The good news is that based on the ballot measures, conservative values won the day on many of them. Our numbers for candidates are also up. Some of the races saw our candidates that were expected to lose or have problems, won fairly easily. But the total turnout was down.
“Based on the most recent estimate, a little over 16 million Californians voted in the 2024 election. If this number holds, it would mark a significant decline in turnout: roughly 1.7 million fewer ballots than 2020, despite 550,000 more registered voters and 1.8 million more eligible residents. As a share of registrants, this drop in turnout (-9.7%) would be larger than any save in 1996 (-9.8%), after 1992’s youth enthusiasm for Ross Perot dried up. As a share of eligible residents, it would be the largest decline in any presidential election in the last 50 years (-11.3%)—and it would easily outpace the best estimates for this year’s nationwide decline in turnout (-2.9%).
Why? I believe decent, thoughtful Democrats were embarrassed by the Progressives and Kamala..so they did not vote. By 2026 they will really be embarrassed by the Progressives and Newsom. We should be prepared to do an even better job of getting our voters out. Oh, there might be at least one ballot measure that will energize our base—and in general, many independents.
California’s Voter Turnout Sank in 2024
Eric McGhee, PPIC, 11/18/24 https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-voter-turnout-sank-in-2024/
Though the election was nearly two weeks ago, the winners of some races have yet to be decided. In California, the state’s size, high vote-by-mail rate, and generous approach to helping voters correct any mistakes made when submitting their ballot all contribute to the long timeline. As election officials continue to ensure that each vote is counted, the secretary of state recently released an estimate of the number of ballots that are still left to process. This estimate allows us to gauge the overall level of participation in this election, even if not every race has been called.
Based on the most recent estimate, a little over 16 million Californians voted in the 2024 election. If this number holds, it would mark a significant decline in turnout: roughly 1.7 million fewer ballots than 2020, despite 550,000 more registered voters and 1.8 million more eligible residents. As a share of registrants, this drop in turnout (-9.7%) would be larger than any save in 1996 (-9.8%), after 1992’s youth enthusiasm for Ross Perot dried up. As a share of eligible residents, it would be the largest decline in any presidential election in the last 50 years (-11.3%)—and it would easily outpace the best estimates for this year’s nationwide decline in turnout (-2.9%).
It is worth noting that the secretary of state’s estimate of the number of Californians eligible to vote—the base for eligible turnout calculations—has not always matched other estimates over this period. One common source of turnout numbers for journalists and scholars reports about 800,000 more eligible Californians in 2020 and about 900,000 fewer in 2024. If those numbers are used instead, the eligible turnout decline is about 6.3%. This is still a notable change, but it is more in line with other historical shifts.
Regardless of which turnout number is used, some of the change may reflect the 2020 reference point. Turnout in California four years ago was exceptionally high, even for a presidential election. It was 71% among eligible residents—higher than any election since 1952—and 81% among registered voters—beating every election since 1976. Voters in 2020 were likely more enthusiastic about the candidates and issues, but it is also possible the pandemic kept people at home much of the time and robbed them of other distractions. A clearer picture will emerge in the weeks and months to come as more data become available about this year’s outcome.
Changes to the voter registration process in California have affected turnout as well. Interestingly, while turnout among registered voters fell below its historical average, turnout among all eligible residents was still historically high—at least for elections since 1972, when the franchise was extended to 18- to 20-year-olds. This likely reflects a quirk of the state’s new automatic voter registration (AVR) system. The reform has added a lot of new people to the list of registered voters, many of whom have less experience and exposure to the political process and may require more outreach to become regular voters. At the same time, many of these new registrants do vote—and would not have voted (or even been registered) without AVR. That makes for more voters as a share of those eligible to vote (a number that is relatively fixed), even as there are fewer as a share of those registered to vote (a number that is growing).
The fact that turnout was so much higher in 2020 suggests that better voter engagement is possible. Many of those who stayed home this year might have voted in a different environment, since so many of them did so four years ago. Understanding all the factors that contributed to the decline in turnout will be an important topic moving forward.
