[Ṁ200 subsidy] Will the youth turnout rate in the 2024 U.S. presidential election be above 50%?
Basic
52
2.7k
Nov 19
30%
chance

The youth voter turnout rate is defined as the percentage of eligible voters aged 18-29 who cast ballots in the presidential election. The question will resolve to YES if the youth turnout rate is above 50% per CIRCLE at Tufts University based on the mid-point of the 2-week estimate (or whichever the latest), 2 weeks after the Election Day (November 5, 2024).

https://circle.tufts.edu/

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election-youth-poll

Tufts' newest analysis:

57% Extremely Likely to Vote

57% of youth, ages 18-34, say they’re “extremely likely” to vote in 2024, and another 15% say they’re “fairly likely” to cast a ballot in the election.

To traders: In case the turnout rate falls precisely on 50%, how do you think it should be resolved?

A. Resolve as YES (inclusive of 50%)
B. Resolve as N/A (boundary case)
C. Resolve as NO (technically not 'above 50%')
D. Resolve to Prob%

@SarkanyVar Please vote below with likes to the comments.

A. Resolve as YES (inclusive of 50%)

B. Resolve as N/A (boundary case)

C. Resolve as NO (technically not 'above 50%')

(reserved)

@SarkanyVar What about resolve to Prob%, to the percentage of the estimated range from CIRCLE above 50%?

@adele That is a good suggestion too. I suppose I can do that too in the boundary case.

I would still lean towards resolving to YES or NO otherwise because participation by at least half of the demographics is an important barometer, and so I would want the resolving of the market to reflect so.

If other traders agree with resolving to Prob% in case of 50%, please feel free to like @adele's comment.

predicts NO

@SarkanyVar I'd honestly be so surprised at the boundary case happening I'd want it to be N/A out of respect. It gives "flipped a coin and landed on its edge" energy.

@AndrewQuinn Curiously, that's exactly where the latest report for the 2020 election, released almost half a year after the election, landed on.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016


Given rounding, it is not exactly implausible. Still, I plan to use the two-week estimate instead of the figure in a final report (if any) for resolving the market because the latter's release date seems to be less regular. Food for thought though!

predicts NO

@SarkanyVar Given rounding! Bah, I should have considered that! Fair enough!

predicts NO

what has it historically been?

@RahulShah You may see below for the historical estimates at that time point from CIRCLE at Tufts. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-2020

So by the criterion set out above, the 2016 youth voter turnout estimate would be 43% (the mean of 42% and 44%) and the 2020 youth voter turnout estimate would be 53.5%.

Note that the estimates had sometimes seen adjustments months after the point, when CIRCLE published their formal reports later. But for the sake of timeliness, I would stick with the two-week estimates as a reasonably accurate indicator for turnout.

For data before 2016, perhaps you may refer to this graph below:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/984745/youth-voter-turnout-presidential-elections-us/

Note that it seems to be taking the CIRCLE data and using the upper estimates, at least for the 2016 and 2020 data. I think using the mid-points would lead to fairer estimates. But the graph in general can serve as a reference to historical trends.

More related questions