Massachusetts sets voter turnout record, Galvin says

I don't think getting half of the residents in the state is all that impressive. I don't quite understand why more people didn't vote. Maybe they thought that since Obama was bound to win the state they didn't bother voting.

Um, hello...it's MORE than half. Can't you read? It says 72% of registered voters. The figure of 6 million people includes people under 18 as well as non-citizens, so the pool of people who are eligible to register to vote is well below 6 million, I'm guessing 5 million.

Half of the residents is a meaningless metric. 72% of registered voters is the relevant take away, but that was not a record, only the raw number of voters.

I almost didn't vote because I knew Obama would carry the state, but there was a local race I wanted to vote on, not to mention the 3 ballot questions. I would expect other battleground states to have a higher participation rate than 72%.

The thing to bear in mind, though, is that the article says roughly half of the *entire* population voted. It goes on to say that the turnout among registered voters was about 72% - that is apparently not a record-breaker, though. Still much higher than the national average, I believe. So the record-breaking aspect of this year's MA vote was the absolute number of ballots cast rather than the percentage of eligible voters who chose to vote.

No, Rich, it sounds like it was 72% of the registered voters who participated, which is really good. The total number 3+ million was 50% of the total state population, not the number of eligible voters...

I agree.
I must say I don't like the fact that all of a states electoral votes go to the winner of that state. If the state is split 51/49, then the 49 percent that vote with the loser essentially have their votes switched so that they support the winner. I like Maine and I think Minnesota which split them. That makes more sense to me.

WELCOME TO TAXACHUSETTS...ITS TIME TO MOVE TO THE U.K.
GET RID OF KENNEDY NEXT 46 YEARS IS TOO LONG.

When did 72% come to represnt half? Must be that new democratic math were going to have to learn now

Perhaps only half of the residents voted because the other half were too young to vote.

Well, do keep in mind that children under 18 cannot vote and they are a part of the 7 million or so people that live in this state. And what is wit this name and e-mail stuff. We have logins and the globe knows who we are. We should not have to type that in every time now. They now feel the need to keep people quite by sensoring us? This is like the soviet union or china!

Three million of 4.2 million registered voters sounds like 72% to me. Yes, I guess we must get used to the accurate math of those silly educated democrats who will be in charge soon. God help us all!

Please re-read the article. At least 4 of 7 of you are wrong.

It says that 1) there are 4.2 million registered voters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and, 2) of this, 72% or approximately 3 million registered voters voted on November 4, 2008.

The Census Bureau estimates that there were 6,437,193 residents in 2006. Of these, 4,988,716 were 18 or over (legal voting age).

So, of the 4.989 million eligible residents, 4.2 million (84%) are registered to vote in the Commonwealth. The rest are most likely college students, recent arrivals ... and maybe illegal immigrants. (joking!)

In 2000, about 1/4 of the population was not of voting age (i.e. younger than 18), so this would appear to imply that about two thirds of people who are allowed to vote, did. Given the dismal nationwide voting statistics in past years, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

And for those people apparently getting hung up on how to interpret that 72% number and it not setting a record, taken together these data imply that more people were registered than usual, but that a similar fraction of those registered voters actually voted.

In any event, yay democracy!

Hmm, maybe if all the comments reiterate the same thing... it'll make sense.

So are you saying that 50% of 72% of the entire population voted on question # 1?

How does the percentage of eligible voters who voted in Massachusetts compare with the country? Also, when eligible voters are referenced, does that refer to those who are registered to vote or to all citizens who qualify. I suspect it is 72% of the registered voters, and if so, how does the number change if measured against all citizens over 18 whether registered or not? That is really the significant measure.

In 2004, Bush beat John Kerry by winning 62.04 million votes. In 2008,
Obama won 63,86 million. In 2004, Kerry garnered
59.028 million votes; John McCain only got 56.383 million. That means this
election saw .825 million fewer votes than four years ago. The Globe reported record turnout Today. Turns out not to be true. Obama got his base out with the help of ACORN, Republicans didn't.

Connecticut (also not a battleground) had 91%. What's our problem?

The problem? Could be a host of factors. Not the least of which is the idioitic notion that polls are only open for 13 hours on one day. I know quite a few people who still have jobs, so that makes it kind of tough to rock the vote thing.

Guy, it's too early to know the "total" vote count for 2008, since many absentee ballots need to be counted. Also, you are not including other candidates votes (like Nader). Not sure how that might affect the numbers.

DaveM, if you're going to take all the states and split their electoral votes, why not just take it all the way and make it whoever wins the overall popular vote?

Miffy, Um, hello...Can't you read? No need to "guess" 5 million. The author told you it was 4.2 million. :)

I wonder how all the college students affect those numbers...are they counted as residents if they are voting absentee in their homestate?