According to a 2023 survey, Americans between 18 and 29 years of age were more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than any other surveyed age group. While 39 percent identified as Democrats, only 14 percent identified ad Republicans. However, those 50 and older identified more with the Republican Party.

In the last few decades, the Democratic Party has often pulled ahead of the Republican Party in terms of party identification. However, 2022 saw a shift in party identification, with slightly more Americans identifying with the Republican Party for the first time since 2011, when both parties stood at ** percent in 2011. These values include not only those surveyed who identified with a major political party, but also those who identified as independent, but have leanings towards one party over another.

Since 1988, the share of adults in the U.S. who identify as political independents has continued to grow, often surpassing the that of Democrats or Republicans. In 2024, approximately ** percent of adults rejected identification with the major parties, compared to ** percent of respondents identified with the Democratic Party, and ** percent with the Republican Party.

According to a 2023 survey of U.S. adults, non-Hispanic white adults were much more likely to identify as Republican or Republican-leaning than non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults.

These values include not only those surveyed who identified with a major political party, but also those who identified as independent, but have leanings towards one party over another.

This dataset was designed to provide information on the personal and political backgrounds, political attitudes, and relevant behavior of party leaders. The data pertain to Democratic and Republican party elites holding office during the election year of 1980 and include County and State Chairs, members of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, and delegates to the National Conventions. These data focus on the "representativeness" of the party elites on a variety of dimensions and also permit a comparison of party leaders from the local, state, and national organizational levels. Other issues explored include the party reform era, the effects of the growing body of party law, and the nationalization of the political parties. Specific variables include characterization of respondent's political beliefs on the liberal-conservative scale, length of time the respondent had been active in the party, and the respondent's opinions on minorities in the party, party unity, national- and local-level party strength, and party loyalty. Respondents were also queried on attitudes toward important national problems, defense spending, and inflation. In addition, their opinions were elicited on controversial provisions in their parties' charters and on the directions their parties should take in the future. Demographic characteristics are supplied as well.

The Detroit Area Study (DAS) is a face-to-face survey of adults in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area. Information was collected on the political attitudes and behavior of 596 adults in the period during the fall of 1956 and early spring 1957. This collection was a combination of two separate studies: PARTY LEADERSHIP AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR by Daniel Katz and Samuel Eldersveld, and INTRA-CLASS CORRELATION OF ATTITUDES IN DETROIT by Leslie Kish. Of the 596 respondents, 149 were categorized as belonging to a leadership sample consisting of 77 Republicans and 72 Democratic precinct leaders. For data on the political activities and attitudes of party leaders, see the related collection, DETROIT AREA STUDY, 1957: LEADER SURVEY (ICPSR 7107) (ICPSR 07107). Items in this survey focused on perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of the adult public toward party structures and organizations at the county, district, and precinct levels. In order to assess the sources of influence on the respondents' political attitudes and behavior, they were asked about the mass media they depended on most heavily for political information, as well as the frequency with which politics was discussed in meetings of their families, friends, neighbors, and other groups to which they belonged. A series of questions asked for whom respondents had voted in the 1956 presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional races, as well as which presidential candidate their family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors voted for. Other questions elicited information about the respondents' knowledge of and involvement in local party politics and their knowledge of precinct workers and their state party chairman. Also explored were respondents' feelings about the importance of voting, their general attitudes toward politics and political figures such as Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, their perception of the differences between the major parties on various issues, and their opinions on several controversial issues such as a national health care, school integration, ending the military draft, and monetary aid to countries that were not anti-communist. Additional items covered the use of telephones in respondents' homes, their living experiences before coming to Detroit, their handling of change of residences since coming to Detroit, and their feelings about their neighborhood. Demographic variables include the respondent's age, sex, race, education level, place of birth, marital status, number of children, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, political party affiliation, voter registration status and participation history, employment status, occupation, labor union membership, perceived social class, relationship to the head of household, length of time at present residence, and length of residence in the Detroit area. Demographic information was collected on the nationality, occupation, and political party affiliation of the respondent's father. Information was also collected on the number and ages of household members, the number of household members employed, labor union membership in the household, household income, whether anyone in the household was employed by the government, and the occupation and employment status of the head of the household.

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.

Details the statistics of the Electoral College vote and popular vote over time in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Also shows the voting population participation trend over time.

This data collection contains electoral and demographic data for Massachusetts counties and cities during 1848-1876. The data for this collection were compiled to study electoral changes in Massachusetts politics during the Civil War period and to link the changes to socioeconomic determinants of support for the Republican and Democratic parties. Specific variables include number of voters for specific years and demographic information such as number of males and females and number of males employed in certain trades. Electoral data consists of election results.

This Gallup Poll aims to gather the Canadians' opinons of politics. Included is data regarding voting habits, election interest, favoured political parties, and attitudes towards the careers of politicians. Information regarding demographics, geographic location and social class was also collected from the respondents. Topics of interest include: car ownership; family problems; the federal election; phone ownership; political careers for the respondents' sons; political parties; union membership; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included.

This dataset contains simulated data for social media users' demographics, behaviors, and perceptions related to political content. It includes features such as age, gender, education level, occupation, social media usage frequency, exposure to political content, and perceptions of accuracy and relevance.

the features included in the "Social Media Political Content Analysis Dataset":

1. Age: Age of the user.
2. Gender: Gender identity of the user.
3. Education Level: Highest level of education attained by the user.
4. Occupation: Current occupation of the user.
5. Political Affiliation: Political leaning or affiliation of the user (e.g., Liberal, Conservative, Independent).
6. Geographic Location: Country or region where the user is located (e.g., USA, UK, Canada, Australia).
7. Social Media Usage Frequency: Frequency of social media usage by the user (e.g., 0-1 hour, 1-2 hours, 2-4 hours, 4+ hours).
8. Preferred Social Media: Social media platform preferred by the user (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram).
9. Political Content Exposure: Frequency of exposure to political content on social media (e.g., Once a day, Few times a week, Rarely, Several times a day).
10. Types of Political Content: Types of political content consumed by the user (e.g., News articles, Opinion pieces, Memes).
11. Sources of Political Content: Sources from which the user obtains political content (e.g., Mainstream media, Political parties, Independent bloggers).
12. Recency of Exposure: Recency of the user's exposure to political content (e.g., Within the last hour, Within the last 24 hours, Within the last week, Longer than a week ago).
13. Interactions Frequency: Frequency of user interactions with political content on social media (e.g., Once a day, Few times a week, Rarely, Several times a day).
14. Political Content Topics: Topics of political content that interest the user (e.g., Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Environment).
15. Perception of Accuracy: User's perception of the accuracy of political content on social media (e.g., Very accurate, Somewhat accurate, Not accurate).
16. Awareness of Algorithms: Whether the user is aware of algorithms that determine their social media feed (e.g., Yes, No).
17. Perception of Relevance: User's perception of the relevance of political content on social media (e.g., Very relevant, Somewhat relevant, Not relevant).
18. Personal Impact: User's perception of the personal impact of political content on social media (e.g., Strong impact, Moderate impact, No impact).
19. Trust in Social Media: User's level of trust in social media as a source of political information (e.g., Trust a lot, Trust somewhat, Do not trust).
20. Concerns about Algorithms: User's level of concern about algorithms shaping their social media experience (e.g., Very concerned, Somewhat concerned, Not concerned).
21. Overall Quality of Discourse: User's perception of the overall quality of political discourse on social media (e.g., High quality, Moderate quality, Low quality).
22. Views on Influence: User's perception of the influence of political content on social media (e.g., Very influential, Somewhat influential, Not influential).
23. Suggestions for Improvement: User's suggestions for improving the quality or experience of political content on social media (e.g., Increase transparency, Provide more diverse sources, Improve fact-checking, Enhance user controls).

Political situation in Germany. Attitudes towards political parties.

Topics: Turnout intention and voting intention (Sunday question); Alternative voting intention; other electable party: Pirate Party; other electable party: Free voters; voting behaviour in the last federal election in 2009 (recall); positive or negative association with terms (people´s party, compassion, conservative, christian, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance justice, social market economy, centre, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent saving, respect, demographic change, values, tradition, home, trust); annoyance about political decisions; issues about which one was annoyed; affected by political decisions (current); decisions by which one was personally affected (current); positive or negative impact of the decision; affected by political decisions (prospective); decisions by which one will be personally affected (prospective); party with which one feels most comfortable; subjective affiliation with ´little people´.

Political positions (politics takes care of the problems of the little people, concern about limiting living standards, debt reduction to maintain prosperity, public debt is good if it is made for the future of the children, fear of going out alone in the evening, problems keeping up with the pace of everyday life, state support for those who are willing to perform, acceptance of the performance principle, people´s parties prevent the assertion of individual interests, 30 km/h speed limit in cities, support for large-scale projects); association of certain terms with parties (people´s party, modern, compassionate, conservative, christian, down-to-earth, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, advancement, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance fairness, future, social market economy, centre, prosperity, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent savings, demographic change, values, tradition, home, good governance, expertise, cares for citizens, party for all, can move Germany forward, strong leadership, energetic, honest, reliable, credible, responsible, trust).

Demography: age; highest school-leaving qualification; intended school-leaving qualification, completed studies; completed apprenticeship; occupation; profession; household size; frequency of churchgoing; party identification (direction, strength, stability); sex.

Additionally coded were: Federal state; inhabitant of place of residence; target persons in the household; number of telephone numbers; indicator replenishment sample; weighting factors.

According to a survey conducted in 2023, Gen Z teens were more likely than other generations to identify as independents in the United States, at ** percent. A further ** percent of Gen Z teens identified as Democratic, while ** percent identified as Republicans.

This special topic poll, conducted November 6-10, 1996, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of political and social issues. The focus of this data collection was on the presidential and congressional elections held November 5, 1996. In the days following the election, respondents who had voted were asked about their choice for president, when they decided on their candidate, whether they had known enough about the candidates to make an informed choice, and whether factors such as leadership and a candidate's stance on issues were major or minor reasons for their vote. Respondents were quizzed on their knowledge of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as well as party platforms, campaign funding, and which party had the most members in the United States Congress. Views were sought on the media's treatment of the presidential candidates, campaign advertisements featuring the issue of Medicare, whether the presidential campaigns were more negative than in the past, and whether the news media should report public opinion poll results. Other topics addressed the condition of the national economy, abortion, sources of campaign information, types of negative news media coverage, and how much attention respondents paid to media coverage of the presidential campaign. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, ethnicity, education level, marital status, household income, political party affiliation, political philosophy, labor union membership, voter registration status, religious preference, and whether respondents thought of themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.

Abstract: Islamist political parties are a structural feature of politics across the Muslim world, raising persisting questions for scholars of democracy. Under what conditions will Islamists moderate to support democracy and pluralism? Under what conditions will they adopt more exclusive behavior? Taking a fresh approach, we focus on electoral competition and the conditions under which Islamic party candidates campaign using either inclusive nationalist appeals or exclusively Islamic appeals. Using a unique data source, we coded the appeals contained on the campaign posters of 572 Islamic party candidates in Indonesia. We found that demographics, urban-rural differences, and the level of government office (i.e., national or regional) affected the inclusive or exclusive nature of campaigns. We also highlight differences in appeals made by candidates from Muslim democratic and Islamist parties. The study illustrates the effectiveness of posters as a data source and presents a new approach to understanding the behavior of Islamic parties.

Supplementary Empirical Teaching Units in Political Science (SETUPS) for American Politics are computer-related modules designed for use in teaching introductory courses in American government and politics. The modules are intended to demonstrate the process of examining evidence and reaching conclusions and to stimulate students to independent, critical thinking and a deeper understanding of substantive content. They enable students with no previous training to make use of the computer to analyze data on political behavior or to see the results of policy decisions by use of a simulation model. The SETUPS: AMERICAN POLITICS modules were developed by a group of political scientists with experience in teaching introductory American government courses who were brought together in a workshop supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation in the summer of 1974. The American Political Science Association administered the grant, and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research was host to the workshop and provided data for most of the SETUPS. The modules were tested and evaluated during the 1974-1975 academic year by students and faculty in 155 classes at 69 universities and colleges. Appropriate revisions were made based upon this experience. This collection comprises 15 separate modules: (1) Political Socialization Across the Generations, (2) Political Participation, (3) Voting Behavior, The 1980 Election, (4) Elections and the Mass Media, (5) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Court Decisions, (6) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Police Interrogations, (7) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, State Expenditures, (8) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE Simulation, (9) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE II Simulation, (10) Fear of Crime, (11) Presidential Popularity in America, Presidential Popularity, (12) Presidential Popularity in America, Advanced Analyses, (13) Campaign '80, The Public and the Presidential Selection Process, (14) Voting Behavior, The 1976 Election, and (15) Policy Responsiveness and Fiscal Strain in 51 American Communities. Parts 8 and 9 are FORTRAN IV program SIMSTATE sourcedecks intended to simulate the interaction of state policies. Variables in the various modules provide information on respondents' level of political involvement and knowledge of political issues, general political attitudes and beliefs, news media exposure and usage, voting behavior (Parts 1, 2, and 3), and sectional biases (15). Other items provide information on respondents' views of government, politics, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter as presidents, best form of government, government spending (Part 3), local police, the Supreme Court (Parts 4 and 15), the economy, and domestic and foreign affairs. Additional items probed respondents' opinions of prayer in school, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment Law, nuclear energy, and the most important national problem and the political party most suitable to handle it (Part 3). Also included are items on votes of Supreme Court judges (Part 5), arrest of criminal suspects and their treatment by law enforcement agencies (Part 6), federal government expenditures and budgeting (Part 7), respondents' feelings of safety at home, neighborhood crime rate, frequency of various kinds of criminal victimization, the personal characteristics of the targets of those crimes (Part 10), respondents' opinions of and choice of party presidential candidates nominees (Part 13), voter turnout for city elections (15), urban unrest, and population growth rate. Demographic items specify age, sex, race, marital status, education, occupation, income, social class identification, religion, political party affiliation, and union membership.

This Gallup poll aims to collect the political views of Canadians. It seeks thoughts on political parties, issues central to politics, and interest in elections, across various demographic, geographic and social groups. Topics of interest include: car ownership; farm problems; the federal election; health plans; high prices; labour problems; phone ownership; preferred political parties; taxation; union membership; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included.

We examine the social antecedents for contributing to campaigns, with a particular focus on the role of population density and social networking opportunities. Using 10 years of US campaign contribution data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and a national survey of party leaders, we find that recruiting contributors is easier in a densely populated region, where the daily opportunity of individuals being exposed to the same information via their social networks is high. Furthermore, the effect of population density is heterogeneous with respect to mobility: if a region has substantial commuting outflow, the chance of being mobilized from the place of residence decreases, but the chance of mobilization in their place of work increases. This analysis also reveals differences between political parties. Democrats are more dependent on social networking in population dense areas. This difference in the importance of social networking opportunities present in geographical space helps explain macro-level patterns in party fundraising.

In the early part of 2015, the party secretaries of six of the eight Swedish Riksdag parties (plus the Feminist Initiative as the only other Swedish party represented in the European Parliament) agreed to take part in an online survey of their memberships, which would be administered through the Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) at the University of Gothenburg.

In May, these party secretaries distributed individualized links to an otherwise identical web-survey to their members via email. All parties, except for the Social Democrats, sent out the survey to the entire membership list. The Social Democrats sent the survey to a large randomly drawn sample from their membership list. When it was closed on July 3, a total of 10,392 Swedish party members had completed the survey.

Purpose:

The purpose of the Swedish party membership survey is to allow researchers to investigate much more specific and rich questions about party members in Sweden. The survey questions are grouped into six modules: socio-demographic, general political attitudes, reasons for and extent of enrolment, position within the party, activism, and perception of role and attitudes towards membership. The questions were developed in consultation with the Members and Activists of Political Parties (MAPP) research group in order to facilitate cross-national comparisons.

The dataset is available as a SPSS file (.sav), a Nesstar Publisher project and as comma-separated values (.csv).

This data collection contains voting information from percentagized election returns for each of the nine general elections to the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament in the period 1888-1917, as well as information on religious composition for all of the 100 municipalities of the Netherlands. Variables computed from the basic election statistics on the basis of a left-right dimension of the political parties provide information on the number and percentage of votes cast for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Radicals, the Social-Democrats, the Anti-Revolutionary Party, the Catholics, and the other left-wing and right-wing parties. Additional variables provide information on age, the number of registered voters, and the total number of votes cast. Religious variables provide information on the percentage of the population associated with specific denominations, such as the Dutch Reformed Church, the Wallon Church, the New Lutheran Church, the Remonstrant Church, the Mennonite Church, the Christian Reformed Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Roman Catholic Church, the Jewish religion, and other churches and sects, including those with no religious association.