How Many Registered Voters In Nyc 2017

How we created the demographic data tables [HISTORICAL Information — Electric current THROUGH 2012]

Please contact the CUNY Mapping Service for access to this earlier data.

The NYC Ballot Atlas provides tables of demographic information for selected ethnic groups on a citywide basis. The Atlas as well provides customs area information for local populations (presenting the distribution of selected groups within each area, simply summarizing the demographic characteristics of the area population regardless of ethnicity). We describe beneath how we selected and defined the ethnicities, and how and why the data is presented at the citywide and local levels.

The Atlas has been developed in partnership with the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and its Eye for Community and Ethnic Media (CCEM). The Middle in detail is interested in journalism addressing the interests of neighborhoods and immigrant ethnic groups. Therefore, the ethnicities represented in the Atlas'due south citywide demographic tables include those of greatest interest to the media organizations represented by CCEM.

In detail, we focused on three broad groupings:

native born, non-Hispanic Whites who are not recent immigrants but have lived in the city for some time;
native born, non-Hispanic Blacks or African Americans whose ancestors take a relatively long history in this country including many who migrated to New York from the American South; and
contempo immigrant groups from Latin America and Asia.

Within each of these wide groupings we have used Census information to place specific ethnicities in order to cantankerous-tabulate with other Demography information of involvement to the Journalism Schoolhouse, CCEM, and the public.

Citywide vs. local area information

We present the data by selected ethnicities on a citywide basis, and nosotros nowadays demographic characteristics of the overall population of each community area (as defined by the U.South. Census Bureau - more on PUMAs below). Citywide and customs area statistics are based on the Centre for Urban Enquiry'southward (CUR) assay of American Community Survey (ACS) information. The Demography Bureau launched the ACS in 2005 as a substitute for the previous "long form" information that had provided detailed demographic data of interest to many.

The ACS data comes in 2 forms — summary tables created by the Census for block groups, tracts, and larger geographies; and "microdata" data on individuals and households, made anonymous, with the "Public Use Microdata Area" (PUMA) as the smallest unit of geography. The summary ACS tables are pre-tabulated, making them easy to use for bones demographic information simply impossible to use for whatsoever new or customized cantankerous-tabulations of the kind needed for the Election Atlas. The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data enable us to cross-tabulate the data however we need to, but only for areas no smaller than a PUMA.

The Center for Urban Inquiry used the combined 3-twelvemonth ACS PUMS data covering the period 2009 through 2011 to accept sufficient sample sizes to analyze demographic characteristics of our selected groups citywide. (Nosotros used the ACS data as maintained past the Integrated Public Utilize Microdata Series/IPUMS project of the Minnesota Data Heart at the University of Minnesota.) Nosotros besides used the PUMS data to decide the total population distribution of these groups for each PUMA. But fifty-fifty with the combined 2009-11 ACS data, PUMS samples are however generally besides minor to provide statistically valid estimates for our cross-tabulations of demographics for each group at the PUMA level. That is why we present the PUMA-level information for the overall local population rather than specific ethnicities.

PUMA boundaries include whole census tracts and were designed in cooperation with the New York City Department of City Planning to resemble Community Boards, simply also contain at least 100,000 people. Thus at that place are 59 Community Boards in New York City, but 55 PUMAs. This map [PDF] compares the PUMA and Community Board boundaries.

Ethnic group definitions

Our groups are divers as described below, based on how people filled out their American Community Survey questionnaires. We use answers to the questions about specific racial groups, ancestry, and place of nativity. For beginnings, we use only the reported "first ancestry" even though some people written report multiple ancestries. These definitions allow us to use Census data to develop detailed profiles of the many groups in New York City, including how many of the grouping are voting historic period citizens, thus eligible to vote, and what share of the overall eligible electorate each group contributes.

Italian ancestry: Non-Hispanic native born whites who reported their ancestry as Italian or Sicilian.
Irish ancestry: Non-Hispanic native born whites of Irish ancestry.
Jewish heritage: Non-Hispanic native born whites with reported ancestries from the Eastern European countries from which Jews migrated a century agone (e.g. Russia, Poland, Romania, Republic of hungary, Czechoslovakia) only not Smooth-speaking (to select out those of Polish Catholic ancestry) or those born in the onetime Soviet Spousal relationship. Because the Census Bureau does not ask questions regarding a respondent'south religious amalgamation, nosotros defined Jews as persons who trace their ancestry to those countries that the early waves of Jewish immigrants came from including Hungry, Poland, Russia, Eastern Europe and Romania. This is not a perfect operational definition of being Jewish, but it is the best that can be washed using Census Bureau American Community Survey information.
German ancestry: Not-Hispanic native born whites of German ancestry.
British, Scottish and Welsh ancestry: Not-Hispanic native born whites of English, British, Scottish, Scottish-Irish gaelic, or Welsh ancestry.
Russian foreign born: Non-Hispanic whites built-in in the republics of the sometime Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan).
African American: Native born people who reported their race every bit non-Hispanic Black/African American and reported their beginnings equally Afro American, African American, or African ancestry.
Afro Caribbean: People, regardless of identify of nascency, who reported their race as Blackness and reported their ancestry as the English-speaking islands of the Caribbean equally well as Guyana, merely excluding those who said their ancestry or identify of birth was Haiti.
Haitian: People who reported their ancestry or place of nascency was Republic of haiti.
Subsaharan Africa: Strange born Blacks who reported beginnings from any of the sub-Saharan countries in Africa (from Senegal east to Federal democratic republic of ethiopia and south to South Africa).
Mexican: People reporting Mexican as their Hispanic ethnicity, regardless of race.
Puerto Rican: People reporting Puerto Rican as their Hispanic ethnicity.
Ecuadorian: People reporting Ecuadorian as their Hispanic ethnicity.
Dominican: People reporting Dominican as their Hispanic ethnicity.
Brazilian: People reporting Brazil as their ancestry or place of birth.
Chinese: People reporting Chinese as their specific Asian race.
Indian: People reporting Asian Indian every bit their specific Asian race.
Korean: People reporting Korean every bit their specific Asian Race.
Bangladeshi: People reporting People's republic of bangladesh as their specific Asian Race.
Pakistani: People reporting Pakistan as their specific Asian Race.
Other White (not-Hispanic): All other single-race combinations reported as non-Hispanic White.
Other Black (not-Hispanic): All other single-race combinations reported as not-Hispanic Blackness.
Other Latino/Hispanic: All other single-race combinations who reported Hispanic ethnicity.
Other Asian (non-Hispanic): All other single-race combinations reported as non-Hispanic Asian.
All other (Native American, ii+ races, etc): All other non-Hispanic races and multi-racial population.

Citywide by

Demographics
Voting

Select Community Area:

Demographics
Voting

The data beneath do non nevertheless reflect the 2013 results. An updated voter registration file from the Lath of Elections will not be available at least until late 2013 or early 2014.

The voter files from the NYC Board of Elections exercise not provide a voter's race or ethnicity. Just past examining the last names of individual voters, race or ethnicity tin exist inferred by comparing with a distinctive surname lexicon. (For example, surnames from Census Bureau data take been used to clarify demographic characteristics [PDF] of the full general population.) CUR director John Mollenkopf has developed a surname database for several ethnicities from NYC'southward voter registration files. Based on this local distinctive surname analysis, CUR has estimated the number of voters for recent elections for the race/ethnicity categories shown below.

At that place are limitations to this arroyo. For 1, surname analysis is not possible for all 25 of the ethnicities analyzed for this Election Atlas. Also, the data are estimates, since some surnames can exist cryptic and therefore may be assigned a probability of belonging to one group or some other. Finally, voting estimates for blacks shown below are non based on surname analysis; they are based on the proportion of each tract's non-Hispanic black population who are citizens of voting historic period, applied to the number of voters in each tract so summed citywide.

The Board of Elections voter file does not distinguish if a person has voted in a specific full general, primary, or runoff election, just that they voted in one or more than of those elections in a given twelvemonth.

In the tabular array and chart below, the surname estimates business relationship for more than 60% of each category (registered voters, or actual voters in a given election).

	Citywide	Jewish	Russian	Italian	Irish	Black	Hispanic	Chinese	Korean
Principal voting in 2009
2009 registered Democrats	two,842,291	200,788	27,274	59,757	77,784	806,930	547,155	69,998	27,957
Voting in any 2009 Autonomous main	392,452	41,860	iii,197	vi,734	12,845	112,157	56,203	xiii,502	5,864
Average 2009 Autonomous primary turnout	xiii.8%	20.eight%	11.seven%	eleven.3%	16.5%	13.9%	10.3%	19.3%	21.0%
Runoff voting in 2009
Voting in any 2009 Democratic runoff	237,875	29,080	3,197	iii,526	8,050	60,070	22,428	14,940	4,207
Average 2009 Autonomous runoff turnout	8.4%	14.5%	11.7%	5.9%	ten.3%	7.4%	4.ane%	21.three%	15.0%
General election voting in 2009
2009 registered voters (all parties)	4,121,221	284,077	54,813	104,166	122,863	999,958	721,042	136,195	48,700
Voting in any 2009 general election	ane,118,830	106,251	xviii,922	29,078	40,052	277,439	144,416	36,178	13,859
Average 2009 full general election turnout	27.1%	37.4%	34.five%	27.nine%	32.6%	27.7%	20.0%	26.6%	28.5%
General election voting in 2012
2012 registered voters (all parties)	4,266,715	287,299	56,881	102,682	122,942	1,159,123	735,703	150,572	l,746
Voting in any 2012 full general election	ii,396,242	171,506	26,869	55,510	74,417	671,159	369,519	59,344	23,369
Avg 2012 general election turnout	56.2%	59.vii%	47.2%	54.1%	60.five%	57.9%	50.two%	39.iv%	46.1%

Citywide Ranked Choice Voting vote allocations for Mayor (2021 primary)

Certified results available here from NYC Board of Elections

Citywide Ranked Option Voting vote allocations for Comptroller (2021 primary)

Certified results available here from NYC Board of Elections

Turnout trends in NYC Democratic primaries

The nautical chart and tables below provide an overview of voter turnout in Democratic primary elections in New York City from 2001 through 2020. In add-on to showing overall voter turnout in each election, nosotros have aggregated voting results by Census tracts, and have presented the number of votes within tracts based on predominant race/Hispanic origin characteristics.

The race/Hispanic origin categories are every bit follows, based on self-reported responses to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey:

NHW = non-Hispanic White population;
NHB = non-Hispanic Blackness population;
NHA = non-Hispanic Asian population; and
H = Hispanic population (per self-reporting to Demography Bureau surveys, Hispanic persons can be whatsoever race).

Using the Census Agency'southward special tabulation of the demographic limerick of each tract's citizen voting age population (or CVAP, the estimated number of citizens age 18 or older), nosotros have identified tracts with a CVAP majority or plurality of each race/Hispanic origin grouping listed above, and summed the number of votes in those tracts for each election. This is based on American Community Survey 2015-2019 tract estimates. The vote data is from the NYC Board of Elections, combining the voter registration list provided to the Heart for Urban Research subsequently each election, with voter history data to bespeak which voters voted in each election.

Please remember two of import points about this information:

Election totals do not equal published totals considering not all voters could be geocoded to census tracts; and
The numbers practise not necessarily reflect the race or Hispanic origin characteristics of voters themselves. Instead, the chart and tables present the number of voters in neighborhoods whose population is predominantly one grouping or another. This information tin can be used to say, for case, that:
- "45% of the votes in the 2020 presidential primary were from neighborhoods whose eligible voting population is predominantly White and non of Hispanic origin," or
- "5.four% of the votes in the 2020 presidential primary were from neighborhoods whose eligible voters are predominantly Asian and not of Hispanic origin."

The information was compiled by John Mollenkopf, Center for Urban Enquiry, The Graduate Center, CUNY May 2021. Please use this citation and a link to this webpage when referencing this data.

Figure 1: Turnout by predominant race/ethnicity

Table one: Number of voters in tracts by predominant race/ethnicity

	2001 Autonomous Mayoral Chief	2001 Mayoral Runoff	2005 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2009 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2013 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2017 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2018 Autonomous Gubernatorial primary	2008 Autonomous Presidential Chief	2016 Democratic Presidential Primary	2020 Democratic Presidential Chief
Total votes	780,485	785,483	477,820	328,434	691,211	475,518	905,643	844,777	959,304	833,449
Votes from predominantly NHW tracts	340,078	345,216	214,003	149,135	317,890	204,647	404,872	362,105	424,492	375,188
Votes from predominantly NHB tracts	211,981	208,714	122,643	95,269	200,516	140,140	267,427	242,686	276,791	241,134
Votes from predominantly Hispanic tracts	183,782	188,381	117,686	63,609	133,274	100,691	186,801	190,656	206,425	172,089
Votes from predominantly NHA tracts	44,617	43,145	23,388	20,362	39,331	30,030	46,523	49,149	51,596	44,869

Table ii: Percentage of voters in tracts past predominant race/ethnicity

	2001 Autonomous Mayoral Primary	2001 Mayoral Runoff	2005 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2009 Democratic Mayoral Primary	2013 Autonomous Mayoral Primary	2017 Democratic Mayoral Master	2018 Democratic Gubernatorial master	2008 Democratic Presidential Chief	2016 Autonomous Presidential Primary	2020 Autonomous Presidential Main
Votes from predominantly NHW tracts	43.6%	43.9%	44.eight%	45.4%	46%	43%	44.7%	42.9%	44.2%	45%
Votes from predominantly NHB tracts	27.two%	26.six%	25.7%	29%	29%	29.5%	29.5%	28.7%	28.nine%	28.9%
Votes from predominantly Hispanic tracts	23.5%	24%	24.6%	nineteen.4%	19.3%	21.two%	twenty.6%	22.6%	21.5%	xx.6%
Votes from predominantly NHA tracts	5.vii%	5.v%	4.nine%	6.2%	v.7%	6.3%	5.1%	v.8%	five.4%	five.four%

Assay of 2013 mayoral primary

Bill de Blasio won the Democratic mayoral primary with almost 41% of the vote. Given that he received substantial support both from blackness and white neighborhoods, every bit well as from Latino areas, some observers take described his victory as a waning of traditional identity politics based on race/ethnicity relationships.

His victory was impressive in several ways. But the preliminary results reveal electoral patterns that require more nuanced interpretation than most observers have provided, and incorporate important similarities with before primary elections. This assay examines several of these similarities and differences. Almost primary voters as well vote in the general election, so an examination of the primary vote patterns can provide insights into 1 segment of the general electorate.

Turnout by predominant ethnicity

Table ane beneath shows turnout in the Autonomous mayoral primary in areas of the city broken downwardly by the predominant race/ethnicity/ancestry of each Census tract. For each type of area, the table shows votes in the 2013 main, registered Democrats in 2012, and ratio between the two (turnout).

The Center for Urban Research developed these population breakdowns get-go in terms of which racial group is the majority or plurality, then which ancestries or linguistic communication groups are the plurality or majority within that dominant group (the groupings are a consolidated version of the list hither, described here). While the Census does non record religion, we know that unlike religious affiliations are predominant amidst people of specific ancestries and language groups. The category of whites with English language or Scandinavian ancestries, for instance, tend to be Protestant, while those who are of Irish or Italian ancestry or who speak Polish, tend to be Cosmic. (Many Jewish New Yorkers have Shine beginnings, but they do non speak Polish.)

Overall, Tabular array 1 shows that predominantly white areas had the largest turnout in the primary, followed by predominantly African American/Afro Caribbean areas then Latino communities. (Predominantly Chinese areas turned out at a level simply beneath the black areas.) And in terms of total votes, predominantly white areas contributed 1.5 times the number of votes than predominantly black areas, more than twice the Hispanic/Latino areas, and far more than other communities.

TABLE 1
Turnout by race/ethnicity/ancestry categories based on CUR analysis of Demography data	2013 master vote	2012 registered Democrats	Turnout percent
White (English, Scandinavian)	v,276	xviii,521	28.5%
White (Italian, Irish gaelic, and Smoothen speakers)	185,624	747,616	24.viii%
White (Russian, Ukranian; Shine ancestry)	94,147	326,877	28.8%
Black (African American)	148,881	687,246	21.vii%
Black (Afro Caribbean area)	32,602	151,086	21.6%
Hispanic (Puerto Rican)	58,556	335,048	17.5%
Hispanic (Dominican)	45,229	244,779	18.five%
Hispanic (other Latino immigrant groups)	38,838	223,539	17.four%
Asian (Chinese)	20,801	102,728	20.2%
Asian (South Asian)	viii,162	50,955	xvi.0%
Other Asian	4,339	21,962	19.8%
Other	99	470	21.0%
Total	645,902	2,910,827	22.one%
Totals may exist slightly different than Lath of Election results due to the process of allocating Election District data to blocks and tracts.

Vote share trends by ethnicity in the last 4 mayoral primaries

Table 2 shows that past elections had a similar distribution of vote share by area. Shut to one-half (44%) of the 2013 primary vote came from predominantly white areas, a consistent share since 2001. But Table 2 as well shows that votes from predominantly African American communities are substantial — xx to 24% since 2001. Less than a third of the votes in each of the last 4 primaries came from areas of newer immigrant groups from Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean.

TABLE two
Vote share past race/ethnicity/beginnings categories based on CUR analysis of Demography information	2013 vote	2013 percents	2009 vote	2009 percents	2005 vote	2005 percents	2001 vote	2001 percents
White (English, Scandinavian)	five,276	0.eight%	3,104	0.nine%	4,180	0.9%	5,594	0.7%
White (Italian, Irish, and Polish speakers)	185,624	28.7%	96,125	29.3%	135,052	28.3%	215,216	27.half dozen%
White (Russian, Ukranian; Polish ancestry)	94,147	14.6%	45,014	thirteen.vii%	68,702	fourteen.4%	111,334	14.3%
Black (African American)	148,881	23.1%	78,734	24.0%	101,650	21.3%	171,327	22.0%
Blackness (Afro Caribbean)	32,602	v.0%	14,738	iv.5%	xviii,094	iii.8%	35,837	iv.6%
Hispanic (Puerto Rican)	58,556	ix.1%	29,647	ix.0%	56,135	11.7%	85,539	11.0%
Hispanic (Dominican)	45,229	7.0%	22,661	6.ix%	41,035	eight.6%	64,474	viii.three%
Hispanic (other Latino immigrant groups)	38,838	half dozen.0%	20,115	6.1%	31,999	half-dozen.7%	52,032	half-dozen.7%
Asian (Chinese)	20,801	iii.2%	11,342	three.5%	13,394	2.8%	23,973	3.1%
Asian (South Asian)	8,162	1.3%	iv,211	1.3%	4,776	ane.0%	9,910	1.3%
Other Asian	4,339	0.7%	2,692	0.eight%	ii,690	0.six%	5,242	0.7%
Other	99	0.0%	51	0.0%	113	0.0%	seven	0.0%
Full	642,554	100.0%	328,434	100.0%	477,820	100.0%	780,485	100.0%
Totals may be slightly different than Board of Election results due to the procedure of allocating Ballot Commune data to blocks and tracts.

2013 vote share past candidate

Table three below shows where each candidate's vote came from. Amongst other things, information technology highlights that primary winner Bill de Blasio received more of his votes from white and African American communities — just over 71% — than the citywide vote average.

By comparison with before elections, Mark Green received 75% of his votes from predominantly white and African American areas in the 2001 primary. In 2009, William Thompson received 69% of his support from these areas.

Tabular array 3
Race/ethnicity/ancestry categories based on CUR analysis of Census data	De Blasio	Thompson	Quinn	Liu	Weiner	Other candidates	Total
White (English, Scandinavian)	0.9%	0.five%	ane.6%	0.four%	0.5%	0.iv%	0.8%
White (Italian, Irish, and Smooth speakers)	29.5%	21.7%	47.6%	23.5%	23.half dozen%	18.6%	28.7%
White (Russian, Ukranian; Smooth ancestry)	13.five%	14.five%	21.ii%	10.v%	12.2%	xiii.1%	14.6%
Blackness (African American)	26.6%	29.6%	seven.ii%	17.0%	24.4%	19.seven%	23.1%
Black (Afro Caribbean area)	half-dozen.ii%	6.5%	one.1%	ii.5%	5.four%	4.4%	v.0%
Hispanic (Puerto Rican)	8.six%	10.2%	6.seven%	9.4%	11.4%	11.7%	nine.1%
Hispanic (Dominican)	six.i%	8.four%	5.4%	iv.8%	8.9%	xiii.0%	7.0%
Hispanic (other Latino immigrant groups)	5.three%	5.7%	5.3%	8.three%	8.1%	10.3%	6.0%
Asian (Chinese)	one.8%	1.7%	2.three%	xviii.seven%	iii.0%	iv.4%	3.2%
Asian (South Asian)	ane.1%	1.0%	1.0%	2.vi%	1.7%	2.ix%	i.3%
Other Asian	0.4%	0.five%	0.7%	2.2%	0.7%	one.6%	0.vii%
Other	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Figure 1 below illustrates the magnitude of votes for each primary candidate from each major indigenous voting bloc.

Unexpected shift in predominantly black communities

Quite remarkably, the leading white candidate in 2013 (de Blasio) received more support in predominantly black areas such as southeast Queens and central Brooklyn than did the well-known black candidate in the race (Thompson), who strongly carried those areas in his primary ballot four years earlier. (Notwithstanding, Thompson in 2009 and de Blasio in 2013 both received between forty and 45% of their votes from predominantly white areas.)

Combining African American and Afro Caribbean communities, de Blasio clearly outpolled Thompson. But the predominantly African American communities cast many more votes than the Afro-Caribbean areas — just over 148,000 votes compared with less than 33,000. De Blasio received more than votes than Thompson in the predominantly African American communities (almost 68,000 vs. merely under l,000).

In 2001 — the near closely comparable primary election to 2013 — African American areas cast many more votes (roughly 171,000 in 2001 vs. just over 148,000 in 2013). In that twelvemonth, voters in these areas split more evenly between the ii front-runners — the white progressive Mark Green received virtually 62,000 votes, but the minority candidate Fernando Ferrer received almost 78,000.

Looking to November

In recent principal elections, most primary voters (more than 75%) have also voted in the full general election. Simply the general electorate is more varied, due to a substantial number of registered Democrats who did non vote in the principal (hundreds of thousands of voters in the each of the by several elections), voters from other parties (typically shut to 150,000 Republicans and about that many people who have not enrolled in a party), and some Democrats who voted in the primary but did not vote in the full general ballot. A carve up assay from CUR examines the characteristics of these voters to provide a fuller picture of New York Urban center's full general electorate in apprehension of the upcoming mayoral vote on November 5.

Will at that place exist a crossover Democratic vote in 2013?

Primal communities to lookout man as the November. five mayoral election results come in.

In the virtually contempo mayoral ballot, 300,000 registered Democrats voted against the Autonomous mayoral nominee. These votes, combined with plenty votes from Republicans, those registered in other parties, and those non registered in any party, resulted in a Democratic loss.

If the 2013 polls are right, the Autonomous crossover vote this year will exist minimal. This would be a dramatic change from the last iii local ballot cycles. To help political observers gauge the extent of this change, if it occurs, the post-obit analysis highlights areas where large numbers of Democrats crossed over in the 2009 mayoral election to support the Republican incumbent. This yr's Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio volition win if he retains the support of his primary voters, persuades the primary voters who supported his to stick with him, and secures back up from plenty Democrats who accept crossed over in the past. He does not have to win all Democrats, just persuade a substantial minority to not cantankerous over to the other political party.

On the other hand, if Republican nominee Joseph Lhota has persuaded a like number of Democrats to cross over as in the past, information technology would be possible for him to win. The polls indicate this is unlikely, but non impossible. In 2009, Mayor Michael Bloomberg received 50.seven% of the vote. Although New York Urban center's electorate has certainly changed since Mayor Bloomberg was first elected (and even more since Rudolph Giuliani was elected in 1993), the city's population is pretty much the aforementioned every bit in 2009. Also, most currently registered voters (86%) were also enrolled in 2009. Therefore, nosotros cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that the 2013 electorate will behave in similar ways if Lhota were to be able to testify anything like the appeal of Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani to these crossover Democrats.

Crossover Democrats key to 2009 Democratic loss

Commonly, almost Democrats voters in general elections support the Democratic candidate, simply many did not in the concluding 3 mayoral elections. In 2009, for example, William Thompson received roughly 535,000 votes — almost 300,000 fewer than the number of Democrats who voted. These 300,000 Democrats therefore did not vote for the Democratic candidate (and perhaps a few more, if any non-Democrats voted for Thompson).

Map one below shows where these crossover Democrats voted. The pattern in Map 1 follows the areas closely that voted strongly for Mayor Bloomberg in his 2009 re-ballot — come across Map 2 below. These include:

south Brooklyn,
the Queens neighborhoods of Heart Hamlet and Howard Beach and much of northeastern Queens,
Manhattan'southward upper east and west sides, and
Riverdale and the eastern part of the Bronx.

These are white ethnic neighborhoods in the outer boroughs also as more liberal white areas.

MAP 1

MAP 2

Thompson did not win all the Democratic votes even where he did well in the election (shown in blue in Map 2) — such as parts of Staten Island's north shore, areas in upper Manhattan, and sections of southeast Queens.

The reverse was truthful in a but a few areas. In the ballot districts shown in blue in Map 1, Thompson received more votes that the number of Democratic voters, then he drew support from voters enrolled in other parties. These EDs, all the same, are few and far between.

This 2009 general election blueprint is not new — it has presented itself to some caste in each of the final three mayoral elections and even stretches dorsum to the Koch elections of the 1980s. With a few exceptions, Bloomberg received potent support from the aforementioned areas in 2001 and 2005, highlighted in orangish and scarlet below in Maps 3 and 4.

MAP 3

MAP four

"New" Autonomous Voters in the Full general Election

Much of the crossover Autonomous votes come from areas of the city where many Democrats did not vote in the primary. In the last three mayoral elections, the Democratic electorate has doubled from the primary. In other words, each Nov election has drawn as many "new" voters — those non voting in the main — every bit those who already indicated their choices at the master election box and also turned out for the general.

This increase has included roughly 150,000 Republicans, almost every bit many unaffiliated voters, and as many as 530,000 Democrats. Since 2001, between 400,000 and 530,000 registered Democrats voted in the full general ballot but not the primary. According to Table 1, these voters increased equally a share of Autonomous voters between 2001 and 2009 even as the total number of voting Democrats decreased.

TABLE 1

	2001		2005		2009
Total Democrats voting in either primary or full general election	979,333	100%	917,521	100%	821,717	100%
Democrats voting in general but not in master	413,079	42.2%	531,541	57.nine%	515,830	62.8%
Democrats voting in both	566,254	57.8%	385,980	42.i%	305,887	37.ii%

Sources: NYCBOE voter whorl for each year.

In 2009, these 515,000 not-primary Democrats represented the largest overall group of voters in the general ballot, categorized past major party. Table 2 below provides the breakdown:

Tabular array 2

2009 general election	Voters	Share
Democrats voting in the general but not master	515,197	44.six%
Democrats voting in the primary & full general	305,606	26.5%
GOP	145,039	12.six%
No party	122,194	ten.6%
Other	66,766	5.8%
Full	one,154,802	100%

Source: NYCBOE 2009 voter coil.

Note also that 86,000 Democratic primary voters in 2009 did not participate in the general election. In other words, of the 330,000 primary voters that year [PDF], 26% decided to not vote in November.

This yr the turnout blueprint already is following the earlier elections. Turnout in this year'southward Autonomous primary was relatively low. Most 692,000 voters went to the polls [PDF], and only 282,000 of those voted for the Democratic nominee. Turnout volition likely increase substantially on November 5, and the outcome of the election volition hinge on the preferences of these new voters.