US House-at-large elections in 2014 had debates in which at least one minor party or independent was included. But no California 2014 debate included any minor party or independent candidate, except an April 2014 debate that included the independent candidate Dan Schnur in the Secretary of State race.
Thank you, Richard, for sharing this empirical proof that the Top Two election system depresses voter participation. This effect is the opposite of what Top Two proponents promised. What is clearly needed is a way to achieve majority for executive offices – enumerated ballots, popularly known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Voters also deserve a voice in our own legislative halls of government by use of multi-seat districts employing proportional counting. Examples of this are available at http://www.BetterElections123.us and people can get involved in helping to improve voter power in California at http://www.cfer.org and the rest of the USA at http://www.fairvote.org –Casey
“When one compares 2014 to 2010, one sees that California easily had the sharpest drop in turnout of any state.”
The major party bosses don’t care. As long as they have Top Two, they know that a Democratic or Republican (preferably a Democrat)will always be as one of the Top Two and not have to worry about those pesky 3rd party candidates from upsetting the apple cart.
Michael McDonald used the congressional results for 2014 in Missouri, which is not consistent with his stated methodology, but makes some sense given that there was no Democratic candidate in the auditor race.
In 2010, there were 1,943,899* votes cast for senator; 1,920,675 for Congress; and 1,917,200 for Auditor. So a 1.4% drop off from senator to auditor, but also a 1.2% drop off from senator to representative.
In 2014, there were 1,426,302* for Congress, and 1,279,392 for Auditor, a 10.7% drop off. Since in 2010, there was not much of a race drop off, we can infer that the drop off in the 2014 auditor race was due to a lack of Democratic candidate.
*Numbers used by McDonald. Had he used the auditor number as you have suggested, Missouri would have had a greater decline in turnout than California.
Rodriguez and Sheehan finished 6th and 7th, respectively in the Top 2 primary.