SET THERECORD.
Music. Facts.
Participation.
A concept bringing live music and shared cultural moments together with source-linked election information.
A different kind
of record collection.
Trace the facts.
See the source behind a claim, what changed, and what still needs verification.
Explore the methodology →The musical recordExplore the concept.
Artists, performances, and broadcasts alongside accessible civic information. A proposed format, not an announced event.
Open the initiative decks →The participation recordMake the scale visible.
Change the assumptions. See the arithmetic behind different turnout scenarios.
Try the interactive calculator →IN DEVELOPMENT No artist lineup, event date, venue, sponsor or funding commitment is being announced.
What does a
midterm record
look like?
In the modern U.S. series, the reference point is 2018.
These rates use ballots counted divided by the estimated voting-eligible population—not registered voters and not a public-opinion poll.
Open the historical series ↗118,581,921 ballots / 236,918,088 estimated eligible people
UF Election Lab · View source ↗112,030,874 ballots / 242,907,672 estimated eligible people
UF Election Lab · View source ↗2018 is the highest midterm rate in UF Election Lab’s 1948–2022 national series—not an all-time or world record. Any future record claim needs final ballot counts and a comparable eligible-population estimate. Read the source notes ↓
Move the dial.
See the difference.
What would a different participation rate mean in ballots? Try a scenario. This is arithmetic—not an election prediction or a claim about the initiative’s impact.
Drag the slider or enter a rate. Reference and example values below are not goals or forecasts.
250 million is an example, not a verified 2026 estimate.
The difference, in ballots
9,950,000Additional ballots above a 46.12% baseline
+3.98 percentage points
- Baseline ballots
- 115,300,000
- Scenario ballots
- 125,250,000
- One percentage point
- 2,500,000 ballots
Both ballot totals use your assumed population, not the historical population. Reference rates: 2022 / 2018, UF Election Lab.
Show the arithmetic
Same assumed population for both rates. Each ballot total = population × rate ÷ 100, rounded to a whole ballot. Additional ballots = scenario total minus baseline total, with a minimum of zero. One percentage point = population ÷ 100, rounded to a whole ballot.
How many people would need to be reached?
There is no verified effect estimate for this initiative. This optional calculation shows an assumption—not what is likely to happen. Followers, views and repeat impressions are not unique eligible people.
199,000,000 unique eligible people would be required under that assumption.
Required people = additional ballots × 100 ÷ assumed additional ballots per 100 people, rounded up. This is arithmetic, not evidence of influence or an election prediction. Attribution requires a suitable independent evaluation; a national turnout increase alone cannot establish causation.
Around
the record.
Selected national elections around the world.
Context—not a world average, ranking or “global midterm” record. Election types, denominators and voting rules differ.
Scroll the collectionAustralia
2025 · House of Representatives
90.70%Enrolled voters
Compulsory voting, with exceptions.
Australian Electoral Commission ↗Brazil
2022 · General election, first round
79.05%Eligible registered voters
Compulsory voting, with age and literacy exceptions.
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral ↗Germany
2025 · Bundestag
82.5%Persons entitled to vote
Final national result.
Federal Returning Officer ↗India
2024 · Lok Sabha
66.10%Registered electors in contested constituencies
Electronic and postal votes; excludes uncontested Surat.
Election Commission of India · Atlas 2024 ↗New Zealand
2023 · General election
78.20%Electors on the master roll
Total votes cast, including the categories reported by the Commission.
Electoral Commission ↗Alphabetical, not ranked. Bars run from 0% to 100% of each source’s denominator. Compulsory-voting rules in Australia and Brazil include exceptions. How turnout measures differ ↗
Explore the world election record ↗The liner notes.
RECORD.Election.org · Initiative overview
The idea, in slides.
The music, public-information and participation concept. Proposed scope, not an announced event.
Download PowerPoint ↓THE NUMBERS.Election.org · Turnout & evidence brief
The facts, with context.
U.S. benchmarks, international reference points, scenario math and measurement limits.
Download PowerPoint ↓Questions? Ideas?
Let’s talk about the concept.
jack@election.org Big ideas. Clear boundaries.
Count activity honestly.
Materials, attendance and information-tool use can be counted with clear definitions and privacy safeguards. They do not establish additional ballots caused.
Keep the outcome open.
The initiative’s effect on turnout is unknown. A click, a registration or a national turnout increase is not proof of its causal contribution.
Keep political choice separate.
No candidate or party endorsements, demographic targeting, or access conditioned on registering or voting.
Source notes & methodology
UF Election Lab’s eligible-population estimate adjusts the voting-age population for eligibility and includes eligible overseas voters nationally. Survey-based measures use different populations and should not be mixed into this comparison. Rates here use published rounding. 2018 source · 2022 source · Historical series.
International figures retain the source’s denominator and election year. International IDEA explains the measures. Source organizations are not implied partners or endorsers.
Sources checked . The check date is not an election or publication date. Suggest a sourced correction.