Beyond Polarization: How Electoral Reforms Are Affecting Voter Turnout
The election is now over, and Americans are filled with gratitude that their inboxes and phones are no longer flooded with fundraising emails and breaking election news. The exact final tally will not be known for some time as the states continue to process the millions of votes cast. What is clear from the last two presidential elections is that turnout has been extraordinarily high. In 2020, nearly 67 percent of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot. The best data available so far suggests that turnout this time around was approximately 65 percent.
For many, the explanation is simple. Donald J. Trump is a unique driver of turnout both in favor of and against his candidacy. However, the midterm elections without Trump on the ballot in 2018 and 2022 also saw historically high turnout. While increasing political polarization undoubtedly played a role in driving engagement in the midterm elections as well, the turnout numbers are still remarkable. In fact, these last four elections constitute some of the highest turnout elections since the days when vote buying, violent intimidation, and fraudulent counting practices dramatically inflated turnout tallies.
Crucially, these last four elections have also seen a large series of electoral innovations among the states that may be impacting turnout as well. In recent years, states have increasingly engaged in certain measures—such as open primaries, ranked-choice voting, early voting, and mail-in ballots—to make voting more accessible and inclusive. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this trend. At the same time, growing concerns about vote integrity have led to new rules concerning voter ID, ballot curing, and ballot harvesting. As R Street has highlighted in the past, many of these reforms have led to accusations of fraud or voter suppression; however, the evidence substantiates neither of these claims.
The 2024 election provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate the impact of recent electoral reforms on turnout. Over the next few weeks, this series will investigate the impact of election reforms on turnout in three states: North Carolina, Nevada, and Alaska.
Although North Carolina amended its state constitution in 2018 to require photo identification from voters, the new rules only recently took effect following years of litigation. Critics have charged that the new requirements disproportionately harm Native American and Black voters, but research has generally shown no suppressive effect stemming from voter ID requirements. The 2024 election in North Carolina may provide additional clarity about the impact of voter ID on turnout.
Meanwhile, Nevada adopted an all-mail system in 2021 and now sends every registered voter a ballot in the mail. The 2024 election is Nevada’s second federal election and first presidential election under the new rules, although the state mailed ballots to voters in 2020 as an emergency measure. Mail-in voting has become controversial in recent years, with proponents arguing that it increases participation and opponents suggesting that it complicates the tallying of results and is not as secure as in-person voting. The second post will analyze whether this change to an all-mail system has had any impact on turnout.
Finally, Alaska voters approved a switch to a new election system in 2020, with nonpartisan blanket primaries and a top-four, ranked-choice instant runoff in the general election. Opponents have argued that it is too confusing for voters, lowers candidate quality, and is biased toward one political party or another, leading to a 2024 ballot measure to repeal the reform. Meanwhile, supporters maintain that the system is more inclusive and rewards candidates for having the broadest appeal among Alaska voters. Currently, the initiative to repeal the top-four system is undecided, nevertheless, the 2024 election represents a chance to evaluate the impact of the reform on turnout so far.