www.ditl.org

http://www.evansiegfried.com/2018-midte ... e-numbers/

At present, 115 million Americans — a 32 percent increase from the 2014 midterm election — voted in the 2018 midterm elections. This turnout rate of 49 percent of eligible voters is the highest since 1914 and largest since the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Young voters (18-29), saw a 56 percent surge over its 2014 turnout, which is the highest increase in turnout among any age group. While only 31 percent of eligible younger voters showed up to the polls, this is an increase of several million voters and were to the benefit of Democrats.

Just as a comparison, the 2017 U.K. General Election had a 68.7% voter turnout

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

However, voter turnout is "dropping dramatically in the 'free world.'"

According to the World Bank’s 2017 World Development Report, election turnout is declining across the world. Over the last 25 years, the average global voter turnout rate dropped by more than 10%.
In fact, voter turnout rates are down just about everywhere. IDEA’s research also shows that, since the 1980s, turnout declined in each region of the world—Europe and Oceania saw the largest declines, while Asia and the Americas the least. Perhaps most surprisingly, the researchers find that the decline is just as large for democracies with free and fair elections as it for those that the election watchdog Freedom House designates as ”not free.”

I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

Graham Kennedy wrote:I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

That jibes with what I've seen and read, too. The republicans have done their damndest to promote the hive-mind mentality to get the vote out.

And interestingly enough, that has been (since the late '60's or so) the focus of the left. It has long been an unspoken maxim that Democrat victories depended largely on relatively high voter turnouts in urban centers. For obvious reasons; those have consistently been strongholds of left-leaning voter blocs, and have just as consistently been areas with the highest levels of voter apathy.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

That jibes with what I've seen and read, too. The republicans have done their damndest to promote the hive-mind mentality to get the vote out.

I think both parties are equally as guilty on hive mind mentality as of late, honestly. Likewise both use fear in various areas to achieve maintain power. I think there are a LOT of moderates, but with little attention given to them be either party, they turn to their idea of the least sucky option.

Bryan Moore wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

That jibes with what I've seen and read, too. The republicans have done their damndest to promote the hive-mind mentality to get the vote out.

I think both parties are equally as guilty on hive mind mentality as of late, honestly. Likewise both use fear in various areas to achieve maintain power. I think there are a LOT of moderates, but with little attention given to them be either party, they turn to their idea of the least sucky option.

Just to clarify - All my years studying (and at one point teaching) history and civics, I do not believe there is a true reverse bell curve of political opinion in the US. The bell curve will never cease to fail when it comes to any major trend in societal belief in a large enough population. I fully believe a majority, perhaps even a LARGE majority, of Americans do believe in some sort of middle ground. I highly doubt a huge part of the population truly believes the complete economic logic universal healthcare or societal effects of open and unchecked immigration or the practicality complete regulation of business any more than there is an equally huge part of the population that truly believes all immigrants are criminals, business is the only thing keeping America alive, and the American military can do whatever the fuck it wants with utter impunity. But when both parties rail out against the view of either extreme, it paints all of America as a deeply divided politically polarized nation, and the leadership of both parties knows it.

So no one is shocked we can't get over 50% voter turnout for the midterm elections?

Nutso wrote:So no one is shocked we can't get over 50% voter turnout for the midterm elections?

Call me a cynic, but I’m shocked we even got close.

I honestly think though without proof that the extreme left and right will vote no matter what. It is what makes them extreme, or part of it. Gotta cheer... Errr... Vote your team... Uhhh... party's line.

Then you got the moderates, the ones who could vote for either side depending on the candidate. I think these are the ones who are not voting.

In general I'd say yes, but I think the die-hard left suffers from greater voter apathy than the die-hard right. Not the extreme fringes, of course - as you say, those are the ones one both sides who vote early and often. I do believe, however, that there is some basis in reality for the greater voter apathy in the mid-left population centers (read: inner cities.)

Mikey wrote:In general I'd say yes, but I think the die-hard left suffers from greater voter apathy than the die-hard right. Not the extreme fringes, of course - as you say, those are the ones one both sides who vote early and often. I do believe, however, that there is some basis in reality for the greater voter apathy in the mid-left population centers (read: inner cities.)

I do see that. It could be a combination of not wanting to do anything with the government even voting, to the difficulty some may have getting to those centers, to fear of showing up and getting rejected etc.

I do see more conversations voting to make sure those dirty godless socialist democrats don't get voted in too.

McAvoy wrote:

Mikey wrote:In general I'd say yes, but I think the die-hard left suffers from greater voter apathy than the die-hard right. Not the extreme fringes, of course - as you say, those are the ones one both sides who vote early and often. I do believe, however, that there is some basis in reality for the greater voter apathy in the mid-left population centers (read: inner cities.)

I do see that. It could be a combination of not wanting to do anything with the government even voting, to the difficulty some may have getting to those centers, to fear of showing up and getting rejected etc.

I do see more conversations voting to make sure those dirty godless socialist democrats don't get voted in too.

I'd say that's a pretty valid point. I do not vote in a national election, save for a single Republican primary, admittedly... largely because I have never once found a candidate I truly believe in. In the future, I probably will vote, just to, as McAvoy said, keep the socialist democrats out. It's inevitable, but not once have I found a shred of evidence that a socialized economy would work in a socio-economically and culturally diverse society such as the US without considerable upheaval and an utter collapse of the US economy in the long term. But hey, that's just me.

Graham Kennedy wrote:I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

It's as much about limiting turnout for the other base as it is inspiring your own, which is partly why US turnout is low. Negative campaigning isn't great for political civility. It's true that there are relatively few true "swing" voters.

In general I'd say yes, but I think the die-hard left suffers from greater voter apathy than the die-hard right.

I was just reading about this as a reflection on the recent midterms. It's not viewed as a coincidence that a relatively high turnout occurred in an election cycle that produced a democratic wave. Voter apathy isn't always the best phrase though, since disaffected voters of color (a heavily democratic leaning constituency) are also among the most disadvantaged. To put it gently also, they're those targeted the most by Republican voter suppression laws. It's clear which voters the right are wary of when they repeatedly make claims of rampant voter fraud (which time and again are proven baseless). Ironically, the clearest case of possible voter fraud occurred in North Carolina, a deeply red state, and favored a Republican candidate. The history of US politics has always been hard to untangle from race, as the framing of the Constitution itself made compromises favoring slave owners as a political move to get the south to sign on. Now the country is gradually moving towards the inevitable demographic destiny of being a minority-majority land (i.e., whites will fall under 50% to a mere plurality). Demographic change favors the democrats and a major reason the Right has held so much power is about limited voter turnout among minority groups.

I hear alot about these "voter suppression laws". but have never seen them spelled out, what exactly are they?

Vic wrote:I hear alot about these "voter suppression laws". but have never seen them spelled out, what exactly are they?

Basically various laws that make it more difficult for people in certain areas to vote... Whether it is by limiting times to vote, times to register, or clearing names from registries after periods of voter activity. Varies from era to era.