Tergiversation With Numbers
Nov. 17th, 2008 04:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kimberkitThe Washington Post recently ran a story that was slightly obstinate in tone, debunking "post election myths."
One of the myths it talked about was the idea that voter turnout didn't change much amongst youths; in 2004, young voters (ages 18-24) were 17% of the electorate and in 2008, this year, young voters were 18% of total voters. After a lengthy conversation with Jon, though, I'm pretty convinced that those are deceptive numbers.
We are an aging population; the Census says that the median age from 1990 to 2000 went from 32.9 to 35.3. Proportionately, there are less youth amongst us. So unlike what the Post contends, it's not fair to say that youth didn't turn out in greater numbers; they almost certainly did, actually. They were merely outnumbered by the fact that there are MORE older people than there used to be.
From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of people aged 50-54 (who are now 58-62) grew 55%, and people aged 45-49 (now aged 53 to 57) grew 45%. That is a lot of growth amongst the older generation. While people who would now be young adults (10-14 then are now conveniently aged 18-23) did actually increase their numbers by 20%, that wasn't enough for young voters to have a better voice, when outweighed by the enormous growing number of older people.
Alas.
One of the myths it talked about was the idea that voter turnout didn't change much amongst youths; in 2004, young voters (ages 18-24) were 17% of the electorate and in 2008, this year, young voters were 18% of total voters. After a lengthy conversation with Jon, though, I'm pretty convinced that those are deceptive numbers.
We are an aging population; the Census says that the median age from 1990 to 2000 went from 32.9 to 35.3. Proportionately, there are less youth amongst us. So unlike what the Post contends, it's not fair to say that youth didn't turn out in greater numbers; they almost certainly did, actually. They were merely outnumbered by the fact that there are MORE older people than there used to be.
From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of people aged 50-54 (who are now 58-62) grew 55%, and people aged 45-49 (now aged 53 to 57) grew 45%. That is a lot of growth amongst the older generation. While people who would now be young adults (10-14 then are now conveniently aged 18-23) did actually increase their numbers by 20%, that wasn't enough for young voters to have a better voice, when outweighed by the enormous growing number of older people.
Alas.
