Mason County, Michigan
Precinct data
Results by precinct
49 precincts · 18,064 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Hamlin Township, Precinct 2Hamlin Township, Precinct 2 | 665 | 974 | 20 | 1,659 | 40.1% | 58.7% | R+18.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Amber Township, Precinct 1Amber Township, Precinct 1 | 559 | 955 | 24 | 1,538 | 36.3% | 62.1% | R+25.7 |
| Precinct -Pere Marquette Charter Township, Precinct 2Pere Marquette Charter Township, Precinct 2 | 478 | 609 | 20 | 1,107 | 43.2% | 55.0% | R+11.8 |
| Precinct -Hamlin Township, Precinct 1Hamlin Township, Precinct 1 | 398 | 536 | 13 | 947 | 42.0% | 56.6% | R+14.6 |
| Precinct -Victory Township, Precinct 1Victory Township, Precinct 1 | 252 | 629 | 21 | 902 | 27.9% | 69.7% | R+41.8 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 2, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 2, Precinct 1 | 416 | 434 | 11 | 861 | 48.3% | 50.4% | R+2.1 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 1, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 1, Precinct 1 | 411 | 425 | 9 | 845 | 48.6% | 50.3% | R+1.7 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 4, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 4, Precinct 1 | 414 | 400 | 6 | 820 | 50.5% | 48.8% | D+1.7 |
| Precinct -Branch Township, Precinct 1Branch Township, Precinct 1 | 269 | 516 | 9 | 794 | 33.9% | 65.0% | R+31.1 |
| Precinct -Custer Township, Precinct 1Custer Township, Precinct 1 | 192 | 563 | 12 | 767 | 25.0% | 73.4% | R+48.4 |
| Precinct -Riverton Township, Precinct 1Riverton Township, Precinct 1 | 241 | 502 | 10 | 753 | 32.0% | 66.7% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -Summit Township, Precinct 1Summit Township, Precinct 1 | 304 | 395 | 16 | 715 | 42.5% | 55.2% | R+12.7 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 3, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 3, Precinct 1 | 327 | 337 | 10 | 674 | 48.5% | 50.0% | R+1.5 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 6, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 6, Precinct 1 | 319 | 343 | 10 | 672 | 47.5% | 51.0% | R+3.6 |
| Precinct -Sherman Township, Precinct 1Sherman Township, Precinct 1 | 190 | 466 | 11 | 667 | 28.5% | 69.9% | R+41.4 |
| Precinct -Grant Township, Precinct 1Grant Township, Precinct 1 | 251 | 396 | 7 | 654 | 38.4% | 60.6% | R+22.2 |
| Precinct -Sheridan Township, Precinct 1Sheridan Township, Precinct 1 | 227 | 416 | 9 | 652 | 34.8% | 63.8% | R+29.0 |
| Precinct -City of Ludington, Ward 5, Precinct 1City of Ludington, Ward 5, Precinct 1 | 277 | 322 | 18 | 617 | 44.9% | 52.2% | R+7.3 |
| Precinct -Free Soil Township, Precinct 1Free Soil Township, Precinct 1 | 172 | 412 | 3 | 587 | 29.3% | 70.2% | R+40.9 |
| Precinct -City of Scottville, Precinct 1City of Scottville, Precinct 1 | 185 | 393 | 8 | 586 | 31.6% | 67.1% | R+35.5 |
| Precinct -Pere Marquette Charter Township, Precinct 1Pere Marquette Charter Township, Precinct 1 | 193 | 316 | 5 | 514 | 37.5% | 61.5% | R+23.9 |
| Precinct -Eden Township, Precinct 1Eden Township, Precinct 1 | 117 | 260 | 2 | 379 | 30.9% | 68.6% | R+37.7 |
| Precinct -Logan Township, Precinct 1Logan Township, Precinct 1 | 75 | 156 | 4 | 235 | 31.9% | 66.4% | R+34.5 |
| Precinct -Meade Township, Precinct 1Meade Township, Precinct 1 | 41 | 75 | 3 | 119 | 34.5% | 63.0% | R+28.6 |
| 1050198000001105-01980-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1051002000001105-10020-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1051944000001105-19440-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1052482000001105-24820-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1053062000001105-30620-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1053432000001105-34320-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1053622000001105-36220-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1053622000002105-36220-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054914000001105-49140-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964001001105-49640-01001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964002001105-49640-02001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964003001105-49640-03001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964004001105-49640-04001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964005001105-49640-05001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1054964006001105-49640-06001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1055264000001105-52640-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1056360000001105-63600-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1056360000002105-63600-00002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1056886000001105-68860-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1057208001001105-72080-01001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1057208002002105-72080-02002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1057306000001105-73060-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1057324000001105-73240-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1057722000001105-77220-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
| 1058236000001105-82360-00001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
Presidential margin, 1892–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1892 | −1.4% |
| 1896 | −15.4% |
| 1900 | −26.2% |
| 1904 | −49.1% |
| 1908 | −36.8% |
| 1912 | +5.8% |
| 1916 | −12.3% |
| 1920 | −44.0% |
| 1924 | −51.8% |
| 1928 | −46.3% |
| 1932 | +10.4% |
| 1936 | +16.8% |
| 1940 | −11.8% |
| 1944 | −17.2% |
| 1948 | −15.6% |
| 1952 | −30.1% |
| 1956 | −30.4% |
| 1960 | −16.5% |
| 1964 | +21.8% |
| 1968 | −16.8% |
| 1972 | −29.1% |
| 1976 | −19.7% |
| 1980 | −24.5% |
| 1984 | −36.4% |
| 1988 | −19.9% |
| 1992 | −2.1% |
| 1996 | +4.3% |
| 2000 | −11.4% |
| 2004 | −12.3% |
| 2008 | +4.4% |
| 2012 | −4.9% |
| 2016 | −21.8% |
| 2020 | −19.7% |
| 2024 | −21.4% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 22,833 |
| 2018 | 23,057 |
| 2020 | 24,774 |
| 2022 | 25,315 |
| 2024 | 25,696 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+141 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +1,637 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $67,494 in average income, against $67,197 for residents who stayed. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+14.9 on average — 6.4 points more Democratic-leaning than Mason County, MI itself (R+21.4).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Manistee County, MI68R+15.9
- Kent County, MI59D+5.4
- Oceana County, MI58R+30.0
- Ottawa County, MI36R+20.4
- Muskegon County, MI34R+1.8
- Lake County, MI29R+32.2
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Oceana County, MI68
- Kent County, MI67
- Manistee County, MI62
- Muskegon County, MI34
- Lake County, MI27
- Ottawa County, MI27
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 | −34 |
| 2012 | +78 |
| 2013 | +50 |
| 2014 | +141 |
| 2015 | +32 |
| 2016 | +83 |
| 2017 | +215 |
| 2018 | +105 |
| 2019 | +79 |
| 2021 | +507 |
| 2022 | +174 |
| 2023 | +4 |
| 2024 | +62 |
| 2025 | +141 |
Mason County's economy blends tourism along its Lake Michigan coast with legacy manufacturing and agriculture inland. Once a competitive swing county, it has moved steadily toward Republican margins exceeding 20 points in recent presidential cycles.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 21.8 points in 1964 and a Republican high of 51.8 points in 1924. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 1.6 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 21.4 points.
A population of 29,207, a 89% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $64,748 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Manistee County and Oneida 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 →
Mason County, Michigan. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/26105/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.