Full Title: Massachusetts Senate Outcome Driven Partly by Youth Non-Voters
According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University, 58% of Massachusetts voters aged 18-29 preferred Coakley to Brown. So why did Brown win? Partly because only about 15% of those 18-29 year olds voted, as compared to 57% of citizens aged 30 and over.
Let's assume 18-29 year olds represent about 18.6% of the voting age population in Massachusetts (an assumption I'm basing on my interpretation of the Massachusetts data in this census table). If 18-29 year olds had voted at the same rate as their elders (57% turnout), the overall outcome would have been as follows: Scott Brown, 50.3%; Martha Coakley, 49.1%. So based on the math, Brown would still have won. But the gap between the candidates would have been so small that it's easy to imagine other events--such as more campaigning by 18-29 year olds trying to influence their elders--changing the outcome of the election.
As you've undoubtedly heard, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, by winning 51.9% of the vote to Coakley's 47.1%, in the special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts left vacant by Ted Kennedy's death. (A third-party candidate received the other 1% of the vote).
Let's assume 18-29 year olds represent about 18.6% of the voting age population in Massachusetts (an assumption I'm basing on my interpretation of the Massachusetts data in this census table). If 18-29 year olds had voted at the same rate as their elders (57% turnout), the overall outcome would have been as follows: Scott Brown, 50.3%; Martha Coakley, 49.1%. So based on the math, Brown would still have won. But the gap between the candidates would have been so small that it's easy to imagine other events--such as more campaigning by 18-29 year olds trying to influence their elders--changing the outcome of the election.
Posted: January 21, 2010, 3:08 PM