2024 Election Breakdown: Who Voted, Who Didn’t, and Who Couldn’t?

Voter turnout in the 2024 election paints a complex picture of the American electorate. Roughly 145 million individuals cast their votes, with Donald Trump securing 73.6 million and Kamala Harris earning 69.3 million. Meanwhile, third-party candidates made up a small fraction of the overall vote. Yet, perhaps more striking is the fact that about 38% of eligible voters—nearly 90 million people—chose not to participate. Adding to this, millions of residents, including non-citizens and disenfranchised individuals, were ineligible to vote entirely. These numbers reveal not just political preferences, but also the barriers and apathy that continue to shape electoral outcomes.

Watch voter turnout analysis here:

Overall Voter Turnout in the 2024 Election

The 2024 election saw significant voter participation, but also revealed concerning dynamics around non-voting and eligibility. With 63.9% of eligible voters turning out to cast their ballots, it represents a slight decrease from the “record-breaking” turnout in 2020. While Donald Trump and Kamala Harris secured the majority of votes, third-party candidates remained marginal in their impact. Yet, over 38% of eligible voters stayed home, leaving millions of voices unheard. Examining these trends offers insight into the political and social landscape of the United States.

Percentage of Eligible Voters Who Did Not Vote

Approximately 38% of eligible voters—around 90 million people—chose not to participate in the 2024 election, a stark reminder that political apathy and systemic barriers persist. This figure, though frustrating, is not new; the U.S. has consistently struggled with non-voter engagement. So, what holds people back?

According to surveys and studies, common reasons include:

• Disillusionment with Candidates: Many non-voters cited dissatisfaction or distrust in the candidates, feeling that neither Trump nor Harris truly represented their values or priorities.
• Lack of Time or Accessibility: Barriers like long working hours, lack of childcare, or inadequate access to polling stations disproportionately impacted low-income and marginalized communities.
• Registration Challenges: Complicated voter registration processes deterred some, especially in states without automatic voter registration or same-day registration options.
• Belief Their Vote Doesn’t Matter: A significant portion of non-voters expressed a sentiment that their vote wouldn’t influence the outcome.

According to PRRI’s analysis of voters and non-voters, younger Americans and people of color were overrepresented among those who did not vote. This trend is concerning as it suggests systemic barriers and a growing disconnect in key demographics.

States With Highest and Lowest Voter Turnout

The geographic breakdown of voter turnout in 2024 demonstrates that participation varies drastically across the country. Minnesota and Wisconsin topped the list with turnout rates of 76.4%, while Hawaii lagged behind at just 50.3%. What drives these disparities?

States With the Highest Turnout:

1. Minnesota (76.4%)
2. Wisconsin (76.4%)
3. Michigan (74.7%)

These states benefit from long-standing civic cultures that emphasize the importance of participating in elections. Additionally, policies like same-day registration and extensive early voting options helped push these rates higher.

States With the Lowest Turnout:

1. Hawaii (50.3%)
2. Oklahoma (53.3%)
3. Arkansas (53.5%)

Low-turnout states often struggle with structural barriers. For example, in Hawaii, a lack of election access points and disengagement from national politics contributed to limited participation. Additionally, states like Arkansas and Oklahoma have historically seen low investment in voter outreach campaigns, particularly in rural and underserved communities.

The contrast between high and low turnout states reflects broader conversations about the accessibility and inclusivity of voting across the United States. While some states have implemented reforms to expand participation, others continue to face barriers that disproportionately impact the most vulnerable sectors of society.

For additional insights into voter turnout trends and barriers, explore this comprehensive analysis of the 2024 election.

Breakdown of Votes for Major Candidates

When looking at the 2024 election results, it’s clear that the voter base for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris reflected substantial divisions across various demographics. From age and education level to ethnicity and gender, key patterns emerged that defined each candidate’s support.

Donald Trump’s Share of the Vote

Donald Trump’s voter base in 2024 showcased a strong preference from some traditionally conservative demographics. His campaign resonated particularly well with white voters, middle-aged individuals, and those without college degrees. But, you have to remember, just because someone is educated in a formal setting does not mean the person actually learned the truth.

• White Voters: According to AP VoteCast data, Trump retained a commanding lead among white voters, capturing nearly 60%. This demographic solidified his standing in rural and suburban areas, where economic issues and cultural identity played a big role in decision-making.
• Middle-Aged Voters: Trump leaned heavily on the 45–64 age group, many of whom cited economic policies and concerns over inflation as driving factors for their vote. It’s clear his promises to rebuild the economy struck a chord with these voters.
• Education Levels: Among voters without a college degree, Trump dominated. Approximately two-thirds of these voters supported him, according to PRRI’s survey. For many, the focus on blue-collar jobs and “America First” resonated deeply.

Significantly, Trump’s wins in key battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania highlighted his ability to maintain slim but decisive margins. These victories reflected shifts or solidification within working-class communities, where his brand of populism continues to resonate.

Kamala Harris’s Share of the Vote

Kamala Harris built her base with a different coalition of voters. Many of her supporters came from groups often underrepresented in elections—her campaign focused on grassroots efforts to mobilize these communities.

• Women: Women played a pivotal role for Harris. According to Navigator Research, she secured 55% of the female vote overall, with even stronger support among college-educated women. Issues like abortion and workplace equality became central themes that resonated strongly with this demographic.
• Younger Voters: Mobilizing younger people (aged 18–29) was another area of strength. Harris’s focus on climate change, student loan forgiveness, and “social justice” issues earned her over 60% support within this group.
• Minority Groups: Black and Hispanic voters significantly contributed to Harris’s totals. Among Black voters, she received nearly 85% support—a vital bloc in maintaining her party’s base. Hispanic voters, on the other hand, showed more division but leaned Democratic overall, giving Harris around 65% of their votes, as detailed in this U.S. News analysis.

While Harris performed well in urban centers and traditionally Democratic states, her efforts to cut into Trump’s rural strongholds showed mixed results. Nevertheless, her campaign emphasized diversity and progressive policy, successfully rallying many groups around her vision for the future. However, her vision for the future was not a shared viewpoint with enough American people who could vote, according to the election results.

The Role of Third-Party Candidates in 2024

Third-party candidates historically face an uphill battle in American elections, but their presence in 2024 sparked new discussions about voter dissatisfaction, alternative political voices, and the mechanics of democracy. While third-party candidates rarely win elections, their influence can be pivotal, especially in closely contested races like this year’s Trump vs. Harris showdown. Let’s explore who voted for these candidates and how their impact shaped the final results.

Who Voted Third Party?

Third-party voters are a rare but diverse group, and 2024 showed no exception. So, who decided to step outside the two-party norm, and why? Polling data suggests a mix of ideologies and life circumstances pushed voters toward third-party alternatives this year.

• Younger Voters Lead the Way: Younger generations, particularly those aged 18-29, were the most receptive to third-party candidates. Disillusioned with two-party politics, many cited climate change, healthcare reform, and student debt as reasons for their choice. These voters were drawn to candidates like Jill Stein (Green Party) or Cornel West (Independent), who offered solutions they felt neither Trump nor Harris could adequately address.
• Disenchanted Independents: Independent voters—people who no longer felt allegiance to the Republican or Democratic parties—made up a significant chunk of third-party supporters. A FairVote survey found that many wanted to send a message of frustration, believing the two-party system stifles real change.
• Ranked-Choice Advocates: Interestingly, a notable percentage of third-party voters were also proponents of ranked-choice voting. They saw their vote as a step toward making elections more representative, signaling support for structural reform.

These voters were united by a desire for options that the two major parties did not provide—whether that was policy-focused change or symbolic opposition to the current system. However, their influence extended far beyond just voting for their specific candidates.

Impact of Third-Party Votes on Final Election Results

In a race as close as Trump vs. Harris, third-party candidates don’t just get niche votes—they can tilt the scales. With their share of the popular vote totaling around 1.85%, these candidates didn’t win, but they certainly influenced the outcome.

1. Vote Splitting in Swing States: Some experts argue that third-party candidates may have drastically altered the results in battleground states such as Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In fact, a recent analysis explores how Stein and West likely drew more votes from Harris than Trump due to their left-leaning platforms. This split potentially cost Harris key victories in razor-thin contests, echoing debates from the 2000 election with Ralph Nader.
2. Spoiler? Or Signal?: While some critics dub third-party candidates as election “spoilers,” many argue that their presence is crucial for broadening democratic expression. A poll cited by NPR highlighted that Trump supporters were less likely to vote third-party, which helped him consolidate his base. Meanwhile, Harris, competing for a more fragmented electorate, struggled to maintain the same unity.
3. Record High Engagement in Alternatives: The 2024 election witnessed the highest level of third-party participation since 2000. According to Statista, over 40% of U.S. voters said they would have considered a third-party candidate before election day. This reflects growing interest in moving beyond the “lesser of two evils” dynamic many Americans feel trapped in.

Ultimately, third-party candidates served as a mirror, reflecting broader voter frustration with the two-party system. It’s not just about who “won” or “lost” votes—it’s a signal that many Americans are hungry for new representation. In an era of increasingly polarized politics, their presence challenges the status quo.

Not Eligible to Vote: A Significant Minority

When you think about voter turnout in a high-stakes election like 2024, a lot of attention is focused on the people casting ballots—or those eligible but choosing not to. But what about the millions of Americans who are not eligible to vote? For various reasons, a significant part of the population is sidelined in the democratic process. This group includes permanent residents, undocumented immigrants, and even U.S. citizens affected by felony disenfranchisement laws. Their numbers, while often overlooked, have real implications for America’s political landscape.

Breakdown of Non-Eligible Voters

America’s non-eligible voters account for an estimated 6-7% of the total population, according to Pew Research Center studies. This group includes a wide range of individuals who, for various legal or systemic reasons, cannot vote in federal elections.

• Permanent Residents: There are approximately 13.1 million green card holders in the United States. Though they pay taxes and contribute to their communities, they aren’t allowed to vote until they become U.S. citizens. This process often takes years, leaving many without a political voice for significant stretches of their adult lives.
• Undocumented Immigrants: Estimates show around 11 million undocumented individuals live in the U.S., with no legal pathway to vote. While their presence significantly impacts local economies and social structures, they remain excluded from influencing the laws and policies that affect their daily lives.
• Felony Disenfranchisement: This is a huge, often undervalued statistic. More than 4.6 million Americans have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions, according to Sentencing Project data. These laws disproportionately affect Black and Latino populations, creating disparities in political representation that ripple through the entire electoral system.
• Minors and Expatriates: Adding to these are 47 million minors under the age of 18, who are, of course, legally barred from voting. Additionally, some U.S. citizens living abroad find it difficult to participate due to complications in absentee voting processes.

When you combine these groups, the total number of Americans unable to vote swells into the tens of millions—large enough to constitute what would theoretically be America’s second-largest state by population. The sheer scale underscores how many are left out of a decision-making process hugely consequential to their lives and futures.

Why Non-Eligibility Matters to Electoral Outcomes

Imagine if these marginalized populations were suddenly empowered to vote. Could it shift the political direction of an election? Absolutely. The influence of non-eligible groups isn’t hypothetical; it’s a quiet but potent factor in how the nation’s leadership is chosen.

Potential Impact if Eligible

What would happen if these groups—green card holders, undocumented workers, and disenfranchised people—joined the electorate? Research into voting patterns suggests they’d likely lean toward more inclusive policies. For example:

• Immigrant Communities: Both permanent residents and undocumented populations tend to live in urban areas and are believed to favor policies aligned with Democrats on immigration, social welfare, and labor rights.
• Disenfranchised Felons: This group disproportionately skews toward racial minorities. According to many studies, a restored voting bloc here could tilt elections, especially in Southern states where strict voter suppression laws are common. A report found that Black Americans are nearly four times more likely to lose voting rights due to felony convictions compared to their white counterparts (Sentencing Project Report).

In close elections like Trump vs. Harris in 2024, these overlooked voices might have changed not just the margins but potentially the outcome. Swing states, in particular, where races can be determined by as few as 10,000 votes, underscore the magnitude of that hypothetical shift.

Electoral Equity and Policy Reform

This imbalance raises broader questions about equity. Should permanent residents contributing to society have a say at the polls? Is it fair that disenfranchisement laws affect millions even after they’ve served their time? These debates are more than theoretical. They touch on the heart of what democracy should mean and whom it should serve.

Some states have sought to address these issues:

• California and New York have relaxed restrictions for green card holders in local elections, showing how the rules can evolve over time.
• Other places like Vermont have introduced progressive legislation aimed at reinstating voting rights for felons. So far, success has been limited, but the effort signals a growing awareness of the issue.

Still, the question remains: how do we balance the principles of inclusivity with the traditional boundaries of civic participation?

As reforms around voting rights continue to appear on ballots, both at the state and federal levels, it’s worth considering how unlocking the vote for these disenfranchised communities could fundamentally reshape the political system. For now, though, millions of Americans remain on the sidelines, watching a democratic process that doesn’t allow them in.

For more on voter participation in the 2024 election, explore this detailed analysis of U.S. voter turnout.

Conclusion

The 2024 election was a reflection of both engagement and apathy in the American political process. With 63.9% of eligible voters casting ballots, nearly 145 million participated. Trump secured about 50.8% of those votes, while Harris followed with 47.9%. Third-party candidates represented around 1.3%, illustrating limited but notable dissatisfaction with the two-party system.

However, the nearly 90 million eligible citizens (38%) who chose not to vote underscores a persistent challenge in motivating participation. Additionally, 6-7% of the U.S. population remains ineligible to vote due to factors like immigration status or felony disenfranchisement. These numbers reveal missed opportunities for representation and raise critical questions about equity in the voting system. Who are the 38% who did not vote, and specifically why, and what would they have voted if they did vote? It’s an intriguing question.

Moving forward, the path to higher engagement might involve making voting more accessible, addressing systemic barriers, and inspiring people to see their voices as valuable. What meaningful changes could reshape these statistics by the next election?

Return to Homepage.