What's with the huge turnout increase in 1952?

[The Mikado]

The increase in raw votes between 1948 and 1952 is absolutely staggering. It's not limited to any region of the country, either, though the increase seems biggest in the South.

What gives?

[Del Tachi]

Eisenhower was extremely personally popular and got a lot of folks to the polls?  Plus an upswing in civic participation due to the post-WWII American "high" and concerns re: the Soviets?

[Orser67]

Eisenhower's personal popularity certainly seems like a reasonable guess as contributing factor. Additionally, Truman's approval ratings were terrible by the end of his term and I imagine that could have turned out some angry voters.

Also worth noting that turnout in 1944 and especially 1948 was lower than the elections surrounding them, so 1952 was perhaps a return to the long-term normal to some degree.

[One Term Floridian]

Plus let’s not forget higher turnout from Republicans, who must have been more enthusiastic to show up to the polls after being locked out of the White House for nearly a generation. They probably also wanted to ensure a win after the 1948 upset and didn’t want to take the election for granted, even with one of the most famous military leaders of all time as their nominee. .

[Turbo Flame]

Dwight Eisenhower was a WWII hero and the party fatigue was massive. It's just impossible to one party to hold the White House after 20 years.

[Hope For A New Era]

Plus an upswing in civic participation due to the post-WWII American "high"

Are you referring to the Strauss-Howe theory?

[Del Tachi]

Plus an upswing in civic participation due to the post-WWII American "high"

Are you referring to the Strauss-Howe theory?

Something of the sort.  I don't think their model can be relied on to make any sort of predictive inferences about the future, but it does have some value in conceptualizing and digesting 20th-century American history (which itself is an obvious product of.) 

[Storr]

In addition to what others have mentioned people were tired of the Korean War. It had become a stalemate since early 1951 and Americans had little interest in continuing to lose young men in a stagnant war with no clear end in sight. (sound familiar?) But, overall high turnout was due to Eisenhower's popularity which was a result of several different factors including his popularity as a war hero, the peak of McCarthyist anticommunist mania, Nixon balancing the Republican ticket quite well as a westerner, his promises to end the Korean War quickly if elected (which was believable to the average voter since Eisenhower was the guy who won WWII in Europe), and the historically low approval of Harry Truman to boot.

[The Mikado]

The turnout increases in the South are so intense I have to wonder if there's some Jim Crow SOMETHING that changed between 1948 and 1952? These adjustments aren't just increased enthusiasm.

South Carolina turnout:

1940: 99,832
1944: 103,375
1948: 142,571
1952: 341,086


Georgia turnout:

1940: 312,551
1944: 328,109
1948: 418,764
1952: 655,803

Alabama turnout:

1940: 294,219
1944: 244,743
1948: 214,980
1952: 426,120

Louisiana turnout:

1940: 372,305
1944: 349,383
1948: 416,336
1952: 651,952

Tennessee:

1940: 522,823
1944: 510,692
1948: 550,283
1952: 892,553

I could go on but I think you get the point. This isn't just a turnout increase, this is a fundamental shift in the voting population overnight. And it's not associated with any suffrage expansion I can think of.

Could this possibly be a natural increase in turnout due to excitement over Ike or the fact that in many Southern states this was the first really contested by the GOP presidential election since 1928? Or did the electorate itself change in some way?

[Sumner 1868]

The turnout increases in the South are so intense I have to wonder if there's some Jim Crow SOMETHING that changed between 1948 and 1952? These adjustments aren't just increased enthusiasm.

South Carolina turnout:

1940: 99,832
1944: 103,375
1948: 142,571
1952: 341,086


Georgia turnout:

1940: 312,551
1944: 328,109
1948: 418,764
1952: 655,803

Alabama turnout:

1940: 294,219
1944: 244,743
1948: 214,980
1952: 426,120

Louisiana turnout:

1940: 372,305
1944: 349,383
1948: 416,336
1952: 651,952

Tennessee:

1940: 522,823
1944: 510,692
1948: 550,283
1952: 892,553

I could go on but I think you get the point. This isn't just a turnout increase, this is a fundamental shift in the voting population overnight. And it's not associated with any suffrage expansion I can think of.

Could this possibly be a natural increase in turnout due to excitement over Ike or the fact that in many Southern states this was the first really contested by the GOP presidential election since 1928? Or did the electorate itself change in some way?

South Carolina actually repealed its poll tax that year for what it's worth. The rest is probably just transplants into suburbs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I recall there being a thread where I discussed this some years ago, probably not going to be able to recall it now but I will try to hit the highlights since my take has been sought out directly on this.

1. Massive growth of the suburbs and the impact that would have on the politics of the region, including of course the transplants.

2. Ike as a national, not a partisan, leader and thus his ability to appeal beyond what a traditional Republican would be able to do and thus get a foot in the door as a Republican that could get Dixiecrats to consider pulling the lever for a member of the party of Lincoln. Which in 1952, with the Civil War only being three generations back and just outside of living memory was certainly still a factor politically.

3. The rise of a duopoly not necessarily between the two parties but between the right generally and the New Deal Democrats. This was an after effect of the Texas Regulars in 1944 and Thurmond's bid in 1948 and it is worth pointing out that Thurmond had broad appeal in the deep South his best areas where the cities, suburbs (to the extent they existed) and low country whites.

It is necessary to compare this to the previous elections and consider the impacts of the various voting restrictions and how that would have reduced turnout massively across the board. Combine that with the lack of opposition in most general elections and the concept of the solid South making these a foregone conclusion, meant that there was not much incentive to turn out. What left-right battling was occurring, happened in primaries and once in the general the Democrats also win.

Unwrap that and you would see a massive surge in voting by "conservative" leaning areas (the Thurmond areas mentioned above) and also at the same time, the more "populist/pro-New Deal" areas as well especially with voting restrictions removed in some places that had also impacted poor whites like in South Carolina.

[Agonized-Statism]

My theory is that WWII veterans everywhere were particularly excited about Eisenhower.