The 66.2% turnout is not calculated as voters divided by registered voters, but as voters divided by “eligible voters.”
“Eligible voters” is a wonkish term of art, and is an estimate of the number of people eligible to vote determined without regard to registration status. This means the denominator is larger than 213 million.
This turnout calculation helps determine civic engagement by measuring the percentage of people who could vote with minimal effort (i.e., all they have to do is vote or register and then vote) who actually voted.
Gateway Pundit ran with this. It’s an embarassment.
Spez: The point is that multiplying by a smaller denominator than was actually used to compute the fraction will not return the numerator initially used in the fraction.
Thanks for clarifying this.... This has definitely been bugging me.
However, math is still pretty astounding if the numbers posted above are accurate.
155.5M total votes cast
213.8M total registered voters
= 72.5% of all voter registrations had ballots casts. Additionally, this number assumes 100% voter role accuracy.
If you assume 10% less actual registered voters because of inaccurate roles which in my opinion is very reasonable. Then:
155.5M votes cast
192.4M registered voters
= 80.8%
If voter roles are off by 15%, then registered participation goes up to 85.5%.
Those are crazy high turn out numbers. Am I missing something with these assumptions ? Also, is this not way outside the norm?
Good god, this again?
The 66.2% turnout is not calculated as voters divided by registered voters, but as voters divided by “eligible voters.”
“Eligible voters” is a wonkish term of art, and is an estimate of the number of people eligible to vote determined without regard to registration status. This means the denominator is larger than 213 million.
This turnout calculation helps determine civic engagement by measuring the percentage of people who could vote with minimal effort (i.e., all they have to do is vote or register and then vote) who actually voted.
Gateway Pundit ran with this. It’s an embarassment.
Spez: The point is that multiplying by a smaller denominator than was actually used to compute the fraction will not return the numerator initially used in the fraction.
Thanks for clarifying this.... This has definitely been bugging me.
However, math is still pretty astounding if the numbers posted above are accurate.
155.5M total votes cast 213.8M total registered voters = 72.5% of all voter registrations had ballots casts. Additionally, this number assumes 100% voter role accuracy.
If you assume 10% less actual registered voters because of inaccurate roles which in my opinion is very reasonable. Then: 155.5M votes cast 192.4M registered voters = 80.8%
If voter roles are off by 15%, then registered participation goes up to 85.5%.
Those are crazy high turn out numbers. Am I missing something with these assumptions ? Also, is this not way outside the norm?
Hope my math is right 🤔