Between 1964 and 2020, turnout among black voters in U.S. presidential elections fluctuated between 48 and 62 percent, with the highest turnouts coming in 2008 and 2012, when Barack Obama (the first African American candidate from a major party) was the Democratic candidate. Voter turnout has always been lowest among those under 25 years of age, although younger black voters did participate in high numbers in the 1960s, during the civil rights movement, and again in 2008, during Obama's first election campaign; young black voters also participated in higher numbers than white voters of the same age between 2000 and 2012.

In 1964, black voters over the age of 65 voted at a similar rate to those in the 18 to 24 bracket, however they have consistently had the highest turnout rates among black voters in recent years, overtaking voters in the 45 to 64 years bracket (whose voting rate has consistently been between 60 and 70 percent) in the 1996 election.

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 ---

The polling conducted by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight used its KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel chosen to be representative of the American population. The data given here is from that survey. The survey, which was conducted from September 15 to September 25, included 8,327 respondents and was weighted in accordance with general population benchmarks for American citizens from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey March 2019 Supplement. It oversampled young, Black, and Hispanic respondents. The voter file company Aristotle then matched answers to a voter file using the panelist's first name, last name, zip code, and eight characters of their address, utilizing the National Change of Address program if relevant, in order to more precisely identify their voting history.

This special topic poll, fielded January 23-24, 2008, re-interviewed 163 South Carolina registered voters first surveyed December 13-17, 2007, and included an oversample of African Americans. The dataset includes their responses to call-back questions as well as to selected questions in the original poll, CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY POLL, DECEMBER 2007 (ICPSR 24364), which queried South Carolina voters on George W. Bush's presidency, the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign and South Carolina presidential primary, whether they had ever voted in a primary, their opinions of the Democratic presidential nominees, and the likelihood that they would vote for a presidential candidate of a different race and gender than their own. In the call-back poll conducted a few days prior to the South Carolina Democratic primary on January 26, 2008, voters were re-interviewed about how much attention they were paying to the 2008 presidential race, the likelihood that they would vote in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, if they had changed their choice of candidate since the last survey and why, the importance of the results of other state's primaries in their vote, and their opinions of Democratic presidential nominees Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Questions were also posed regarding Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's campaign and whether America was ready to elect a president who was Black or a woman. Respondents who already voted in South Carolina's Republican primary on January 19, 2008, were asked for whom they had voted. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, marital status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter registration status and participation history, labor union membership, the presence of children under 18, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, whether respondents considered themselves to be born-again Christians, and whether any household member had served in the armed forces in Iraq.

The elimination of Black voting in the U.S. South after Reconstruction is the most significant instance of democratic backsliding in American history. I use newly collected state legislative roll call data from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, consisting of more than 19,400 unique roll calls, to explore Black disfranchisement’s consequences for legislative representation. Using ideal point estimates in a panel design, I demonstrate that disfranchisement is associated with substantial changes in roll call voting. In states where competition between Democrats and Republicans structured roll call voting, disfranchisement precipitated shifts away from more-Republican roll call records. In states already dominated by Democrats before disfranchisement, disfranchisement often led to relative shifts toward the agrarian, reform wing of the Democratic Party. These results demonstrate the centrality of Black disfranchisement for the creation of the Solid South and the significant impact of Black suffrage on southern politics in the years following Reconstruction.

This telephone survey focused on presidential preferences, registered to vote in the presidential election, likely to vote, and which Democratic and Republican candidates they would vote for if the election were held that day

Prior research has found that descriptive representation by race, ethnicity, or gender increases political action, but it has paid less attention to how the intersection of these identities influences participation. We extend this literature by assessing the effects on voter turnout of collective descriptive representation in U.S. state legislatures on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and their intersections. We argue that members of historically excluded groups respond to the overall composition of their state’s legislature. We test this proposition in seven elections (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012). Our results are consistent with the minority empowerment literature, as overall collective representation does substantially increase turnout among previously excluded groups. However, the impact varies intersectionally. For white women, gender trumps race, as higher collective gender representation, regardless of race or ethnicity, increases voter turnout. For African Americans, race trumps gender, as both black men and women respond most consistently to higher levels of collective racial representation. For Latinos, we find less consistent results, but note a collective ethnic turnout effect for 2002 and 2006. We conclude that collective representation, especially at the intersection of identities, is an important factor influencing levels of turnout among previously excluded groups.

The National Asian American Survey (NAAS) Post-Election Survey, 2016 contains nationally representative data from telephone interviews of adult U.S. residents who self-identified as Asian/Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Multiracial. The survey included sizable samples of Asian Americans in 9 Asian national origin groups (Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Hmong, Cambodian), as well as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. The survey instrument included questions about immigrant background, social identities, social attitudes, political behavior, and policy attitudes. Demographic information included age, race, language, gender, country of birth, religion, marital status, educational level, employment status, citizenship status, household income, and size of household. The study contains 2 data files, public-use and restricted-use versions of the same dataset (386 variables, 6448 cases).

This poll, fielded September 19-22, 2008, 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. A national sample of 1,082 adults was surveyed, including oversamples of African Americans for a total of 163 African American respondents. Respondents were asked whether the Democratic or Republican party could be trusted to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation would face over the next few years, whether things in the country were going in the right direction, and how concerned they were about the national economy. Respondents were also asked how closely they were following the 2008 presidential race, their opinions of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, their opinion of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for whom they would vote in the general election in November, which candidate had the best chance of getting elected, and how comfortable respondents would be with a president who was African American or a president over the age of 72. Respondents identifying with the Democratic party, were asked for whom they originally voted for to be the party nominee: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Economic topics addressed how concerned respondents were that they could maintain their current standard of living, the most difficult economic issue affecting their family, particularly personal finances, the stock market, and the ability to obtain bank loans. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, marital status, political party affiliation, voter registration status and participation history, political philosophy, education level, religious preference, military service, household income, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), home ownership and whether respondents considered themselves to be a born-again Christian.

In this telephone survey respondents were asked if they were registered to vote in the presidential election, how likely they were to vote, and the candidate they would vote for if the election were held that day. Additional questions were asked about the effectiveness of the FBI and respondents' confidence in the FBI

Initially taken in 1838 to demonstrate the stability and significance of the African American community and to forestall the abrogation of African American voting rights, the Quaker and Abolitionist census of African Americans was continued in 1847 and 1856 and present an invaluable view of the mid-nineteenth century African American population of Philadelphia. Although these censuses list only household heads, providing aggregate information for other household members, and exclude the substantial number of African Americans living in white households, they provide data not found in the federal population schedules. When combined with the information on African Americans taken from the four federal censuses, they offer researchers a richly detailed view of Philadelphia's African American community spanning some forty years. The three censuses are not of equal inclusiveness or quality, however. The 1838 and 1847 enumerations cover only the "old" City of Philadelphia (river-to-river and from Vine to South Streets) and the immediate surrounding districts (Spring Garden, Northern Liberties, Southwark, Moyamensing, Kensington--1838, West Philadelphia--1847); the 1856 survey includes African Americans living throughout the newly enlarged city which, as today, conforms to the boundaries of Philadelphia County. In spite of this deficiency in areal coverage, the earlier censuses are superior historical documents. The 1838 and 1847 censuses contain data on a wide range of social and demographic variables describing the household indicating address, household size, occupation, whether members were born in Pennsylvania, status-at-birth, debts, taxes, number of children attending school, names of beneficial societies and churches (1838), property brought to Philadelphia from other states (1838), sex composition (1847), age structure (1847), literacy (1847), size of rooms and number of people per room (1847), and miscellaneous remarks (1847). While the 1856 census includes the household address and reports literacy, occupation, status-at-birth, and occasional passing remarks about individual households and their occupants, it excludes the other informational categories. Moreover, unlike the other two surveys, it lists the occupations of only higher status African Americans, excluding unskilled and semiskilled designations, and records the status-at-birth of adults only. Indeed, it even fails to provide data permitting the calculation of the size and age and sex structure of households. Variables for each household head and his household include (differ slightly by census year): name, sex, status-at-birth, occupation, wages, real and personal property, literacy, education, religion, membership in beneficial societies and temperance societies, taxes, rents, dwelling size, address, slave or free birth.

This survey focused on presidential preferences and the influence of the Iowa Caucus on voting decisions

The Syracuse Common Council Boundaries dataset was created by the Syracuse City Redistricting Commission in 2022. This shapefile consists of polygon features representing Syracuse Common Council districts. This went into effect after being approved by the Syracuse Common Council in 2023. This dataset also includes some of the populations statistics and percentages that were used to determine the boundaries.Data DictionaryDIST_ID: The Common Council District number.TOTAL_ADJ: Total population (NYS Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR) Prisoner Adjusted)DX_DEX: Population deviation in numbersTOTAL_ADJ_: Population Deviation as a percentage of the average district populationVAP: Voting Age PopulationHISP_VAP_A: Hispanic Voting Age PopulationNH_DOJ_W_1: Non-Hispanic White Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_B_1: Non-Hispanic Black Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_A_1: Non-Hispanic Asian (1 Race) Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_A_2: Non-Hispanic Asian (2 Races) Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_H_1: Non-Hispanic Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_O_2: Non-Hispanic Other (1 Race) Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidanceNH_DOJ_O_3: Non-Hispanic Other (2 Race) Voting Age Population as defined by DOJ guidance Dataset Contact Information:Organization: City of Syracuse - Office of Accountability, Performance, and Innovation (API)Position: Data Program ManagerCity: Syracuse, NYE-Mail Address: opendata@syrgov.net