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.

This data collection contains voter registration and turnout surveys. The files contain summaries at state, town, and county levels. Each level of data include: total population, total voting-age population, total voter registration (excluding ND, WI), total ballots cast, total votes cast for president, and voter registration by party. Note: see the documentation for information on missing data.

Dave Leip's website

The Dave Leip website here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php lists the available data. Files are occasionally updated by Dave Leip, and new versions are made available, but CCSS is not notified. If you suspect the file you want may be updated, please get in touch with CCSS. These files were last updated on 9 JUL 2024.

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

For additional information on file layout, etc. see https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/DOWNLOAD/spread_turnout.html.

Similar data may be available at https://www.electproject.org/election-data/voter-turnout-data dating back to 1787.

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 ---

Data Source: CA Secretary of State

This data biography shares the how, who, what, where, when, and why about this dataset. We, the epidemiology team at Napa County Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Division, created it to help you understand where the data we analyze and share comes from. If you have any further questions, we can be reached at epidemiology@countyofnapa.org.

Data dashboard featuring this data: Demographics https://data.countyofnapa.org/stories/s/bu3n-fytj

How was the data collected? The California Secretary of State's Elections Division is responsible for maintaining a database of all registered voters as well as coordinating the counting of votes after elections. Voter participation is defined here as the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted.

Who was included and excluded from the data? The term "eligible voters" refers to the population of US citizens aged 18 years or older who currently reside in the voting jurisdiction and who are not in prison or on parole for a felony and who have not been declared mentally incompetent.

Where was the data collected?  Voter registration data and election results are collected throughout California. This subset of data includes Napa County and California.

How often is the data collected? Statewide General Elections are held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November on even years.

Where can I learn more about this data? https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results

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.

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) 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, 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).

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 practices "data suppression", filtering some block groups from demographic publication because they do not meet a population threshold. This practice...

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.

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.

This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2022. It also contains measures of each county's Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2022.

This dataset was used to conduct the NYC Campaign Finance Board's voter participation research, published in the 2019-2020 Voter Analysis Report. Each row contains information about an active voter in 2018 and their voting history dating back to 2008, along with geographical information from their place of residence for each year they were registered voters. Because this dataset contains only active voters in the year 2018, this dataset cannot be used to calculate election turnout.

What are the opinions of American registered voters about election fraud and types of election fraud as we head into the final stages of the 2024 Presidential election? In this paper we use data from an online national survey of 2,211 U.S. registered voters interviewed between June 26 - July 3, 2024. Respondents were asked how common they thought that ten different types of election fraud might be in the U.S. In our analysis, we show that substantial proportions of U.S. registered voters believe that these types of election fraud are common. Our multivariate analysis shows that partisanship correlates strongly with endorsement of types of election fraud, with Republicans consistently more likely to state that types of election fraud are common, even when we control for a wide variety of other factors. We also find that conspiratorial thinking is strongly correlated with belief in the occurrence of types of election fraud, even when we control for partisanship. Our results reported in this paper provide important data regarding how American registered voters perceive the prevalence of types of election fraud, just months before the 2024 Presidential election.

NYU Libraries has licensed access to the L2 Political Academic Voter File. The file is a continuously updated dataset consisting of public information for every registered voter in the United States and includes basic socio-demographic indicators (some of which are modeled), consumer preferences, political party affiliation, voting history, and more.

The data consists of .tab files organized into individual state folders (all states and DC). Each state folder contains two files: demographics data and voter history data, with a data dictionary for each dataset. The size of the folders vary by state and data for all states adds up to approximately 40 GB. The data is organized into releases, generally two per year (spring and fall), which represent a snapshot of the country's voters at the time of the dataset creation.

NYU has also licensed access to L2 Political historical backlog of data. This backlog includes versions of the L2 Processed voter file going back to 2008 (for most U.S. states) and unprocessed "raw" state voter rolls, also going back to 2008 for most U.S. states.

This collection is available to NYU faculty and students only, and requires user to first submit a data management plan to account for how access and storage of the data will be handled. Information on how to submit a request to use this data and create a data management plan is available at https://guides.nyu.edu/l2political.

This data collection is comprised of responses from two sets of survey questionnaires, the basic Current Population Survey (CPS) and a survey on the topic of voting and registration in the United States, which was administered as a supplement to the November 2012 CPS questionnaire. The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment. Data from the CPS are provided for the week prior to the survey. The voting and registration supplement data are collected every two years to monitor trends in the voting and nonvoting behavior of United States citizens in terms of their different demographic and economic characteristics. The supplement was designed to be a proxy response supplement, meaning a single respondent could provide answers for all eligible household members. The supplement questions were asked of all persons who were both United States citizens and 18 years of age or older. The CPS instrument determined who was eligible for the voting and registration supplement through the use of check items that referred to basic CPS items, including age and citizenship. Respondents were queried on whether they were registered to vote in the November 6, 2012 election, main reasons for not being registered to vote, main reasons for not voting, whether they voted in person or by mail, and method used to register to vote. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, disability status, educational attainment, occupation, and income.

I explore the issue of political participation in comparative perspective and offer rational choice inspired theory of political behavior. Drawing on previously disparate social science literatures, I link political activities to an individual’s socio-political environment by looking at one’s community and embedded reputation in that space. Incorporating reputation into a rational choice conception of participation provides a framework for understanding mass and individual political behavior that avoids many traditional criticisms of rational choice and also squares with the empirical realities of turnout in the US and in Europe. This project makes two potent interdisciplinary contributions–one substantive and the other methodological. First, by being able to explain the variance in international turnout and provide a dynamic explanation as to why a non-trivial amount of eligible voters are not casting votes when they have the right to do so, I can answer the fundamental questions of who participates and why. How and why political participation varies among countries is crucial in understanding the very str ucture of nations as acts of political participation shape the institutional arrangement and socio-economic policies through which virtually all aspects of a state’s society function. As democratic governments are responsive to those who vote, an explanation for why some people turnout in particular circumstances and places may generate real insight into nearly all aspects of the socio-economic and political world- from understanding the nature of institutional structures to providing an account as to why inequality and welfare policies differ so greatly across countries. Second, my approach challenges the imperialism of economic theory and reminds scholars that in politics and in real human behavior, people are more than pure financial utility maximizers. I offer a unifying theoretical construct that modifies the dominant economic tradition, reveals its strengths and limitations, and shows how and why we need to move beyond this and look at real people, their social dynamics, socio-spatial environment, time-use, and social reputation. My approach bridges the wide gap in the social sciences between formal theorists and empiricists and those who are qualitative, anthropologically, historically, and sociologically informed who view social acts as more than economic exchanges

This special topic poll, conducted October 19-22, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the current 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 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 followed the congressional elections, 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 absentee 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 congressional elections, whether things in the country were generally going in the right direction, whether their reason for voting for a candidate for Congress included showing support for George W. Bush, which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the situation in Iraq and the economy, and whether they thought a change of control from the Republicans to the Democrats would be a good thing. Information was collected on whether respondents had been contacted by any organization working in support of a candidate for Congress and which political party they were asked to vote for, whether the 2006 congressional elections were more important to the country than past elections, and whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. Additional questions asked how much Congress should be blamed for problems relating to the war with Iraq, how much credit Congress should get for preventing terrorist attacks, whether respondents felt optimistic about the situation in Iraq, and if the United States had the same kind of involvement in the war with Iraq as it did the Vietnam war. Demographic variables include sex, age, religion, race, education level, household income, labor union membership, voter registration and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, employment status, marital status, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

Throughout United States history, voter turnout among the voting eligible population has varied, ranging from below twelve percent in uncontested elections, to 83 percent in the 1876 election. In early years, turnout in presidential elections was relatively low, as the popular vote was not used in every state to decide who electors would vote for. When this was changed in the 1824 election, turnout increased dramatically, and generally fluctuated between seventy and eighty percent during the second half of the nineteenth century. Until the 1840 and 1842 elections, midterm elections also had a higher turnout rate than their corresponding presidential elections, although this trend has been reversed since these years.

Declining turnout in the twentieth century An increase in voting rights, particularly for black males in 1870 and for women in 1920, has meant that the share of the total population who are legally eligible to vote has increased significantly; yet, as the number of people eligible to vote increased, the turnout rate generally decreased. Following enfranchisement, it would take over fifty years before the female voter turnout would reach the same level as males, and over 150 years before black voters would have a similar turnout rate to whites. A large part of this was simply the lack of a voting tradition among these voter bases; however, the Supreme Court and lawmakers across several states (especially in the south) created obstacles for black voters and actively enforced policies and practices that disenfranchised black voter participation. These practices were in place from the end of the Reconstruction era (1876) until the the Voting Rights Act of 1965 legally removed and prohibited many of these obstacles; nonetheless, people of color continue to be disproportionally affected by voting restrictions to this day.

Recent decades In 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the minimum voting age in most states from 21 to 18 years old, which greatly contributed to the six and eight percent reductions in voter turnout in the 1972 and 1974 elections respectively, highlighting a distinct correlation between age and voter participation. Overall turnout remained below sixty percent from the 1970s until the 2004 election, and around forty percent in the corresponding midterms. In recent elections, increased political involvement among younger voters and those from ethnic minority backgrounds has seen these numbers rise, with turnout in the 2018 midterms reaching fifty percent. This was the highest midterm turnout in over one hundred years, leading many at the time to predict that the 2020 election would see one of the largest and most diverse voter turnouts in the past century, although these predictions then reversed with the arival of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, 2020 did prove to have the highest turnout in any presidential election since 1900; largely as a result of mail-in voting, improved access to early voting, and increased activism among grassroots organizations promoting voter registration.

This study contains an assortment of data files relating to the electoral and demographic history of New York State. Part 1, Mortality Statistics of the Seventh Census, 1850: Place of Birth for United States Cities, contains counts of persons by place of birth for United States cities as reported in the 1850 United States Census. Place of birth is coded for states and for selected foreign countries, and percentages are also included. Part 2, Selected Tables of New York State and United States Censuses of 1835-1875: New York State Counties, contains data from the New York State Censuses of 1835, 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875, and includes data from the United States Censuses of 1840 and 1850. The bulk of the tables concern church and synagogue membership. The tables for 1835 and 1845 include counts of persons by sex, legal male voters, alien males, not taxed Colored, taxed Colored, and taxed Colored can vote. The 1840 tables include total population, employment by industry, and military pensioners. The 1855 tables provide counts of persons by place of birth. Part 3, New York State Negro Suffrage Referenda Returns, 1846, 1860, and 1869, by Election District, contains returns for 28 election districts on the issue of Negro suffrage, with information on number of votes for, against, and total votes. Also provided are percentages of votes for and against Negro suffrage. Part 4, New York State Liquor License Referendum Returns, 1846, Town Level, contains returns from the Liquor License Referendum held in May 1846. For each town the file provides total number of votes cast, votes for, votes against, and percentage of votes for and against. The source of the data are New York State Assembly Documents, 70 Session, 1847, Document 40. Part 5, New York State Censuses of 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875: Counts of Churches and Church Membership by Denomination, contains counts of churches, total value of church property, church seating capacity, usual number of persons attending church, and number of church members from the New York State Censuses of 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875. Counts are by denomination at the state summary level. Part 6, New York State Election Returns, Censuses, and Religious Censuses: Merged Tables, 1830-1875, Town Level, presents town-level data for the elections of 1830, 1834, 1838, 1840, and 1842. The file also includes various summary statistics from the New York State Censuses of 1835, 1845, 1855, and 1865 with limited data from the 1840 United States Census. The data for 1835 and 1845 include male eligible voters, aliens not naturalized, non-white persons not taxed, and non-white persons taxed. The data for 1840 include population, employment by industry, and military service pensioners. The data for 1845 cover total population and number of males, place of birth, and churches. The data for 1855 and 1865 provide counts of persons by place of birth, number of dwellings, total value of dwellings, counts of persons by race and sex, number of voters by native and foreign born, and number of families. The data for 1865 also include counts of Colored not taxed and data for churches and synagogues such as number, value, seating capacity, and attendance. The data for 1875 include population, native and foreign born, counts of persons by race, by place of birth, by native, by naturalized citizens, and by alien males aged 21 and over. Part 7, New York State Election Returns, Censuses, and Religious Censuses: Merged Tables, 1844-1865, Town Level, contains town-level data for the state of New York for the elections of 1844 and 1860. It also contains data for 1850 such as counts of persons by sex and race. Data for 1855 includes counts of churches, value of churches and real estate, seating capacity, and church membership. Data for 1860 include date church was founded and source of that information. Also provided are total population counts for the years 1790, 1800, 1814, 1820, 1825, 1830, 1835, 1845, 1856, 1850, 1855, 1860, and 1865. (ICPSR 3/16/2015)

This study contains an assortment of data files relating to the electoral and demographic history of New York State. Part 1, Mortality Statistics of the Seventh Census, 1850: Place of Birth for United States Cities, contains counts of persons by place of birth for United States cities as reported in the 1850 United States Census. Place of birth is coded for states and for selected foreign countries, and percentages are also included. Part 2, Selected Tables of New York State and United States Censuses of 1835-1875: New York State Counties, contains data from the New York State Censuses of 1835, 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875, and includes data from the United States Censuses of 1840 and 1850. The bulk of the tables concern church and synagogue membership. The tables for 1835 and 1845 include counts of persons by sex, legal male voters, alien males, not taxed Colored, taxed Colored, and taxed Colored can vote. The 1840 tables include total population, employment by industry, and military pensioners. The 1855 tables provide counts of persons by place of birth. Part 3, New York State Negro Suffrage Referenda Returns, 1846, 1860, and 1869, by Election District, contains returns for 28 election districts on the issue of Negro suffrage, with information on number of votes for, against, and total votes. Also provided are percentages of votes for and against Negro suffrage. Part 4, New York State Liquor License Referendum Returns, 1846, Town Level, contains returns from the Liquor License Referendum held in May 1846. For each town the file provides total number of votes cast, votes for, votes against, and percentage of votes for and against. The source of the data are New York State Assembly Documents, 70 Session, 1847, Document 40. Part 5, New York State Censuses of 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875: Counts of Churches and Church Membership by Denomination, contains counts of churches, total value of church property, church seating capacity, usual number of persons attending church, and number of church members from the New York State Censuses of 1845, 1855, 1865, and 1875. Counts are by denomination at the state summary level. Part 6, New York State Election Returns, Censuses, and Religious Censuses: Merged Tables, 1830-1875, Town Level, presents town-level data for the elections of 1830, 1834, 1838, 1840, and 1842. The file also includes various summary statistics from the New York State Censuses of 1835, 1845, 1855, and 1865 with limited data from the 1840 United States Census. The data for 1835 and 1845 include male eligible voters, aliens not naturalized, non-white persons not taxed, and non-white persons taxed. The data for 1840 include population, employment by industry, and military service pensioners. The data for 1845 cover total population and number of males, place of birth, and churches. The data for 1855 and 1865 provide counts of persons by place of birth, number of dwellings, total value of dwellings, counts of persons by race and sex, number of voters by native and foreign born, and number of families. The data for 1865 also include counts of Colored not taxed and data for churches and synagogues such as number, value, seating capacity, and attendance. The data for 1875 include population, native and foreign born, counts of persons by race, by place of birth, by native, by naturalized citizens, and by alien males aged 21 and over. Part 7, New York State Election Returns, Censuses, and Religious Censuses: Merged Tables, 1844-1865, Town Level, contains town-level data for the state of New York for the elections of 1844 and 1860. It also contains data for 1850 such as counts of persons by sex and race. Data for 1855 includes counts of churches, value of churches and real estate, seating capacity, and church membership. Data for 1860 include date church was founded and source of that information. Also provided are total population counts for the years 1790, 1800, 1814, 1820, 1825, 1830, 1835, 1845, 1856, 1850, 1855, 1860, and 1865. (ICPSR 3/16/2015)

Overview

Kensho's Team Impact is excited to partner with the American Voter Project (the non-profit that runs the Ohio Voter Project) to make this dataset on Georgia voters available via Kaggle.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F73968%2Fe929cb6eb3d7a11dbef5feee4b336f91%2FOVP-Kensho_1000.jpg?generation=1608150215724319&alt=media" alt="">

This dataset has two main components. The first is statewide Georgia voter lists for October, November, and December provided by the American Voter Project and originally sourced from the Georgia Secretary of State. The second is cartographic boundary files from the US Census.

Starter Notebook

Jump right in with a starter notebook that demonstrates reading the data, creating maps, and aggregating voter data.

https://www.kaggle.com/gabrielaltay/georgia-voter-list-starter

Voter File Descriptions

Voter files contain one row per person, are provided for October, November, and December of 2000, and use the following naming convention,

tbl_prod_GABUYYYYMM_sample.csv

The samples are defined as,

• all: all voters in the file provided by the secretary of state of Georgia for a given month
• dropped_records: voters that were in the all sample last month but are not in the all sample this month
• new_records: voters that are in the all sample this month but were not in the all sample last month
• address_change: voters with address info that changed from last month
• name_change: voters with name info that changed from last month
• voter_in_inactive: voters with voter_status = I in the all sample for this month
• voter_status_change: voters with voter_status that changed from last month

Due to privacy concerns we have removed names and addresses (except city, zipcode, and county) from the voter files.

Geographic File Descriptions

The geographic data we collected consists of geojson files that describe cartographic boundaries in the US. We obtained shapefiles from this website and converted them to geojson using geopandas. We follow the naming convention used for the census shape files,

cb_2019_us_entity_rr.geojson where,

entity = the geographic entity rr = resolution level (we use the 20m = 1:20,000,000 and 500k = 1:500,000 scale files)

Specifically, we include the following geographic entities,

cbsa: metropolitan / micropolitan statistical area cd116: congressional district (116th congress) county: county csa: combined statistical area division: national division (subdivisions of regions) nation: national outline region: national region (northeast, southeast, midwest, west) state: state and equivalent zcta510: 5-digit ZIP code tabulation area (Census 2010)

Usage Restrictions

A quote from the Georgia Secretary of State dataset website,

The Statewide Voter List is an electronic file that includes the date last voted for each registered voter in the state of Georgia.

By law, voter registration lists are available to the public and contain the following information: voter name, residential address, mailing address if different, race, gender, registration date and last voting date. The Statewide Voter List does not include telephone numbers, date of birth, Social Security number or Drivers License number. The Statewide Voter List includes Active and Inactive Voters.

Normal production time is 1-2 weeks upon receipt of order. The Statewide Voter List file will be provided to you electronically.

The pricing is set by the Secretary of State office. This data may not be used by any person for commercial purposes. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-225 ( c )

In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 21-2-601, any person who uses the list of electors provided for in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-225 for commercial purposes shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Steve Tingley-Hock in general for his years of work on behalf of voters and specifically for sharing this data. You can learn more about his work at the following links,

• (VICE) This Man Exposed 40K Voters Purged by Mistake
• (Wired) One IT Guy's Spreadsheet-Fueled Race to Restore Voting Rights
• (New York Times) Ohio Was Set to Purge 235,000 Voters. It Was Wrong About 20%