Who Didn’t Vote in the 2024 Election? Breaking Down the 38% and What Held Them Back

America’s 2024 presidential election revealed more about voting than just a political divide. It exposed a striking reality: 38% of eligible voters sat it out. That’s over 90 million people—more than the population of most countries. Who are they? For starters, they’re more likely to be younger, urban, and lower-income. Many lacked clear information, faith in the system, or simply felt left out of the political narrative. Others faced barriers like restrictive state laws, family responsibilities, or logistical challenges.

Table of Contents

This isn’t just about apathy; it’s more complex. From systemic roadblocks to feelings of disillusionment, these non-voters paint a picture of growing detachment in a polarized society. The big question? How do we bring them back to the ballot box—and build a system that serves them too?

Demographic Breakdown of Non-Voters

The 2024 presidential election was historic in many ways, but one staggering statistic continues to raise eyebrows: 38% of eligible voters chose not to cast a ballot. Understanding who these 90 million non-voters are isn’t merely an academic exercise—it’s essential to addressing the systemic issues that keep them away from the polls. Let’s break down the key demographics, one step at a time.

Age and Generational Trends

Age plays a crucial role in voter participation, and the numbers from 2024 reveal some telling patterns. Younger voters (ages 18-29) were disproportionately represented among non-voters. According to PRRI, 28% of non-voters were from this age bracket, compared to just 14% of voters. The trend is consistent with previous elections: younger generations often feel alienated by the political process or believe their votes won’t make a difference.

Generational attitudes also vary. Millennials and Gen Z citizens are increasingly cynical about government effectiveness. On platforms like TikTok and Instagram, sentiments of political fatigue and disillusionment run rampant. However, it’s not only the youth—some older generations also sat this one out. In fact, around 42% of non-voters came from ages 30 to 49, further suggesting the need to re-engage middle-aged demographics often juggling work and family commitments. Single Parents and voting

Education and Income Levels

The divide between voters and non-voters often has roots in education and income disparity. A study by Pew Research reported that non-voters were far more likely to have a high school education or less (56%) compared to voters (25%). Higher levels of education often correlate with increased civic engagement, thereby leaving those without access to advanced education underrepresented at the ballot box.

Income is another considerable factor. As seen in post-election analyses by US News, non-voters tended to come from households earning under $50,000 annually. Financial insecurity sometimes creates logistical barriers to voting, such as difficulties taking time off work or even lacking transportation to the polls. Many individuals in this category expressed beliefs that politics favors the wealthy—a sentiment that feeds into a cycle of disenfranchisement.

Geographic and Marital Status Trends

Where non-voters live matters too. Rural, suburban, and urban divides show stark differences in participation. According to The Guardian, rural communities, long considered Republican strongholds, experienced lower overall voter turnout compared to suburban and urban areas. A significant portion of rural non-voters cited logistical challenges or a lack of belief that their votes could influence larger national trends.

Marital status also plays a part. Married individuals are generally more likely to vote, possibly due to the increased community ties that come from being part of a family unit. In contrast, single or divorced individuals made up a significant share of non-voters. Navigating childcare, work commitments, or simply managing the emotional weight of divorce often deprioritizes political participation in favor of immediate life challenges.

Married couples with children are often lauded as “political staples,” but what about single-parent households? These families face heightened obstacles, often feeling the pinch of policies they perceive as ignoring their needs. Could the lack of focus on real-life struggles facing these households explain lower turnout? Many non-voters think so and share those thoughts openly in interviews (like this Navigator Research report).

Each of these factors—age, education, income, and location—offers a window into the lives of those who opted out of voting in 2024. By pinpointing these demographics, we can start to unravel the cultural and systemic barriers shaping voter engagement, laying a foundation for better inclusion moving forward. Stay tuned as we dive further into the role of religion, race, and personal histories that also impacted voter turnout.

Key Reasons for Not Voting in 2024

The 2024 presidential election once again spotlighted the complexities behind voter disengagement. While headlines often chalk up low turnout to apathy, the truth is far more nuanced. Dissatisfaction with available choices, structural obstacles, and personal challenges all played a role in keeping nearly 90 million eligible voters at home. Breaking down these reasons provides insight into the broader societal shifts shaping voter behavior.

Dissatisfaction with Candidates and System

A significant number of Americans expressed frustration with the state of politics itself. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but it seemed amplified in 2024. Many voters felt that neither major party addressed their concerns, leaving them stuck between what some described as “lesser of two evils” choices. A report from The Guardian highlighted this sentiment, with numerous voters expressing emotional detachment and skepticism about whether their ballot could bring meaningful change.

Beyond dissatisfaction with candidates, the mechanics of the electoral process have also come under scrutiny. The Electoral College, in particular, has faced mounting criticism for devaluing votes in deeply red or blue states. Voters in states like California and Texas often question if their ballots matter when outcomes feel predetermined. Does this drive political fatigue? Absolutely. When voters feel like pawns in a system that prioritizes party agendas over individual voices, it’s no surprise participation plunges.

Barriers to Voting

Even for those eager to get to the polls, obstacles ranging from logistics to lawmaking created hurdles in the 2024 election. Voting laws across the U.S. have undergone significant changes in recent years, with some states enacting stringent controls over absentee ballots, early voting, or voter ID requirements. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, these legal modifications disproportionately impacted young people, low-income families, and minority communities.

Access to polling stations was another sticking point. Individuals in rural areas often reported traveling an hour or more just to reach their voting location. Poll closures and reduced hours—especially in areas with predominantly minority populations—further complicated the ability to vote. Additionally, organizations like Vote Libraries have documented how disinformation about voting procedures sowed confusion among voters, leading some to mistakenly miss deadlines or provide incorrect documentation.

For many, the issue wasn’t only about reaching the polls—it was about navigating administrative hurdles beforehand. Voter registration, especially stringent in certain states, was cited as a challenge by a range of citizens. Young voters noted limited access to on-campus voter registration or issues transferring out-of-state registration, as outlined by Circle at Tufts.

Personal Impediments

Voting isn’t always a priority when life happens. Economic pressures led some to stay away from polling stations, particularly in occupations without paid leave. Imagine earning hourly wages but losing income just to wait in line for hours—would you choose voting, or keeping the lights on? The balancing act between responsibility and civic engagement is all too real for millions of Americans.

Family obligations also played a role. For single parents, coordinating childcare alongside jobs and other duties meant voting often slipped through the cracks. Younger voters, on the other hand, cited a lack of motivation or belief in the process. As AP News revealed, many individuals have simply given up on a system they feel no longer serves their interests.

Additional personal struggles included mental health challenges and burnout, with the overwhelming pressures of daily life leaving individuals with little energy left for civic duties. Social media reflected this reality, amplifying narratives of modern-day stress and how disconnected many feel from the traditional act of voting.

These interwoven issues—systemic dissatisfaction, tangible obstacles, and personal battles—didn’t just lead to lower turnout in 2024. They painted a larger story about who participates in democracy and what needs to change to build a more inclusive system. Understanding these layers is key to cracking the code of voter disengagement.

Psychosocial and Family Influences on Voting Behavior

Voting is more than just checking a box on a ballot; it’s a behavior shaped by years of experiences, relationships, and cultural norms. From the stability of childhood homes to the dynamics of current family relationships, these factors create ripple effects influencing whether individuals feel empowered—or even inclined—to vote. Let’s unpack how family background and current relationship statuses affect voter turnout.

Role of Family Background and Childhood

Our childhood experiences often create the foundation for lifelong habits, including political engagement. For many, voting begins as a “family value” instilled through observation and participation. But what happens when that foundation is fractured?

Parental Divorce and Household Stability: Research indicates that children from divorced families may develop weaker civic habits, including lower likelihoods of voting. The absence of cohesive family discussions around politics often leads to detachment from electoral processes. A report covered by Social Forces highlights how familial disruptions can disrupt political continuity across generations.
Upbringing and Political Socialization: Children raised in homes where politics are openly discussed tend to have higher voter turnout rates later in life. Conversely, homes where voting isn’t modeled as a civic duty can foster apathy. This is especially true in multi-generational households where parents and even grandparents implicitly (or explicitly) shape political identities. According to studies on parental influence shared by Deseret, civic habits have a “trickle-down effect,” showing how crucial early exposure is.

Unstable or economically challenged households may also prioritize immediate survival over long-term civic engagement. If your family is focused solely on keeping food on the table, discussing national policies around the dinner table probably isn’t a top priority. These patterns often carry into adulthood, manifesting as nonparticipation during elections.

Impact of Current Family and Relationship Status

Your current family situation matters just as much, if not more, when it comes to voting behavior. Navigating responsibilities related to marriage, children, or even singledom significantly influences an individual’s capacity and motivation to engage politically.

Marital Status: Married individuals are statistically more likely to vote than those who are single, widowed, or divorced. Why? Married couples often feel a stronger tie to their local communities and are more likely to discuss political issues as they collaboratively make decisions affecting their shared future. However, the picture shifts for divorcees. Managing the emotional and logistical upheaval of divorce frequently pushes political participation down the priority list—a finding supported by data cited in ScienceDirect.
Parenting and Childcare Responsibilities: Parents juggling childcare and work are more likely to miss voting opportunities, especially in the absence of readily available childcare options. Single parents often feel the pinch more acutely. If voting involves hours in line or extensive travel to polling stations, it’s easy to understand why participation rates drop. These challenges were explored further in studies like those documented by Brennan Center for Justice, which discussed how logistical barriers disproportionately affect families.
Impact of Family Dynamics During Elections: Family tension during election cycles can discourage political participation. Imagine living in a household where political discussions are combative or divisive—would that encourage you to vote? Probably not. Moreover, a study on personal relationships from YouGov found that individuals heavily influenced by family dynamics were more likely to abstain from voting when discord was present.

The decisions we make about voting are rarely divorced from the systems and relationships we inhabit. Whether it’s the example set by parents or the constraints of modern family life, the ties are undeniable. Understanding these psychosocial influences is crucial for boosting voter participation moving forward.

Proposed Solutions to Increase Voting Participation

The challenge of increasing voter participation isn’t just about nudging people to the polls. It’s about understanding the barriers that keep millions from voting and creating solutions that meet individuals where they are. From policy reform to grassroots community efforts, there are practical ways to make voting accessible, inclusive, and engaging. By addressing both systemic and personal challenges, we can help rebuild trust in civic duty and empower everyone to make their voices heard.

Policy Interventions

Voting access is heavily influenced by the structures and systems in place. Without substantial reform, many of the barriers that discourage voter turnout will persist. So, what can policymakers do to close the gap? Here are critical interventions to consider:

Automatic Voter Registration (AVR): Imagine a system where voters are automatically registered when they interact with government agencies, such as obtaining a driver’s license. States like Oregon have already demonstrated the success of this method, adding thousands to voter rolls seamlessly. Learn more from Carnegie’s list of voter policies.
Extended Voting Periods: Why limit voting to a single Tuesday? By allowing voting to span multiple days (or even weeks), we can eliminate time-related conflicts, especially for hourly workers or those in caregiving roles. States like Colorado have embraced mail-in voting and flexible voting times, seeing significant turnout improvements.
Accessible Polling Locations: For rural communities and people with disabilities, physically reaching polling locations can be daunting. Solutions include expanding the number of polling stations and ensuring they are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Check out insights on geographic barriers in American Progress’s report.
Universal Vote-by-Mail: The “success” of vote-by-mail systems, where ballots are sent directly to registered voters, is undeniable. Initiatives like those highlighted by Vote at Home indicate that removing the physical burden of voting dramatically raises participation.

By implementing policies that make voting straightforward and accessible, legislators can significantly reduce the friction that keeps many citizens from getting involved.

Community and Educational Efforts

Addressing voter turnout isn’t just a job for policymakers. Communities play a pivotal role in creating a culture of participation. From harnessing the power of education to building trust through local engagement, grassroots efforts are essential.

Localized Initiatives: Community organizations can host events that make voting feel more personal and less intimidating. For instance, “Get Out the Vote” rallies in neighborhoods build excitement and provide voters with the tools they need. The success of community-driven approaches is explored in detail by Granicus.
Voter Education Campaigns: Let’s face it—many people skip voting because they simply don’t feel informed enough. Educational campaigns, especially in schools and colleges, can help demystify the process and explain what’s at stake. For example, tailored modalities like digital reminders or community workshops have proven effective in mobilizing youth, as noted by UCCS at UC Davis.
Non-Partisan Engagement: Trust in the political system starts at the local level. Churches, libraries, and non-profits can serve as safe spaces for individuals to discuss civic responsibilities without fear of partisanship. These hubs of engagement often lead to meaningful discussions that empower individuals to participate authentically. A few detailed strategies to build trust are highlighted by Five Barriers to Overcome Voting Challenges.
Youth-Centered Outreach: Younger voters continue to feel disconnected from traditional polling efforts. Creating platforms like TikTok campaigns or gamifying voting incentives could flip this narrative. Why not make attending a polling station as engaging as attending trivia night?

Communities offer a human touch to issues that often feel bureaucratic. By connecting voters to their rights, opportunities, and responsibilities, these efforts help bridge the gap between apathy and action.

From policy innovation to grassroots movements, increasing voter participation demands a multi-layered approach. True change is only possible when systemic barriers are dismantled while simultaneously fostering a culture of civic engagement at the ground level. Together, we can redefine what it means to have a government that represents everyone—not just those who already vote.

Conclusion

The 38% of eligible voters who didn’t participate in the 2024 presidential election remind us of an uncomfortable truth: disengagement isn’t just about apathy but systemic challenges and personal struggles. These non-voters come from diverse walks of life, yet common themes like economic insecurity, limited access to education, and disillusionment with the political system tie them together. Whether young people feeling alienated, single parents grappling with childcare, or rural workers navigating long commutes to polling stations, the barriers are real—and they’re solvable.

To close this gap, we need more than policy tweaks. Automatic voter registration, expanded voting options, and community-based voter outreach are a start, but building trust in the system requires addressing the disconnection many feel between their lives and the outcomes of elections. Policies should meet people where they are, and outreach must resonate with the realities of their day-to-day lives.

This isn’t just about numbers—it’s about empowering voices that have been sidelined for too long. What if the solutions we implement today ensure every eligible voter feels seen, heard, and valued tomorrow? That’s the real challenge—and the opportunity we can’t afford to miss.

Back to homepage.

Why 38% of Capable Voters Weren’t Voting in 2024: What Barriers Stopped Them?