As of *****************, former Vice President Joe Biden had won *** Electoral College votes in the race to become the next president of the United States, securing him the presidency. Candidates need *** votes to become the next president of the United States.

The Cumulative Report includes complete official election results for the 2020 Presidential General Election as of November 29, 2020. Results are released in three separate reports: The Vote By Mail 1 report contains complete results for ballots received by the Board of Elections on or before October 21, 2020, that could be accepted and opened before Election Day. The Vote By Mail 2 Canvass report contains complete results for all remaining Vote By Mail ballots that were received in a drop box or in person at the Board of Elections by 8:00pm on November 3, or were postmarked by November 3 and received timely by the Board of Elections by 10:00am on Friday, November 13. The Vote By Mail 2 Canvass begins on Thursday, November 5. The Provisional Canvass contains complete results for all provisional ballots issued to voters at Early Voting or on Election Day. For more information on this process, please visit the 2020 Presidential General Election Ballot Canvass webpage at https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Elections/2020GeneralElection/general-ballot-canvass.html. For turnout information, please visit the Maryland State Board of Elections Press Room webpage at https://elections.maryland.gov/press_room/index.html.

Description

This dataset contains the county-wise vote share of the United States presidential election of 2020, and in the future 2024, the main advantage of the dataset is that it contains various important county statistics such as the counties racial composition, median and mean income, income inequality, population density, education level, population and the counties occupational distribution.

_Imp: this dataset will be updated as the 2024 results come in, I will also be adding more county demographic data, if you have any queries or suggestions please feel free to comment _

Motivation

The reasons for constructing this dataset are many, however the prime reason was to aggregate all the data on counties along with the election result data for easy analysis in one place. I noticed that Kaggle contains no datasets with detailed county information, and that using the US census bureau site is pretty difficult and time consuming to extract data so it would be better to have a pre-prepared table of data

Columns

• The first columns contain information on the county and state
• The next columns contain the 2020 vote both raw and %
• The next columns contain the education level of the county population
• Following that we have information about the income and income inequality in the county
• Then we have the county racial composition
• The counties population and population density
• The final columns contain information about the distribution of occupations in the county

As of November 2020, 66.8 percent of the eligible voting population in the United States voted in the 2020 presidential election. Voter turnout was highest in New Jersey and Minnesota.

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed Black voters reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, ** percent of white voters reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed females reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next President of the United States, ** percent of men reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

Data from https://github.com/TheUpshot/presidential-precinct-map-2020 released under MIT license: https://github.com/TheUpshot/presidential-precinct-map-2020/blob/main/LICENSE. For more detail, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html.

Presidential precinct data for the 2020 general election

The Upshot scraped and standardized precinct-level election results from around the country, and joined this tabular data to precinct GIS data to create a nationwide election map. This map does not have full coverage for every state: data availability and caveats for each state are listed below, and statistics about data coverage are available here. We are releasing this map's data for attributed re-use under the MIT license in this repository.

The GeoJSON dataset can be downloaded at: https://int.nyt.com/newsgraphics/elections/map-data/2020/national/precincts-with-results.geojson.gz

Properties on each precinct polygon:

• GEOID: unique identifier for the precinct, formed from the five-digit county FIPS code followed by the precinct name/ID (eg, 30003-08 or 39091-WEST MANSFIELD)
• votes_dem: votes received by Joseph Biden
• votes_rep: votes received by Donald Trump
• votes_total: total votes in the precinct, including for third-party candidates and write-ins
• votes_per_sqkm: total votes divided by the area of the precinct, rounded to one decimal place
• pct_dem_lead: (votes_dem - votes_rep) / (votes_dem + votes_rep), rounded to one decimal place (eg, -21.3)

Due to licensing restrictions, we are unable to include the 2016 election results that appear in our interactive map.

Please contact dear.upshot@nytimes.com if you have any questions about data quality or sourcing, beyond the caveats we describe below.

General caveats

• Where possible, we used official precinct boundaries provided by the states or counties, but in most cases these were not available and we generated boundaries ourselves, using L2 voter-file points to guess the precinct for each census block group; this results in generally accurate precinct boundaries, but can be rough in no- or very-low-population places like business parks or uninhabited rural land.
  • Because of this, spatially joining our precinct GeoJSON to other geographic datasets will most likely yield less-than-ideal output.
• Some of the results we gathered are unofficial/uncertified, since the certified tabulations hadn't yet been released at time of gathering.
• A very small portion of the tabular precinct results (roughly 0.01%) could not be joined to the precinct boundaries, and thus these results are not present in the GeoJSON.
• A few areas, such as rural Maine, Vermont and Hawaii, contain no voters, and those polygons are excluded from the GeoJSON.

State-by-state data availability and caveats

Note: One of the most common causes of precinct data being unusable is "countywide" tabulations. This occurs when a county reports, say, all of its absentee ballots together as a single row in its Excel download (instead of precinct-by-precinct); because we can't attribute those ballots to specific precincts, that means that all precincts in the county will be missing an indeterminite number of votes, and therefore can't be reliably mapped. In these cases, we drop the entire county from our GeoJSON.

• AL: ❌ absentee and provisional results are reported countywide
• AK: ❌ absentee, early, and provisional results are reported district-wide
• AZ: ✅
• AR: ⚠️ we could not generate or procure precinct maps for Jefferson County or Phillips County
• CA: ⚠️ only certain counties report results at the precinct level, additional collection is in progress
• CO: ✅
• CT: ⚠️ township-level results rather than precinct-level results
• DE: ✅
• DC: ✅
• FL: ⚠️ precinct results not yet available statewide
• GA: ✅
• HI: ✅
• ID: ⚠️ many counties ...

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed 18 to 29 year old voters reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, ** percent of voters aged 65 and older reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

AP VoteCast combines interviews with a random sample of registered voters drawn from state voter files with self-identified registered voters selected using nonprobability approaches. In general elections, it also includes interviews with self-identified registered voters conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak® panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

Interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents may receive a small monetary incentive for completing the survey. Participants selected as part of the random sample can be contacted by phone and mail and can take the survey by phone or online. Participants selected as part of the nonprobability sample complete the survey online.

In the 2020 general election, the survey of 133,103 interviews with registered voters was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 3, concluding as polls closed on Election Day. AP VoteCast delivered data about the presidential election in all 50 states as well as all Senate and governors’ races in 2020.

Using this Data - IMPORTANT

This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

National Survey

The national AP VoteCast survey of voters and nonvoters in 2020 is based on the results of the 50 state-based surveys and a nationally representative survey of 4,141 registered voters conducted between Nov. 1 and Nov. 3 on the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. It included 41,776 probability interviews completed online and via telephone, and 87,186 nonprobability interviews completed online. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points for voters and 0.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

State Surveys

In 20 states in 2020, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 1,000 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 3,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for voters and 5.5 percentage points for nonvoters.

In an additional 20 states, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 500 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 2,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for voters and 6.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

In the remaining 10 states, AP VoteCast is based on about 1,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for voters and 11.0 percentage points for nonvoters.

Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the poll estimates, as well as the variability associated with the survey weights as a result of calibration. After calibration, the nonprobability sample yields approximately unbiased estimates.

As with all surveys, AP VoteCast is subject to multiple sources of error, including from sampling, question wording and order, and nonresponse.

Sampling Details

Probability-based Registered Voter Sample

In each of the 40 states in which AP VoteCast included a probability-based sample, NORC obtained a sample of registered voters from Catalist LLC’s registered voter database. This database includes demographic information, as well as addresses and phone numbers for registered voters, allowing potential respondents to be contacted via mail and telephone. The sample is stratified by state, partisanship, and a modeled likelihood to respond to the postcard based on factors such as age, race, gender, voting history, and census block group education. In addition, NORC attempted to match sampled records to a registered voter database maintained by L2, which provided additional phone numbers and demographic information.

Prior to dialing, all probability sample records were mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Postcards were addressed by name to the sampled registered voter if that individual was under age 35; postcards were addressed to “registered voter” in all other cases. Telephone interviews were conducted with the adult that answered the phone following confirmation of registered voter status in the state.

Nonprobability Sample

Nonprobability participants include panelists from Dynata or Lucid, including members of its third-party panels. In addition, some registered voters were selected from the voter file, matched to email addresses by V12, and recruited via an email invitation to the survey. Digital fingerprint software and panel-level ID validation is used to prevent respondents from completing the AP VoteCast survey multiple times.

AmeriSpeak Sample

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by mail, email, telephone and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box-only addresses, some addresses not listed in the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and some newly constructed dwellings. Registered voter status was confirmed in field for all sampled panelists.

Weighting Details

AP VoteCast employs a four-step weighting approach that combines the probability sample with the nonprobability sample and refines estimates at a subregional level within each state. In a general election, the 50 state surveys and the AmeriSpeak survey are weighted separately and then combined into a survey representative of voters in all 50 states.

State Surveys

First, weights are constructed separately for the probability sample (when available) and the nonprobability sample for each state survey. These weights are adjusted to population totals to correct for demographic imbalances in age, gender, education and race/ethnicity of the responding sample compared to the population of registered voters in each state. In 2020, the adjustment targets are derived from a combination of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, Catalist’s voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. Prior to adjusting to population totals, the probability-based registered voter list sample weights are adjusted for differential non-response related to factors such as availability of phone numbers, age, race and partisanship.

Second, all respondents receive a calibration weight. The calibration weight is designed to ensure the nonprobability sample is similar to the probability sample in regard to variables that are predictive of vote choice, such as partisanship or direction of the country, which cannot be fully captured through the prior demographic adjustments. The calibration benchmarks are based on regional level estimates from regression models that incorporate all probability and nonprobability cases nationwide.

Third, all respondents in each state are weighted to improve estimates for substate geographic regions. This weight combines the weighted probability (if available) and nonprobability samples, and then uses a small area model to improve the estimate within subregions of a state.

Fourth, the survey results are weighted to the actual vote count following the completion of the election. This weighting is done in 10–30 subregions within each state.

National Survey

In a general election, the national survey is weighted to combine the 50 state surveys with the nationwide AmeriSpeak survey. Each of the state surveys is weighted as described. The AmeriSpeak survey receives a nonresponse-adjusted weight that is then adjusted to national totals for registered voters that in 2020 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, the Catalist voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. The state surveys are further adjusted to represent their appropriate proportion of the registered voter population for the country and combined with the AmeriSpeak survey. After all votes are counted, the national data file is adjusted to match the national popular vote for president.

This is the dataset I used to figure out which sociodemographic factor including the current pandemic status of each state has the most significan impace on the result of the US Presidential election last year. I also included sentiment scores of tweets created from 2020-10-15 to 2020-11-02 as well, in order to figure out the effect of positive/negative emotion for each candidate - Donald Trump and Joe Biden - on the result of the election.

Details for each variable are as below: - state: name of each state in the United States, including District of Columbia - elec16, elec20: dummy variable indicating whether Trump gained the electoral votes of each state or not. If the electors casted their votes for Trump, the value is 1; otherwise the value is 0 - elecchange: dummy variable indicating whether each party flipped the result in 2020 compared to that of the 2016 - demvote16: the rate of votes that the Democrats, i.e. Hillary Clinton earned in the 2016 Presidential election - repvote16: the rate of votes that the Republicans , i.e. Donald Trump earned in the 2016 Presidential election - demvote20: the rate of votes that the Democrats, i.e. Joe Biden earned in the 2020 Presidential election - repvote20: the rate of votes that the Republicans , i.e. Donald Trump earned in the 2020 Presidential election - demvotedif: the difference between demvote20 and demvote16 - repvotedif: the difference between repvote20 and repvote16 - pop: the population of each state - cumulcases: the cumulative COVID-19 cases on the Election day - caseMar ~ caseOct: the cumulative COVID-19 cases during each month - Marper10k ~ Octper10k: the cumulative COVID-19 cases during each month per 10 thousands - unemp20: the unemployment rate of each state this year before the election - unempdif: the difference between the unemployment rate of the last year and that of this year - jan20unemp ~ oct20unemp: the unemployment rate of each month - cumulper10k: the cumulative COVID-19 cases on the Election day per 10 thousands - b_str_poscount_total: the total number of positive tweets on Biden measured by the SentiStrength - b_str_negcount_total: the total number of negative tweets on Biden measured by the SentiStrength - t_str_poscount_total: the total number of positive tweets on Trump measured by the SentiStrength - t_str_poscount_total: the total number of negative tweets on Trump measured by the SentiStrength - b_str_posprop_total: the proportion of positive tweets on Biden measured by the SentiStrength - b_str_negprop_total: the proportion of negative tweets on Biden measured by the SentiStrength - t_str_posprop_total: the proportion of positive tweets on Trump measured by the SentiStrength - t_str_negprop_total: the proportion of negative tweets on Trump measured by the SentiStrength - white: the proportion of white people - colored: the proportion of colored people - secondary: the proportion of people who has attained the secondary education - tertiary: the proportion of people who has attained the tertiary education - q3gdp20: GDP of the 3rd quarter 2020 - q3gdprate: the growth rate of the 3rd quarter 2020, compared to that of the same quarter last year - 3qsgdp20: GDP of 3 quarters 2020 - 3qsrate20: the growth rate of GDP compared to that of the 3 quarters last year - q3gdpdif: the difference in the level of GDP of the 3rd quarter compared to the last quarter - q3rate: the growth rate of the 3rd quarter compared to the last quarter - access: the proportion of households having the Internet access

Voting precincts are the most granular spatial units for reporting election outcomes, whereas census geographies, such as block groups, census tracts, and ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs), are commonly used for publishing demographic, economic, health, and environmental data. This dataset bridges the two by reallocating precinct-level votes to standard census geographies through a systematic and replicable framework. The reallocation assumes that votes within each precinct are distributed proportionally to the household population. Household population counts from census block groups—the smallest census unit with regularly updated population estimates—are used to allocate votes to fractions created by the intersection of precinct and census boundaries. This process is implemented using three allocation strategies: areal weighting, impervious surface weighting, and Regionalized Land Cover Regression (RLCR). Results from all three methods are provided. Among these, the RLCR method demonstrates the highest accuracy based on validation against voter-level ground truth data and is recommended as the primary version for analysis. The alternative methods may serve as robustness checks or sensitivity tests. The dataset currently includes the 2016 and 2020 U.S. general elections and is designed for seamless integration with other datasets, such as the American Community Survey (ACS), CDC PLACES, or IRS Statistics of Income (SOI), via the GEOID field.

The IPUMS Contextual Determinants of Health (CDOH) data series provides access to measures of disparities, policies, and counts, by state or county, for historically marginalized populations in the United States including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latina/o/e/x, and LGBTQ+ persons, and women. The IPUMS CDOH data are made available through ICPSR/DSDR for merging with the National Couples' Health and Time Study (NCHAT), United States, 2020-2021 (ICPSR 38417) by approved restricted data researchers. All other researchers can access the IPUMS CDOH data via the IPUMS CDOH website. Unlike other IPUMS products, the CDOH data are organized into multiple categories related to Race and Ethnicity, Sexual and Gender Minority, Gender, and Politics. The measures were created from a wide variety of data sources (e.g., IPUMS NHGIS, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Movement Advancement Project, and Myers Abortion Facility Database). Measures are currently available for states or counties from approximately 2015 to 2020. The Politics measures in this release include county-level presidential election results from 2000-2020, indicating the proportion of votes cast for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in each presidential election. To work with the IPUMS CDOH data, researchers will need to use the variable MATCH_ID to merge the data in DS1 with NCHAT surveys within the virtual data enclave (VDE).

US election season is here, which means it's time to analyze some polling data! Less than four years ago, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, and on November 2nd, 2020, he will run for re-election against a Democratic challenger. Kernels may answer a variety of questions, including: "How accurate were the polls in 2016?", "Which Democratic challenger will fare best against Trump in 2020 according to the polls?", "Which states are anybody's game?", and of course the ultimate question, "Will Trump win again in 2020?" Then, after November 2nd, we can ask ourselves what happened in 2020!

The two datasets included here include:

• US 2016 General Election Results by State and County (from Data World)
• US 2020 General Election Polling Data (from FiveThirtyEight)

This data should be used in conjunction with the 2016 General Election Polling Data from this link: https://www.kaggle.com/fivethirtyeight/2016-election-polls

The 2020 polling data will be updated regularly until the election on November 2nd, 2020. Then, I will upload a dataset of 2020 general election final results. As time goes on and we get closer to the election, we will acquire higher quantities of data and data that is more representative of what might happen on November 2nd. Have fun!

U.S. Presidential Election Constituency Returns (1976-2020)

  Dataset Summary

This dataset contains state-level constituency returns for U.S. presidential elections from 1976 to 2020, compiled by the MIT Election Data Science Lab. The dataset includes 4,287 observations across 15 variables, offering detailed insights into the voting patterns for presidential elections over four decades. The data sources include the biennially published document “Statistics of the… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/fdaudens/us-presidential-elections-with-electoral-college.

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview: January 2025 municipal wards were collected in January 2025 by LTSB through LTSB's GeoData Collector. Current statutes require each county clerk, or board of election commissioners, no later than January 15 and July 15 of each year, to transmit to the LTSB, in an electronic format (approved by LTSB), a report confirming the boundaries of each municipality, ward and supervisory district within the county as of the preceding “snapshot” date of January 1 or July 1 respectively. Population totals for 2025 wards were estimated by aggregating 2020 US Census PL94-171 population data. LTSB has NOT topologically integrated the data. Election Data Overview: The 2024 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after the general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. Disaggregation of Election Data: Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward.The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population.When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the WEC at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file.Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2020 historical population limits.Other things of note… We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2025) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if "Cityville" has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward five was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election ResultsThe process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2018: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2020: Wards 2020 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2022: Wards 2022 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2024: Wards 2025 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined above.In the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2024.Blocks [with all election data] -> Wards 2025 (then MCD 2025, and County 2025) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2025 assignment of the blocks.Notes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001, 2011, 2020, 2022, and 2025 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though MCD and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same, so data should total within a county the same between wards 2011 and wards 2025.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2025. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2025, and annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.*WEC replaced the previous Government Accountability Board (GAB) in 2016, which replaced the previous State Elections Board in 2008.

This study contains files of Presidential election votes by State, County, and Town for each U.S. Presidential election year from 1964-2020. From Dave Leip, Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Note: MIT posted similar publicly available data beginning with 1976 at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/42MVDX

Information available in each dataset

If you want to know what each Presidential Election dataset contains before downloading it, for easy reference, the CCSS Data Services team prepared a spreadsheet summarizing the contents of each dataset. You can view them in this Summary of contents and codebooks spreadsheet.

The summary spreadsheet contains the following: 1. A matrix table summarizing the information available in each Presidential election dataset 2. Codebook describing the variables in the Presidential Election vote data at the State level 3. Codebook describing the variables in the Presidential Election vote data at the County level 4. Codebook describing the variables in the Presidential Election vote data at the Town level 5. A matrix table listing the statistics and graphs included in each Presidential election dataset

Labels of the variables in the State, County, and Town data, as well as a description of each tab in the dataset, are also available here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/DOWNLOAD/spread_national.html

Dave Leip's website

The Dave Leip website here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php has additional years of data available going back to 1912 but at a fee.

Sometimes the files are updated by Dave Leip, and new versions are made available, but CCSS is not notified. If you suspect the file you want may be updated, please get in touch with CCSS Data Discovery and Replication Services. These files were last checked for updates in June 2024.

Note that file version numbers are those assigned to them by Dave Leip's Election Atlas. Please refer to the CCSS Data and Reproduction Archive Version number in your citations for the full dataset.

David Leip provides election returns from presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial and House races at state, county and precinct level. Data includes names of candidates, parties, popular and electoral vote totals, voter turnout, and more. While some data is available for free on David Leip’s website, MIT researchers have access to more granular data from following elections and years: Presidential Primaries (county level): 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024 Presidential General Elections Results by: State: 1824-2024 County: 1980, 2016, 2020, 2024 Precincts: 1992, 1996, 2016, 2020 Congressional districts: 2016, 2020 Gubernatorial General Election : 2022 House of Representatives (General Election, state, county, congressional districts level): 1992 – 2024 U.S. Senate (General Election, state,county, town level): 2020, 2022, 2024 Registration and Turnout (General Election , state, county level): 1992-2024 DATA AVAILABLE FOR YEARS: 1824-2024 (some coverage gaps)

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview:July 2020 municipal wards were collected by LTSB through the WISE-Decade system. Current statutes require each county clerk, or board of election commissioners, no later than January 15 and July 15 of each year, to transmit to the LTSB, in an electronic format (approved by LTSB), a report confirming the boundaries of each municipality, ward and supervisory district within the county as of the preceding “snapshot” date of January 1 or July 1 respectively. Population totals for 2011 wards are carried over to the 2020 dataset for existing wards. New wards created since 2011 due to annexations, detachments, and incorporation are allocated population from Census 2010 collection blocks. LTSB has topologically integrated the data, but there may still be errors.Election Data Overview:The 2012-2020 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. Disaggregation of Election Data:Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward. The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population. When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the WEC at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file. Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note…We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2020) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if Cityville has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward 5 was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards 1 and 4 according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election ResultsThe process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2018: Wards 2018Elections 2020: Wards 2020Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (occurred with spring 2020) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2018Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2020 (then MCD 2020, and County 2020) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2020 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though MCD and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same, so data should total within a county the same between wards 2011 and wards 2020.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2020. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2020, and annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.*WEC replaced the previous Government Accountability Board (GAB) in 2016, which replaced the previous State Elections Board in 2008.

Context: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic occurred during a time of political tension in the United States. County-level political environment may have been influential in COVID-19 outcomes. Objective: This study examined the association between county-level political environment and age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rates from 2020 to 2022. Design & Setting: Political environment was measured by the 2020 Presidential election results and compared with age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rates by county in Colorado. Main Outcome Measures: Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression incorporating a population offset term. Models adjusted for populational differences using the demographics percentile from Colorado’s EnviroScreen Environmental Justice Tool. Results: Age-adjusted county mortality rates ranged from 14.3 to 446.8.0 per 100,000. 2021 COVID-19 mortality rates were nearly twice as high in counties voting for Donald Trump compared to those voting for Joseph Biden (adjusted RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.59, 2.47). Results for 2020 and 2022 mortality models were also in the positive direction, though the confidence intervals crossed null values. Conclusion: These results build on a growing body of evidence that the political environment may have been influential for COVID-19 mortality, helping to understand the drivers of health outcomes. Implications for the public health system as we shift into the endemic period of COVID-19 include motivation for collaborative work to restore and rebuild trust among and between stakeholders and the community, as well as increase health education given its’ influence on both individual and community behaviors.

Methods All exposures and covariate data was publicly available. Mortality outcome data obtained through a data request for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Data was organized into an Excel file for ease of use and analyzed in R.