In the 2020 presidential election, about 55 percent of voters aged between 18 and 29 participated in the election -- a significant increase from the previous election year, when about 44 percent of youths voted in the election. The highest youth turnout rate was in 1972, when 55.4 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in the election.

As of late October 2024, young voter registration is lagging across a number of states when compared to the number registered on Election Day 2020. However, voter registration in swing states Michigan and Nevada increased by over 11 percent among 18 to 29-year-olds.

According to a 2023 survey, young adults in the United States were politically divided when it came to important political issues. Among those planning to vote for a Republican candidate, more than two-thirds considered securing the border their most important issue. In contrast, securing the border was the most important issue for six percent of young Americans planning to vote for a Democratic candidate.

According to a 2023 survey, young adults in the United States were divided when it came to important political issues. However, more than half of Americans between 18 and 34 considered the cost of living and inflation the most important political issue.

Recent research has cast doubt on the potential for many electoral reforms to increase voter turnout. In this paper we examine the effectiveness of preregistration laws, which allow young citizens to register before being eligible to vote. We use two empirical approaches to evaluate the impact of preregistration on youth turnout. First, we implement difference-in-difference and lag models to bracket the causal effect of preregistration implementation using the 2000-2012 Current Population Survey. Second, focusing on the state of Florida, we leverage a discontinuity based on date of birth to estimate the effect of increased preregistration exposure on the turnout of young registrants. In both approaches we find preregistration increases voter turnout, with equal effectiveness for various subgroups in the electorate. More broadly, observed pat- terns suggest that the campaign context and supporting institutions may help to determine when and if electoral reforms are effective.

This statistic depicts how motivated young voters are to vote in the 2018 United States midterm election. During the survey, 44 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 21 reported being very motivated to vote in the midterms, compared to nine percent of voters who reported being not at all motivated.

According to a 2023 survey of young adults in the United States, just over half of Americans between 18 and 34 years old were planning on voting in the 2024 presidential election. Voter turnout is likely to be highest among young Asian Americans, with 68 percent intending to vote in the general election. However, only 44 percent of young Black Americans in the U.S. planned on voting in 2024.

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

This statistic illustrates the youth voter turnout in midterm elections in the United States from 1974 to 2022. In the 2022 midterm election, it is estimated that around 23 percent of voters aged between 18 and 29 years old participated in the election.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The purpose of this study was to collect data about the first-time elector, whose attitudes towards, exposure to and response to the flow of campaign communications during the 1970 and the 1974 General Election were examined in the context of political outlook, role and social situation.

Main Topics:

Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions
Interest in the election campaign, final perceptions of the political parties and impression of the three main party leaders (according to 7 fixed scales). Attitudes towards the presentation of information during the election campaign and towards the issues that may face the new government. Knowledge of Conservative promises made during the campaign, general political knowledge, active participation in the election campaign and party identification. Assessment of the respondent's sense of political efficacy, respondent's reference groups. Opinions on: the citizen's duty to vote, Powellite views on immigration, the raising of the school leaving age to 16, whether the parties faced up to the real issues facing the country in the election, whether the parties offered the electorate a choice and whether lowering the voting age to 18 had made politicians pay more attention to the view of young people. Exposure to the campaign in many sources was particularly noted: in television (party broadcasts, news, other current affairs programmes); in the press; on the radio; and through conversations with others (friends, family members, etc.). Respondent's evaluation of media coverage of the election was also sought.
Background Variables
In addition to the background data gathered for 70015, class identification, type of home tenure and whether respondent voted (party voted for).

Data and code to replicate results reported in "Too Young to Run? Voter Evaluations of the Age of Candidates." Abstract: Why do elected officials tend to be much older than most of their constituents? To understand the mechanisms behind the underrepresentation of young people in public office, we conducted two novel survey experiments in Japan. We asked voters in these experiments to evaluate the photos of hypothetical candidates while altering candidates’ faces using age regression and progression software. Contrary to the observed age demographics of politicians, the voters in our experiments strongly disliked older candidates but viewed younger and middle-aged candidates as equally favorable. Voters saw young candidates as less experienced but also more likely to focus on many policy issues over a longer period, including education, childcare, climate change, anti-corruption measures, and multiculturalism. Young voters especially liked young candidates, suggesting that greater youth turnout could increase youth representation. Conversely, elderly candidates were universally panned, seen as the least competent, least likely to focus on most policy issues, and least electable. Voter biases thus do not seem to be a driving factor behind the shortage of young politicians. To the contrary, voters appear perfectly willing to cast their ballots for young candidates.

Electoral registrations for parliamentary and local government elections as recorded in electoral registers for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Code and log files for "Who is mobilized to vote by short text messages? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment with young voters" using proprietary administrative data.

By 2028, it is estimated that Gen Z and millennial voters will comprise the majority of eligible voters in the United States. In the upcoming 2024 presidential election, Gen Z and millennial voters will make up around 48.5 percent of eligible voters in the country.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The purpose of this study was to collect data about the first-time elector, whose attitudes towards, exposure to and response to the flow of campaign communications during the 1970 and the 1974 General Election were examined in the context of political outlook, role and social situation.

4th and 5th Rounds
The 4th and 5th rounds were undertaken to trace the evolution of the beliefs and opinion of young voters in their second general election, noting particularly any major areas of change and maturation. To examine the impact of a number of external influences on the panel's political thinking, comparing and contrasting their early and later roles. To identify influences of the first election experience (1970) on respondents' attitudes and behaviour at their second election. To compare orientations towards and exposure to political communications of identical respondents in two successive campaigns. To shed light on aspects of the present surge of increasing electoral volatility.
Main Topics:

Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions
Voting intention, actual vote, attitudes to political parties before and after the campaign. Orientations to the political and electoral system, political interest, duty to vote, importance of outcome, opinion on efficacy of election process, perceptions of the choice offered voters by the parties. Assessment of political knowledge, issue salience, respondent's reasons for following and avoiding the campaign on television. Exposure to the campaign in diverse media: television, radio, newspapers, discussion with friends and family members. Post-election assessment of the quality of the campaign equivalent in wording to the index of pre-campaign reasons for following and avoiding the election.
Background Variables
Marital status, number of children, occupation, trade union membership, type of residence.

In many places around the world, young voters participate in politics at low rates. What factors might increase youth political participation? We investigate one possibility: exposure to a religious message that emphasizes the possibility of change through faithful action. We argue that this message, which is common in religious groups that attract large numbers of youth around the world, addresses several barriers to political participation by young voting-age adults. Working in collaboration with the major religious coalitions in Zambia, we randomly assigned young adults (18-35 years old) into civic engagement workshops. Identical informational material, based on pre-existing, non-partisan curricula, was presented in each workshop. Workshops then concluded with one of two randomly assigned, pre-recorded Christian motivational messages based on existing religious programming in Zambia. In some workshops, the concluding message emphasized a Christian obligation to work towards the greater good. In other workshops, the message emphasized the power of faith to make change in the world. Materials in this dataset include the .do file replicating results presenting in the paper and the de-identified dataset produced by our implementing partner, IPA-Zambia, that was analyzed with that .do file. The READ.ME file includes descriptions of the attached files.

Contains all the current domains and measures of national well-being for young people. As well as providing the latest data for each measure, where available a time series of data are also presented along with useful links to data sources and other websites which may be of interest.

Do changes in health lead to changes in the probability of voting? Using two longitudinal datasets, we look at the impact of three measures of health—physical health, mental health, and overall well-being—on voting trajectories in young adulthood. The results show that self-rated health is associated with a lower probability of voting in one’s first election, depression is related to a decline in turnout over time, and physical limitations are unrelated to voting. We also find that some familial resources from childhood condition when the health-participation effect manifests.

The data and analysis file associated with our article. We have also included a copy of the guide that was sent to registered voters.

Since 1964, voter turnout rates in U.S. presidential elections have generally fluctuated across all age groups, falling to a national low in 1996, before rising again in the past two decades. Since 1988, there has been a direct correlation with voter participation and age, as people become more likely to vote as they get older. Participation among eligible voters under the age of 25 is the lowest of all age groups, and in the 1996 and 2000 elections, fewer than one third of eligible voters under the age of 25 participated, compared with more than two thirds of voters over 65 years.