This web map displays data from the voter registration database as the percent of registered voters by census tract in King County, Washington. The data for this web map is compiled from King County Elections voter registration data for the years 2013-2019. The total number of registered voters is based on the geo-_location of the voter's registered address at the time of the general election for each year. The eligible voting population, age 18 and over, is based on the estimated population increase from the US Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management and was calculated as a projected 6 percent population increase for the years 2010-2013, 7 percent population increase for the years 2010-2014, 9 percent population increase for the years 2010-2015, 11 percent population increase for the years 2010-2016 & 2017, 14 percent population increase for the years 2010-2018 and 17 percent population increase for the years 2010-2019. The total population 18 and over in 2010 was 1,517,747 in King County, Washington. The percentage of registered voters represents the number of people who are registered to vote as compared to the eligible voting population, age 18 and over. The voter registration data by census tract was grouped into six percentage range estimates: 50% or below, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91% or above with an overall 84 percent registration rate. In the map the lighter colors represent a relatively low percentage range of voter registration and the darker colors represent a relatively high percentage range of voter registration. PDF maps of these data can be viewed at King County Elections downloadable voter registration maps. The 2019 General Election Voter Turnout layer is voter turnout data by historical precinct boundaries for the corresponding year. The data is grouped into six percentage ranges: 0-30%, 31-40%, 41-50% 51-60%, 61-70%, and 71-100%. The lighter colors represent lower turnout and the darker colors represent higher turnout. The King County Demographics Layer is census data for language, income, poverty, race and ethnicity at the census tract level and is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 year Average provided by the United States Census Bureau. Since the data is based on a survey, they are considered to be estimates and should be used with that understanding. The demographic data sets were developed and are maintained by King County Staff to support the King County Equity and Social Justice program. Other data for this map is located in the King County GIS Spatial Data Catalog, where data is managed by the King County GIS Center, a multi-department enterprise GIS in King County, Washington. King County has nearly 1.3 million registered voters and is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to conduct all elections by mail. In the map you can view the percent of registered voters by census tract, compare registration within political districts, compare registration and demographic data, verify your voter registration or register to vote through a link to the VoteWA, Washington State Online Voter Registration web page.

As of July 2025, the political party that 18 to 24 year-old's in Great Britain would be most likely to vote for was the Labour Party, at 33 percent, with Labour also the most popular party among those aged 25 to 49. Reform UK was the most popular party for the 50 to 64 age group, with 29 percent of voters saying they would vote for them. For the oldest age group, the Reform was also the most popular, with 35 percent of over 65s intending to vote for them. Reform surge in the polls Since winning the last UK general election in July 2024, the ruling Labour Party have steadily become more unpopular among voters. After winning 33.7 percent of the vote in that election, the party was polling at 24 percent in April 2025, only slightly ahead of Reform UK on 23 percent. A right-wing populist party, Reform benefited from the collapse in support for the center-right Conservative Party in the last election, winning several seats at their expense. While the next UK general election is not due to be held until 2029, the government will be keen to address their collapsing approval ratings, in the face of Reform's rising support. Economic headaches for Labour in 2025 Although Labour inherited a growing economy, with falling inflation, and low unemployment from the Conservatives, the overall economic outlook for the UK is still quite gloomy. The country's government debt is around 100 percent of GDP, and without large tax rises and spending cuts, the government hopes to create a stronger, more resilient economy to reduce the deficit. While this is still a possibility, the UK's economic prospects for 2025 were recently slashed, with growth of one percent forecast, down from an earlier prediction of two percent. Although mainly due to external factors such as the threat of increasing tariffs, and general geopolitical instability, the UK's faltering economy will add further problems to the embattled government.

Analysis of ‘US non-voters poll data’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/us-non-voters-poll-datae on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

This dataset contains the data behind Why Many Americans Don't Vote.

Data presented here comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted from Sept. 15 to Sept. 25 among a sample of U.S. citizens that oversampled young, Black and Hispanic respondents, with 8,327 respondents, and was weighted according to general population benchmarks for U.S. citizens from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey March 2019 Supplement. The voter file company Aristotle then matched respondents to a voter file to more accurately understand their voting history using the panelist’s first name, last name, zip code, and eight characters of their address, using the National Change of Address program if applicable. Sixty-four percent of the sample (5,355 respondents) matched, although we also included respondents who did not match the voter file but described themselves as voting “rarely” or “never” in our survey, so as to avoid underrepresenting nonvoters, who are less likely to be included in the voter file to begin with. We dropped respondents who were only eligible to vote in three elections or fewer. We defined those who almost always vote as those who voted in all (or all but one) of the national elections (presidential and midterm) they were eligible to vote in since 2000; those who vote sometimes as those who voted in at least two elections, but fewer than all the elections they were eligible to vote in (or all but one); and those who rarely or never vote as those who voted in no elections, or just one.

The data included here is the final sample we used: 5,239 respondents who matched to the voter file and whose verified vote history we have, and 597 respondents who did not match to the voter file and described themselves as voting "rarely" or "never," all of whom have been eligible for at least 4 elections.

If you find this information useful, please let us know.

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Source: https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/tree/master/non-voters

This dataset was created by data.world's Admin and contains around 6000 samples along with Race, Q27 6, technical information and other features such as: - Q4 6 - Q8 3 - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Q10 3 in relation to Q8 6
• Study the influence of Q6 on Q10 4
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit data.world's Admin

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Since 1964, voter turnout rates in U.S. presidential elections have generally fluctuated across all age groups, falling to a national low in 1996, before rising again in the past two decades. Since 1988, there has been a direct correlation with voter participation and age, as people become more likely to vote as they get older. Participation among eligible voters under the age of 25 is the lowest of all age groups, and in the 1996 and 2000 elections, fewer than one third of eligible voters under the age of 25 participated, compared with more than two thirds of voters over 65 years.

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.

Whites have become decreasingly likely to support the Democratic Party. I show this shift is being driven by two mechanisms. The first mechanism is the process of ideological sorting. The Democratic Party has lost support among conservative whites because the relationships between partisanship, voting behavior, and policy orientations have strengthened. The second mechanism relates to demographic changes. The growth of liberal minority populations has shifted the median position on economic issues to the left and away from the median white citizen’s position. The parties have responded to these changes by shifting their positions and whites have become less likely to support the Democratic Party as a result. I test these explanations using 40 years of ANES and DW-NOMINATE data. I find that whites have become 7.7-points more likely vote for the Republican Party and mean white partisanship has shifted .25 points in favor of the Republicans as a combined result of both mechanisms.

According to an October 2024 survey, young Americans were much more likely to vote for Kamala Harris in the November 2024 presidential elections. Of those between the ages of 18 and 29, 60 percent said they were planning on voting for Harris, compared to 33 percent who said they planned on voting for Trump. In contrast, Trump was much more popular among those between 45 and 64 years old.

According to a 2023 survey of young adults in the United States, just over half of Americans between 18 and 24 years old were planning on voting in the 2024 presidential election. The likelihood among those between the ages of ** and ** was only slightly greater.

This poll, fielded January 9-12, 2008, is a part of continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on various political and social issues. A national sample of 1,130 adults was surveyed, including an oversample of African Americans, for a total of 202 African American respondents. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president and other issues such as the situation in Iraq and the economy, and whether they thought things in the country were going in the right direction. This poll focused on the 2008 presidential election, and asked respondents what was the single most important issue in their choice for president, how closely they had been following the presidential race, how likely they were to vote in the 2008 presidential primary or caucus in their state, and which candidate they would vote for if the Democratic and Republican primaries were being held that day. Iowa and New Hampshire residents were asked whether they voted in the 2008 primaries in their states and for whom they voted. Respondents were asked for their opinions of the 2008 presidential candidates, including which Democratic and Republican candidates they trusted to handle issues such as health care, the United States campaign against terrorism, immigration, and international affairs, which types of characteristics were important to them in a candidate, which candidate would bring the most change to Washington, and which candidate had the best chance to get elected as president in November 2008. Several questions asked whether respondents were more or less enthusiastic about the candidates based on the possibility that they could become the first president who was African American, female, Mormon, 72 years old when elected, or a Baptist minister, whether being African American would help or hurt Barack Obama's candidacy, and whether the country needed a president to lead the nation in the same direction as George W. Bush. Additional topics included abortion, respondents' economic and financial situation, and the war in Iraq. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), whether respondents rented or owned their home, voter registration status and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, marital status, religious preference, and whether respondents considered themselves to be a born-again Christian.

Abstract

The L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset includes demographic and voter history tables for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The dataset is built from publicly available government records about voter registration and election participation. These records indicate whether a person voted in an election or not, but they do not record whom that person voted for. Voter registration and election participation data are augmented by demographic information from outside data sources.

Methodology

To create this file, L2 processes registered voter data on an ongoing basis for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with refreshes of the underlying state voter data typically at least every six months and refreshes of telephone numbers and National Change of Address processing approximately every 30 to 60 days. These data are standardized and enhanced with propriety commercial data and modeling codes and consist of approximately 185,000,000 records nationwide.

Usage

For each state, there are two available tables: demographic and voter history. The demographic and voter tables can be joined on the LALVOTERIDvariable. One can also use the LALVOTERIDvariable to link the L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset with the L2 Consumer Dataset.

In addition, the LALVOTERIDvariable can be used to validate the state. For example, let's look at the LALVOTERID = LALCA3169443. The characters in the fourth and fifth positions of this identifier are 'CA' (California). The second way to validate the state is by using the RESIDENCE_ADDRESSES_STATEvariable, which should have a value of 'CA' (California).

The date appended to each table name represents when the data was last updated. These dates will differ state by state because states update their voter files at different cadences.

The demographic files use 698 consistent variables. For more information about these variables, see 2025-01-10-VM2-File-Layout.xlsx.

The voter history files have different variables depending on the state. The ***2025-07-09-L2-Voter-Dictionaries.tar.gz file contains .csv data dictionaries for each state's demographic and voter files. While the demographic file data dictionaries should mirror the 2025-01-10-VM2-File-Layout.xlsx*** file, the voter file data dictionaries will be unique to each state.

***2025-04-24-National-File-Notes.pdf ***contains L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset ("National File") release notes from 2018 to 2025.

***2025-07-09-L2-Voter-Fill-Rate.tar.gz ***contains .tab files tracking the percent of non-null values for any given field.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

DataMapping Tool

Data access is required to view this section.

The information system of the Central Electoral Commission accumulates notations about the voter's vote. The dataset consists of four tables: "Election Rounds", "Electoral Districts", "Voters", "Voter Markings". The table "Election rounds" contains the election identification number, election name, election round identification number, election round number, information about the current election and the date of the election round. In the table "Electoral districts" you can find information about the district identification number and the name of the district during certain elections. The "Voters" table publishes the pseudonymized personal codes, gender and year of birth of individual voters (year of birth records are modified by adding random values ​​to ensure confidentiality). The "Voter markings" table shows the marking of a certain voter's vote in specific elections. In the table you can find information about pseudonymized personal codes, the election round and the district where the vote was taken. For technical questions or possible errors, contact atverimas@stat.gov.lt.

Every four years in the United States, the electoral college system is used to determine the winner of the presidential election. In this system, each state has a fixed number of electors based on their population size, and (generally speaking) these electors then vote for their candidate with the most popular votes within their state or district. Since 1964, there have been 538 electoral votes available for presidential candidates, who need a minimum of 270 votes to win the election. Because of this system, candidates do not have to win over fifty percent of the popular votes across the country, but just win in enough states to receive a total of 270 electoral college votes. Popular results From 1789 until 1820, there was no popular vote, and the President was then chosen only by the electors from each state. George Washington was unanimously voted for by the electorate, receiving one hundred percent of the votes in both elections. From 1824, a popular vote has been conducted among American citizens (with varying levels of access for women, Blacks, and poor voters), to help electors in each state decide who to vote for (although the 1824 winner was chosen by the House of Representatives, as no candidate received over fifty percent of electoral votes). Since 1924, the difference in the share of both votes has varied, with several candidates receiving over 90 percent of the electoral votes while only receiving between fifty and sixty percent of the popular vote. The highest difference was for Ronald Reagan in 1980, where he received just 50.4 percent of the popular vote, but 90.9 percent of the electoral votes. Unpopular winners Since 1824, there have been 51 elections, and in 19 of these the winner did not receive over fifty percent of the popular vote. In the majority of these cases, the winner did receive a plurality of the votes, however there have been five instances where the winner of the electoral college vote lost the popular vote to another candidate. The most recent examples of this were in 2000, when George W. Bush received roughly half a million fewer votes than Al Gore, and in 2016, where Hillary Clinton won approximately three million more votes than Donald Trump.

This poll, conducted November 1-4, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president, whether they approved of the way the United States Congress and their own representative in Congress was handling their job, and to rate the condition of the national economy. Registered voters were asked whether they were following the upcoming congressional mid-term elections on November 7, 2006, whether they were likely to vote, and which candidate they would vote for if the election were being held that day. Registered voters who had already voted were asked which candidate they voted for, how enthusiastic they were about their vote, and whether their vote was more for one political party, or more against the other political party. Opinions were solicited on what was the most important issue in the vote for Congress, whether things in the country were generally going in the right direction, whether their reason for voting for Congress included showing support for George W. Bush, and which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the situation in Iraq and the economy. Information was collected on whether respondents had been contacted by any organization working in support of a candidate for Congress and if so, which political party they were asked to vote for, which political party best represented their own personal values, and whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. Demographic variables include sex, age, religious preference, race, education level, voter registration and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, marital status, whether anyone in the household was a veteran, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

This poll, fielded October 4-8, 2007, is a part of continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on various political and social issues. This poll focused on Virginia and the state elections. Virginia residents were asked what was the biggest issue facing Virginia at that time, whether they thought the state of Virginia was moving in the right direction, and to rate the condition of Virginia's economy. Several questions asked whether respondents approved of the way the Virginia state legislature was handling its job, and for opinions of Governor Tim Kaine, Senator James Webb, Senator John Warner, the Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature, Junior Senator Mark Warner, Former Governor Jim Gilmore, and Congressman Tom Davis. Respondents were asked how closely they had been following the races for general assembly and state senate in Virginia, how likely they would be to vote in the Virginia state elections and for whom they would vote if the 2008 United States senate race were being held that day, which political party they would like to see in control of the state legislature, and which issues would be most important in their vote for the Virginia state legislature. A series of questions asked respondents about immigration, including how many recent immigrants lived in the respondents' area at the time, how much contact they had with recent immigrants, their opinions of immigrants and how they affect the country, whether illegal immigration was a problem in their area, and how federal, state, and local governments should handle illegal immigration issues. Information was also collected on how closely respondents were following the 2008 presidential race, how likely they were to vote in the 2008 presidential primaries in their state, for whom respondents would vote if the Democratic and Republican primaries and presidential election were being held that day, and for their opinions on the 2008 potential presidential candidates. Respondents were asked which political party they trusted more to handle issues such as taxes and the war in Iraq, which political party they preferred the next president to belong to, as well as whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling the presidency. Additional topics included the Iraq War, traffic congestion in their area of the state, Virginia's transportation funding plan, and Virginia's law on abusive driver fees. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, whether respondents considered themselves to be a born-again Christian, whether anyone in the household was a military veteran, marital status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), whether respondents were born in the United States, how many years they had lived in the state of Virginia, voter registration status and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and the presence of children under the age of 18 in the household.

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 dataset covers ballots 327-32, spanning February, May, August, and October 1968. The dataset contains the data resulting from these polls in ASCII. The ballots are as follows: 327 - February This Gallup poll seeks to collect the opinions of Canadians. The majority of the questions are politically based, asking opinions of political leaders, parties, and policies. There are also some questions on current events, such as rising prices, taxation, and organ donating. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: the donation of organs upon death; the effects of rising prices in Canada on shopping; whether or not Quebec having close ties to France is positive; if taxation in Canada is fair; the major causes of high prices in Canada; the idea of making bilingual signs legal; the opinion of government spending; the treatment of Indigenous people by the government; union membership; voting patterns; if free trade will be good for Canada; who should receive Medicare; and who will make the best Prime Minister. Basic demographics variables are also included. 328 - May This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canadians on issues which are mostly political. There are several questions relating to preferred political parties and policies, and opinions of the different leaders. There are also some questions which are not directly political, but are of interest to politicians and government. Some of these include the state of various things today, euthanasia, and the voting age. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: changing the legal voting age; the characteristics of youth; interest in the upcoming election; the opinion of inter-racial marriages; the liberal election of a new leader; the opinion of marrying someone of a different religion; political views; rating Stanfield's performance; rating Douglas's performance; whether or not Euthanasia should be allowed; if Trudeau was right to call an election; and who would make the best Prime Minister. Basic demographic variables are also included. 329 - May This Gallup poll is concern almost exclusively with an upcoming election. Respondents are asked questions regarding their intentions to vote, whether or not they are on the electoral list, and how they intend to vote. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographical and social variables. Topics of interest include: the interest in the Federal election; interest in voting; if they are a registered voter; political opinions; and voting preferences. Basic demographic variables are also included. 330 - May This Gallup poll is interested exclusively in the upcoming election. There are questions about voting intentions, the recent debate on television, and whether or not the respondents are on the electoral list. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographical and social variables. Topics of interest include: eligibility to vote in next election; political preference; the viewing of the electoral debate; voting in previous elections; and who will be the next Prime Minister. Basic demographic variables are also included. 331 - August This Gallup poll aims to collect the opinions of Canadians on a variety of topics. This poll has a particularly strong interest in the religious beliefs of the respondents. There are also some questions relating to politics, asking about the preferred parties, leaders and policies. Opinions of leaders are also asked. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographical and social variables. Topics of interest include: sending aid to developing countries; common beliefs involving death and the after-life; the opinion of Quebec separatism; the opinion of unions; the performance of Trudeau as Prime Minister; political preferences; putting limits on government campaign spending; the influence religion has on life; whether Canada should become a Republic or remain loyal to Queen; whether or not homosexual acts should be considered illegal; and if the US is a sick society. Basic demographic variables are also included. 332 - October This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canada on issues important to the country, and government. The questions are about important political and social issues, including American draft-dodgers, and birth control. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographical and social variables. Topics of interest include: the availability of birth control; keeping the church and politics separate; knowledge of NATO; the opinion of Prime Minister Trudeau; the opinion of Stanfield; political opinions; the Pope's ban on birth control; the preferred next President; previous voting preferences; satisfaction with housing; the amount of say students have in academic affairs; sympathy for American draft dodgers; and who is the biggest threat to Canada. Basic demographic variables are also included.

This poll, fielded February 12-14, 2000, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy. Views were sought on the condition of the national economy, the projected federal budget surplus, and the most important problem for the government to address in the coming year. Several questions asked how much attention respondents were paying to the 2000 presidential campaign, the likelihood that they would vote in the Republican or Democratic primary, which candidate they expected to win the nomination for each party, and for whom they would vote in the presidential primary and general election. Respondents were asked for their opinions of Republican presidential candidates George W. Bush, John McCain, and Alan Keyes, Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley, the main reason they held a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each candidate, and the importance of a candidate's personal qualities and position on issues. Opinions were also solicited of First Lady Hillary Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush, the Democratic, Republican, and Reform parties, and how well members of the United States Congress were handling their jobs. Additional topics included abortion, campaign finance reform, and the effect of elections on the federal government. Information was also collected on the importance of religion on respondents' lives, whether they had access to a computer, Internet access, and e-mail, whether they had served in the United States armed forces, and whether they had a child graduating high school in the class of 2000. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, marital status, household income, education level, religious preference, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter participation history and registration status, the presence of children and teenagers in the household, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

In 2022, 77.9 percent of people aged between 65 and 74 years old were registered to vote in the United States - the highest share of any age group. In comparison, 49.1 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds were registered to vote in that year.

This is a late July 2013 YouGov political tracker survey combining data on attitudes to race and immigration with questions on mobility history as well as voting intention, media consumption and other background variables. Data is also geocoded to ward level and ward-level census variables appended. The quantitative research will be based on ONS longitudinal survey and census data, as well the large-scale Citizenship Surveys and Understanding Society surveys. We will identify individual respondents from the quantitative research and explore their responses through qualitative work, in the form of three focus groups - two in Greater London, one in Birmingham. These will probe connections between respondents' local and national identities, their intentions to move neighbourhood, and their opinions on immigration, interethnic relations, community cohesion and voting behaviour.In the past decade in Britain, the 'white working-class' has been the focus of unprecedented media and policy attention. While class is a longstanding discursive category, the prefix 'white' is an important rider. We live in an era of global migration. Population pressure from the global South, and demand for workers in the developed North, will power what some term a 'third demographic transition' involving significant declines in the white majority populations of the western world (Coleman 2010). In the UK, the upsurge in diversity arguably presents a greater challenge for the working-class part of the white British population than for the middle class. Why? First, because for lower-status members of dominant groups, their ethnic identity tends to be their most prestigious social identity (Yiftachel 1999). Second, minorities tend to be from disadvantaged backgrounds and are therefore more likely to compete for housing and jobs with the white working class. Finally, because the white working-class is less comfortable navigating the contours of the new global knowledge economy than the middle class, it is more attached to existential securities rooted in the local and national context (Skey 2011). How might the white working class respond to increasing diversity? Drawing upon Albert O. Hirschman's classic book Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970), we posit three possible responses: 'exit', 'voice' and 'accommodation.' The first possibility is white 'exit': geographic segregation, or, in the extreme, 'white flight'. A second avenue is 'voice': spearheading an identity politics based on opposition to immigration and voting for white nationalist parties. A third possibility is accommodation, in which members of the white working-class become more comfortable with elevated levels of ethnic diversity in their neighbourhood and nation. From exploratory research and existing literature, we suggest that a three-stage pattern of voice, exit and accommodation may be a useful way of thinking about white working-class responses to diversity in the UK. In other words, initial diversity meets strong white working-class resistance, expressed in attitudes and voting. This is followed by a degree of white out-migration, and then by a decline in anti-immigration sentiment and far right voting. Yet these broad patterns require finer-grained analysis that takes both individual characteristics and local context into account. This project will test these propositions through quantitative and qualitative research. There are three major dimensions of white working class attitudes and behaviour we seek to explain. Namely, whether members of the white working-class: 1) are more likely than other groups to leave or avoid areas with large or growing minority populations; 2) oppose immigration more strongly if they reside in diverse or ethnically changing wards and local authorities; and 3) support far right parties more if they reside in diverse or ethnically changing wards and local authorities. A central question we seek to answer is whether inter-ethnic contact reduces white working-class antagonism toward minorities (the contact hypothesis), or whether increased diversity leads to white flight, leaving relatively tolerant whites remaining in diverse neighbourhoods. The latter, 'hydraulic' process mimics the contact hypothesis but does not signify increased accommodation. Telephone interview of 1869 individuals (YouGov) in Britain. Further details available in the YouGov Archive Birbeck results pdf which is available in the related resources section of this project record.

Population forecasts suggest that the redistribution of the electoral college following Census 2010 and 2020 will likely benefit Southern and Western states at the expense of Northeastern states. In the short term, an electoral gain for strongly Republican states like Texas and Arizona may benefit Republican presidential candidates. But what can these population forecasts tell us about the major parties' long term electoral prospects? Burmila (2009) develops an updated model of Converse's (1966) "normal vote" to make inferences about the effect of electoral vote changes on the 2012-2028 presidential elections. Here, we test Burmila's model against known election results to derive a measure of the model's uncertainty. Our results suggest that a normal vote model (1) does not take into account the variance in state voting patterns, (2) does not make clear the limitations of its predictive power as it is applied farther in the future, and (3) is overly dependent on recent election results. We develop an improved model that corrects for these limitations. We find that the short-term boost to the Republican party is likely smaller than Burmila anticipates, and that long term predictions are too uncertain to report. We conclude by suggesting a more dynamic model of voting trends that accounts for changing demographics in temporally-distant predictions.