- Lead
- 3,300
- Total
- 19,374
- vs nation
- R+15.6
- Turnout
- 67.5%
Houghton County, MI
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 67.5% of 28,925 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 2,628
- Total
- 18,501
- vs nation
- R+18.7
- Turnout
- 67.7%
- Lead
- 2,457
- Total
- 15,761
- vs nation
- R+17.7
- Turnout
- 57.1%
- Lead
- 1,395
- Total
- 15,361
- vs nation
- R+12.9
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 625
- Total
- 15,972
- vs nation
- R+11.2
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 2,158
- Total
- 15,851
- vs nation
- R+11.2
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 2,207
- Total
- 14,216
- vs nation
- R+16.0
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 16
- Total
- 13,671
- vs nation
- R+8.4
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+17.0MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 37,6932024 5-year
- Median household income
- $58,8992024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 90.9%2024 5-year
- Black
- 1.1%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 1.8%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+32.0 in 1964MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+76.7 in 1924MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Marquette County, MI · twin score 78.5
Midterm durability
Total general-election participants divided by same-year citizen voting-age population. These are total ballots or participating voters—not presidential candidate votes.
- 2024 total turnout
- 67.5%19,511 participants ÷ 28,925 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +13.3 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off versus state
- -1.8 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026 scenario
- 54.1%–58.4%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
| Election | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 · Presidential | 15,935 | 27,893 | 57.1% | A/A |
| 2018 · Midterm | 14,566 | 27,885 | 52.2% | A/A |
| 2020 · Presidential | 18,628 | 27,502 | 67.7% | A/A |
| 2022 · Midterm | 15,582 | 28,629 | 54.4% | A/A |
| 2024 · Presidential | 19,511 | 28,925 | 67.5% | A/A |
Sources and methods
- 2016: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 293/111.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2020: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 301/2.
- 2022: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 306/183.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
Precinct data
Results by precinct
58 precincts · 19,374 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -City of Houghton, Precinct 2City of Houghton, Precinct 2 | 1,143 | 658 | 47 | 1,848 | 61.9% | 35.6% | D+26.2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Portage Township, Precinct 2Portage Township, Precinct 2 | 590 | 811 | 23 | 1,424 | 41.4% | 57.0% | R+15.5 |
| Precinct -Adams Township, Precinct 1Adams Township, Precinct 1 | 507 | 897 | 16 | 1,420 | 35.7% | 63.2% | R+27.5 |
| Precinct -Chassell Township, Precinct 1Chassell Township, Precinct 1 | 388 | 830 | 25 | 1,243 | 31.2% | 66.8% | R+35.6 |
| Precinct -Schoolcraft Township, Precinct 1Schoolcraft Township, Precinct 1 | 425 | 726 | 23 | 1,174 | 36.2% | 61.8% | R+25.6 |
| Precinct -Calumet Township, Precinct 1Calumet Township, Precinct 1 | 435 | 688 | 25 | 1,148 | 37.9% | 59.9% | R+22.0 |
| Precinct -Calumet Township, Precinct 9Calumet Township, Precinct 9 | 407 | 652 | 8 | 1,067 | 38.1% | 61.1% | R+23.0 |
| Precinct -Stanton Township, Precinct 1Stanton Township, Precinct 1 | 290 | 656 | 15 | 961 | 30.2% | 68.3% | R+38.1 |
| Precinct -Calumet Township, Precinct 2Calumet Township, Precinct 2 | 282 | 638 | 9 | 929 | 30.4% | 68.7% | R+38.3 |
| Precinct -City of Hancock, Precinct 2City of Hancock, Precinct 2 | 420 | 408 | 12 | 840 | 50.0% | 48.6% | D+1.4 |
| Precinct -City of Hancock, Precinct 3City of Hancock, Precinct 3 | 399 | 376 | 11 | 786 | 50.8% | 47.8% | D+2.9 |
| Precinct -City of Hancock, Precinct 1City of Hancock, Precinct 1 | 413 | 280 | 17 | 710 | 58.2% | 39.4% | D+18.7 |
| Precinct -Torch Lake Township, Precinct 1Torch Lake Township, Precinct 1 | 254 | 422 | 12 | 688 | 36.9% | 61.3% | R+24.4 |
| Precinct -Franklin Township, Precinct 1Franklin Township, Precinct 1 | 203 | 431 | 6 | 640 | 31.7% | 67.3% | R+35.6 |
| Precinct -Torch Lake Township, Precinct 2Torch Lake Township, Precinct 2 | 200 | 389 | 7 | 596 | 33.6% | 65.3% | R+31.7 |
| Precinct -Osceola Township, Precinct 2Osceola Township, Precinct 2 | 161 | 368 | 5 | 534 | 30.1% | 68.9% | R+38.8 |
| Precinct -Portage Township, Precinct 4Portage Township, Precinct 4 | 168 | 328 | 11 | 507 | 33.1% | 64.7% | R+31.6 |
| Precinct -City of Houghton, Precinct 1City of Houghton, Precinct 1 | 255 | 215 | 6 | 476 | 53.6% | 45.2% | D+8.4 |
| Precinct -Hancock Township, Precinct 1Hancock Township, Precinct 1 | 118 | 236 | 4 | 358 | 33.0% | 65.9% | R+33.0 |
| Precinct -Laird Township, Precinct 1Laird Township, Precinct 1 | 95 | 222 | 3 | 320 | 29.7% | 69.4% | R+39.7 |
| Precinct -Osceola Township, Precinct 1Osceola Township, Precinct 1 | 122 | 173 | 4 | 299 | 40.8% | 57.9% | R+17.1 |
| Precinct -Calumet Township, Precinct 5Calumet Township, Precinct 5 | 160 | 132 | 5 | 297 | 53.9% | 44.4% | D+9.4 |
| Precinct -Osceola Township, Precinct 4Osceola Township, Precinct 4 | 94 | 170 | 7 | 271 | 34.7% | 62.7% | R+28.0 |
| Precinct -Franklin Township, Precinct 2Franklin Township, Precinct 2 | 118 | 122 | 3 | 243 | 48.6% | 50.2% | R+1.6 |
| Precinct -Quincy Township, Precinct 1Quincy Township, Precinct 1 | 59 | 129 | 2 | 190 | 31.1% | 67.9% | R+36.8 |
| Precinct -Elm River Township, Precinct 1Elm River Township, Precinct 1 | 70 | 85 | 3 | 158 | 44.3% | 53.8% | R+9.5 |
| Precinct -Stanton Township, Precinct 2Stanton Township, Precinct 2 | 54 | 38 | 3 | 95 | 56.8% | 40.0% | D+16.8 |
| Precinct -Duncan Township, Precinct 1Duncan Township, Precinct 1 | 26 | 55 | 0 | 81 | 32.1% | 67.9% | R+35.8 |
| Precinct -Duncan Township, Precinct 2Duncan Township, Precinct 2 | 25 | 46 | 0 | 71 | 35.2% | 64.8% | R+29.6 |
| 0610032000001061-00320-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0611260000001061-12600-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0611260000002061-12600-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0611260000005061-12600-00005 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0611260000009061-12600-00009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0611492000001061-14920-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0612334000001061-23340-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0612334000002061-23340-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0612566000001061-25660-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613030000001061-30300-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613030000002061-30300-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613630000001061-36300-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613630000002061-36300-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613630000003061-36300-00003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613632000001061-36320-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613936000001061-39360-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0613936000002061-39360-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0614422000001061-44220-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616126000001061-61260-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616126000002061-61260-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616126000004061-61260-00004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616554000002061-65540-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616554000004061-65540-00004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0616668000001061-66680-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0617184000001061-71840-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0617620000001061-76200-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0617620000002061-76200-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0618012000001061-80120-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
| 0618012000002061-80120-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | No votes |
Presidential margin, 1892–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1892 | −9.8% |
| 1896 | −48.5% |
| 1900 | −51.2% |
| 1904 | −65.4% |
| 1908 | −54.1% |
| 1912 | −9.7% |
| 1916 | −25.5% |
| 1920 | −63.6% |
| 1924 | −76.7% |
| 1928 | −25.9% |
| 1932 | −21.5% |
| 1936 | +10.8% |
| 1940 | −1.0% |
| 1944 | +5.0% |
| 1948 | −15.0% |
| 1952 | −19.5% |
| 1956 | −16.7% |
| 1960 | +1.6% |
| 1964 | +32.0% |
| 1968 | +2.5% |
| 1972 | −17.0% |
| 1976 | −4.5% |
| 1980 | −6.5% |
| 1984 | −14.6% |
| 1988 | −4.3% |
| 1992 | +6.5% |
| 1996 | +0.1% |
| 2000 | −15.5% |
| 2004 | −13.6% |
| 2008 | −3.9% |
| 2012 | −9.1% |
| 2016 | −15.6% |
| 2020 | −14.2% |
| 2024 | −17.0% |
U.S. House
Each row shows U.S. House votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
U.S. Senate
Each row shows U.S. Senate votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Governor
Each row shows Governor votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 24,944 |
| 2018 | 24,370 |
| 2020 | 26,737 |
| 2022 | 27,149 |
| 2024 | 27,942 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
−39 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −2,550 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $52,774 in average income, against $71,960 for residents who stayed — 27% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean D+2.9 on average — 20 points more Democratic-leaning than Houghton County, MI itself (R+17.0).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Marquette County, MI36D+8.7
- Baraga County, MI24R+29.8
- Wayne County, MI22D+29.0
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Marquette County, MI69
- Oakland County, MI40
- Baraga County, MI31
- Wayne County, MI23
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | −181 |
| 2012 | −263 |
| 2013 | −269 |
| 2014 | −409 |
| 2015 | −365 |
| 2016 | −65 |
| 2017 | −212 |
| 2018 | −336 |
| 2019 | −335 |
| 2021 | +233 |
| 2022 | +98 |
| 2023 | −239 |
| 2024 | −168 |
| 2025 | −39 |
Once anchored by copper mining and a polyglot immigrant workforce, Houghton County has moved steadily toward Republican margins over recent cycles, with 2024's R+17 reflecting broader rural U.P. realignment rather than any single-election swing.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 32.0 points in 1964 and a Republican high of 76.7 points in 1924. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 2.8 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 17.0 points.
A population of 37,693, a 91% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $58,899 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Marquette County and Clay County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Houghton County, Michigan. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/26061/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.