The 1912 election is one of the "hardy perennials" of AH, and a subject of endless fascination to people on this websidte, yet if the stats are any guide, it seems to have been far less inspiring to those actually called upon to vote in it.
Not only was the turnout well down from 1908 - 58.8% as against 65.4% for the Taft-Bryan contest - but had CA and WA not doubled their electorates by adopting women's suffrage, then the absolute numbers would also have been down. And even more remarkable is the huge disparity between the 19.2 million who voted in elections for the HoR, and the barely 15 million who bothered to cast a vote for POTUS. Despite the "Heinz 57 varieties" of candidates on offer, some 22 percent of those voting spurned the Presidential race altogether, and voted only for Congress and (I
would imagine) State and local offices.
Is it possible to make any assessment of who the 22% were? Did some Republicans scorn to cast a meaningless vote in a contest for second place? Did Clark supporters feel he had been "robbed" and withhold votes from Wilson? Did some of Bryan's faithful consider Wilson too "establishment" a figure, while being unwilling to vote Socialist? Or could there have been some Conservatives out there who found even Taft a bit too liberal?
Question - Is there any way to bring the Presidential vote up to the level of the Congressional one (perhaps if some of the candidatea are different) and if so who is likely to benefit from the increased turnout.