Professor Thomas Patterson Analyzes Voter Turnout for Election 2008

The long lines at many polling places across the country on Nov. 4 reflected the intense interest in this U.S. election. Thomas Patterson, Bradlee professor of government and the press, and author of “The Vanishing Voter,” provides his perspective on the voter turnout numbers, the trends, and their significance, in this discussion.

Please assess the effect of voter participation on the outcome of Tuesday's election.

Voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election was not record breaking, but it appears that it will approach the roughly 67 percent of the eligible citizenry who voted in 1960. It will take at least two weeks before all the absentee ballots are counted and a firm figure is available. Judging from past experience, however, it would appear that roughly 134 million Americans voted in the 2008 general election—a 65 percent turnout rate.

One modern record has been set. According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, an estimated 153 million Americans are registered to vote, which is nearly 74 percent of the eligible population and higher than previous record of 72 percent established in 1964.

What were the most significant factors driving voters to the polls this year?

The upsurge is partly attributable to issues that had sparked heightened turnout in the previous presidential election. In 2004, 122 million Americans cast a ballot in the Bush-Kerry race, the highest number on record. Although the turnout rate of 61 percent of eligible adults was below historical highs, it was nonetheless higher than in any election since 1968.

Driving the upsurge was anxiety over the war in Iraq and a weak economy. These issues carried into the 2008 nominating races, which were also compelling for other reasons. Barack Obama was the first candidate of his race to have a realistic chance of winning a major-party presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton was the first woman to have a realistic chance.

Americans historically have voted in higher numbers when the nation confronts big issues. That was as true in the late 1800s and 1930s as it has been more recently. The meltdown in the financial markets a month ago likely confirmed Americans’ belief that 2008 was a watershed election.

What role did political organizing play in the high voter turnout totals?

The parties have recently placed more emphasis on their get-out-the-vote operations. This time, moreover, the Obama campaign had the money and organization to carry that effort to a new level. In its operation and through its candidate, the Obama campaign sought to mobilize minorities and young adults. Estimates based on comparisons of the 2004 and 2008 exit polls indicate that the effort was successful.

The biggest makeover of the electorate came in minority participation. In 2008, non-Hispanic whites constituted 74 percent of the voters, down from 77 percent in 2004. African Americans were 13 percent of the electorate, compared with 11 percent four years earlier. In fact, for the first time ever, black Americans appear to have voted at a rate equal to their number in the population. The Hispanic turnout rate changed only slightly from 2004 and continues to lag behind nearly every other major demographic group.

What about the youth vote? Did it play a significant role in the outcome?

Some observers will be chagrined that the turnout of young adults (defined here at those in the 18-29 year age group) increased by only 1 percentage point from its 2004 level. According to the exit polls, they were 18 percent of the voters this time, compared with 17 percent last time. Nevertheless, the increase pushed their turnout rate to roughly 50 percent—a level not seen since the Vietnam-era election of 1972 (when 18-21 year olds were first eligible to vote). It is worth recalling that turnout among young adults was roughly 35 percent in 1996. In this context, their turnout rate of 50 percent in 2008 is a significant gain.

Do you feel media coverage affected voters' interest in this year's election?

Issues rather than the news media were the driving force in this year’s increase in voter turnout. If anything, the media nearly got in the way of increased turnout, fixated as they were on trivial issues for much of the campaign. The meltdown of the financial markets directed their attention, and that of their audiences, to the real issues of this campaign.

In your opinion, how will the history books treat this election?

The 2008 campaign was historical in the election of America’s first black president and a near revolution in grassroots campaigning. However, the full historical significance of any election is registered by what happens later, as well as by what happened in the campaign. The 1976 election is an example. Waged in the aftermath of Watergate and the Vietnam War, Jimmy Carter’s victory was heralded as a transforming election. But after a weak economy and an unsettled world undermined the Carter presidency, the 1976 election became a footnote when analysts fix their gaze on the past. Obama’s elevation to the presidency will fare better as a historical marker but its full transformational promise lies in the future, depending on how well he’s able to govern.