The student elections were last week at The University of Texas - congrats to Liam, et al. The focus was on Student Government but elections also included Texas Student Media, Graduate Student Assembly, and others. Overall turnout was 10,018 votes (PDF), or 20% of the student body based on Fall 2008 enrollment figures. While not yet available, the actual student body in the spring semester tends to be slightly lower than the fall due to drop-outs and transfers. Once spring enrollment data is released the estimated turnout will likely be 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points higher.
Here is a long-term graph of turnout:

It's pretty clear that 1) online voting increases turnout, 2) a larger student body tends to have lower turnout, 3) while recent turnout is relatively high, we haven't gotten close to pre-1970s turnout. Thoughts?
The role of online social media continues to grow in importance for political organizations. Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, and dozens of other sites need to be managed, tracked, and integrated. This takes a lot of staff time, but luckily these services continue to expand their support for external programs that can manipulate data or perform actions. APIs (application programming interfaces) allow different websites or computers to talk together and do things in the background. Even sites which don't provide official APIs can often be automated using third-party tools.
In this article I'll show one simple script that uses Python and a third-party library (libgmail) to load a file of emails into gmail contacts. It's very common for web applications to support interfacing with gmail accounts to add users, so once your emails are in gmail it's simple to import them into Flickr, Twitter, etc.

It's a little tricky to show registration, turnout, and turnout of registered by age for three different elections all at once. I hope that the chart makes clear the great gains in 2004 for young voters, driven by huge increases in registration combined with strong GOTV efforts.
Selected items to note:
Feb 2009: uploaded a slightly improved chart.
I was playing around with Census data tonight and wanted to see how a Lowess (bandwidth=.15) or polynomial (6-term) smoother compared. Both deal with the sampling variability of Census data by smoothing out a line as an approximation; the polynomial version takes all of the data into account while the Lowess version only incorporates nearby data (i.e. local vs. global smoothing).
Earlier this week I uploaded a working paper I wrote back in January that compared registration, turnout, and turnout of registered between 1996 and 2006. I used a polynomial smoother because that was readily available in Excel, but I was worried it might be biasing the edges. Hat tip to Avi Feller for suggesting the use of Lowess back then.
It looks like either is fine for registration or turnout, with Lowess being a little bit better at showing local changes as one would expect. I still need to look at turnout of registered though Adding in turnout of registered there is a stronger case for Lowess in that it better shows the 18 year old turnout bump among those who are registered.

Update: For those following along at home, here is Stata code you can use to try it out (data compliments of NBER):
drop if prcitshp == 5 | prtage < 18
gen voted = pes1 == 1
gen registered = voted == 1 | pes2 == 1
gen age = prtage if prtage > 0
preserve
collapse (mean) registered (mean) voted, by(age)
lowess registered age, bwidth(0.15) gen(registered_smooth) nograph
lowess voted age, bwidth(0.15) gen(voted_smooth) nograph
list, clean
restore, preserve
* Repeat if registered == 1
* Copy results into Excel and make a chart (see attached .xlsx file for Excel 2007/2008).