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.

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

According to results on November 6, 2024, former President Donald Trump had received *** Electoral College votes in the race to become the next President of the United States, securing him the presidency. With all states counted, Trump received a total of *** electoral votes. Candidates need *** votes to become the next President of the United States.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed white voters reported voting for Donald Trump. In contrast, ** percent of Black voters reported voting for Kamala Harris.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, Donald Trump received the most support from men between the ages of ** and **. In comparison, ** percent of women between the ages of ** and ** reported voting for Kamala Harris.

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.

This dataset was created by taking the 2016 election results for most counties in the US, and adding demographic and socioeconomic data for each county. The data can be used to predict the election results.

The data was scraped from the NY Times and indexmundi.com. Counties that had missing data were dropped from the dataset. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts

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.

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.

In this brief analysis, we use a new dataset of two million voter registration records to demonstrate that gender, race, and age do not correlate with political participa- tion in ways that previous research has shown. Among Blacks and Latinos, women participate at vastly higher rates than men; many Blacks participate at higher rates than Whites; and the relationship between age and participation is both not linear and varies by race and gender. Survey research is unable to capture the true rela- tionship between demographics and participation, on account of survey bias and, more importantly, the non-linearity of eects. As a result, theories of participation, like the dominant resources-based models, have been built on faulty premises and tested with inadequate data. Our evidence calls for a renewed eort to understand election participation by utilizing large datasets, by being attentive to linearity assumptions, and by returning to theory.

Immigration and demographic change have become highly salient in American politics, partly because of the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump. Previous research indicates that local influxes of immigrants or unfamiliar ethnic groups can generate threatened responses, but has either focused on non-electoral outcomes or has analyzed elections in large geographic units such as counties. Here, we examine whether demographic changes at low levels of aggregation were associated with vote shifts toward an anti-immigration presidential candidate between 2012 and 2016. To do so, we compile a novel, precinct-level data set of election results and demographic measures for almost 32,000 precincts in the states of Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. We employ regression analyses varying model specifications and measures of demographic change. Our estimates uncover little evidence that influxes of Hispanics or non-citizen immigrants benefited Trump relative to past Republicans, instead consistently showing that such changes were associated with shifts to Trump's opponent.

Electoral registrations for parliamentary and local government elections as recorded in electoral registers for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, Donald Trump received the most support from white voters between the ages of ** and **. In comparison, ** percent of Black voters between the ages of ** and ** reported voting for Kamala Harris.

Data contains Hebrew letters and thus in xlsx format (more robust than csv). The voting pattern data set has data from over 1,000 villages across 5 different elections with absolute number & voting percentage for each party. The voting_general data has metadata per village; total votes, total valid etc..

I included also demographic data from the CBS. The data was scraped from the official website. The code can be found here: https://github.com/iamYannC/general-stuff/tree/main/votes

Description:

This dataset contains comprehensive voting data for the 2024 US elections, focusing on general ballot measures. This information includes voting results from various sources and tracking public opinion about political parties and candidates across states and demographic groups. Each item in the dataset represents a specific poll. Along with detailed information about the dates of the polls. Survey organization, sample size, margin of error, Percentage of respondents supporting each political party or candidates

Key Features:

Poll Date:The date when the poll was conducted.

Polling Organization: The name of the organization that conducted the poll.

Sample Size: The number of respondents in the poll.

Margin of Error: The statistical margin of error for the poll results.

Party/Candidate Support: Percentage of respondents who support each political party or candidate.

State/Demographics: Geographic and demographic breakdowns of the polling data.

Use Cases:

Analyzing trends in public opinion leading up to the 2024 U.S. elections. Comparing support for different political parties and candidates over time. Studying the impact of key events on voter preferences. Informing political strategies and campaign planning.

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (24 November 2025).; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

This dataset has been created for use in the paper "A Reinforcement Learning Algorithm for Fair Electoral Redistricting in Parliamentary Systems" which aims to propose a new method for electoral districting using a reinforcement-learning approach, based on a graph grouping algorithm proposed by Zhou et al. (2016) [1]. The code used for the project can be found on GitHub here.

The ward demographic data comes from the UK 2011 census and is provided by NOMIS, Scotland's Census and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. All electoral wards for England and Wales use the 2011 boundaries available from the ONS, Scotland uses the 2014 boundaries from Boundaries Scotland and Northern Ireland uses the 1993 boundaries from OpenDataNI (distributed under the Open Government License). Constituency demographic data is generated by combining the ward data into their respective constituencies.

Ward-level election results have then been generated using this demographic data with an ordinary least squares linear regression model, based on the constituency-level election results from the 2017 general election. The results in this dataset are not identical to the real election results but should remain sufficiently close to demonstrate many applications of the dataset itself. Below is the list of parties included in the dataset and their predicted seats: - Conservatives (321) - Labour (260) - SNP (33) - Liberal Democrats (13) - DUP (10) - Sinn Fein (7) - Plaid Cymru (3) - Green (1) - UKIP (0) - SDLP (0) - UUP (0) - Alliance (0) - Independents & Speaker (2)

All wards and constituencies are referred to using their ONS code, (England E05 / E14, Wales W05 / W06, Scotland S13 / S14, Northern Ireland N08 / N06), except for the City of London, which has been merged into one ward and uses the London borough boundaries (E09) due to the data available from the 2011 census.

[1] Zhou, Yangming, Jin-Kao Hao and Béatrice Duval (Dec. 2016). ‘Reinforcement learning based local search for grouping problems: A case study on graph coloring’. In: Expert Systems with Applications 64, pp. 412–422. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.07.047.

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.

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.

According to exit polling in *** key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, almost ********** of voters who had never attended college reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, a similar share of voters with ******** degrees reported voting for Kamala Harris.