This piece talks about how the voting percentages weren't so bad for young voters as everyone thought, because actually 65% of registered young people (18-24) did vote.
What it completely fails to do is tell us what percentage of young people registered. Nowadays you need to register individually, and I would have assumed that less young people registered than average, so that 65% of "something" could be exactly the same as the "36% of young people voted", depending on registration levels.
Does anyone have access to the raw data behind this? Because right now the figures seem meaningless.
What it completely fails to do is tell us what percentage of young people registered. Nowadays you need to register individually, and I would have assumed that less young people registered than average, so that 65% of "something" could be exactly the same as the "36% of young people voted", depending on registration levels.
Does anyone have access to the raw data behind this? Because right now the figures seem meaningless.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-10 03:24 pm (UTC)Which would require real actual funding. I would rather take this report than the YouGov on the day survey that said turnout was low for younger people but I doubt we'll actually know, as there's very little work done on under registration/no registration, and virtually zero research into how many people are legitimately double registered.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-10 03:26 pm (UTC)They asked whether people voted at polling stations or by post, whether they were registered but did not vote, and whether they were not registered at all.
Give me the figures from that, and it'd be a step in the right direction.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-10 03:53 pm (UTC)Beyond that it's one of those wait for the full report jobs. Which'll probably be hidden somewhere and hard to locate if/when it's out.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-10 09:28 pm (UTC)