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).

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.

Every four years in the United States, the electoral college system is used to determine the winner of the presidential election. In this system, each state has a fixed number of electors based on their population size, and (generally speaking) these electors then vote for their candidate with the most popular votes within their state or district. Since 1964, there have been 538 electoral votes available for presidential candidates, who need a minimum of 270 votes to win the election. Because of this system, candidates do not have to win over fifty percent of the popular votes across the country, but just win in enough states to receive a total of 270 electoral college votes. The use of this system is a source of debate in the U.S.; those in favor claim that it prevents candidates from focusing on the interests of urban populations, and must also appeal to smaller and less-populous states, and they say that this system preserves federalism and the two-party system. However, critics argue that this system does not represent the will of the majority of American voters, and that it encourages candidates to disproportionally focus on winning in swing states, where the outcome is more difficult to predict. Popular results From 1789 until 1820, there was no popular vote, and the President was then chosen only by the electors from each state. George Washington was unanimously voted for by the electorate, receiving one hundred percent of the votes in both elections. From 1824, the popular vote has been conducted among American citizens, to help electors decide who to vote for (although the 1824 winner was chosen by the House of Representatives, as no candidate received over fifty percent of electoral votes). Since 1924, the difference in the share of both votes has varied, with several candidates receiving over ninety percent of the electoral votes while only receiving between fifty and sixty percent of the popular vote. The highest difference was for Ronald Reagan in 1980, where he received just 50.4 percent of the popular vote, but 90.9 percent of the electoral votes. Unpopular winners Since 1824, there have been 49 elections, and in 18 of these the winner did not receive over fifty percent of the popular vote. In the majority of these cases, the winner did receive a plurality of the votes, however there have been five instances where the winner of the electoral college vote lost the popular vote to another candidate. The most recent examples of this were in 2000, when George W. Bush received roughly half a million fewer votes than Al Gore, and in 2016, where Hillary Clinton won approximately three million more votes than Donald Trump.

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 1940 United States presidential election was contested between incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party's Wendell Willkie. Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented third term in office, as US involvement in the Second World War drew ever closer. Although Roosevelt promised that the US would not take part in the war in Europe, Willkie claimed that Roosevelt was secretly plotting to deploy US troops, as well as criticizing Roosevelt's New Deal for being too wasteful, and criticizing the President for seeking a third term. In contrast, Willkie's detractors highlighted his association with big corporations and business leaders, whom many people still blamed for the Great Depression. Results With 55 percent of the popular vote, and 85 percent of the electoral vote, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first President in US history to be elected for a third term. Although his winning margins were smaller than in the 1932 and 1936 elections, Roosevelt was still able to take 38 of 48 states,winning a third consecutive landslide. Willkie was popular in the Midwest and in rural areas, however Roosevelt' strong support in the Democratic stronghold of the south and his popularity among urban workers made Willkie's task an onerous one. Roosevelt would also go on to win the 1944 election, until his untimely death in 1945.

The 1964 United States presidential election was contested by incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson of the Democratic Party, and Barry M. Goldwater of the Republican Party. This was the first election to be contested in all fifty states and Washington DC, and it took place on November 3, 1964, less than one year after Johnson ascended to the presidency following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Johnson won the Democratic nomination quite easily, while Goldwater, a self-proclaimed conservative "extremist" defeated Nelson Rockefeller in a symbolic loss for the more moderate wing of the Republican Party. This marked the beginning of transitional period in US politics, where the Republican Party gradually became the de facto party of conservatism by 1980, and the Deep South became the Republican stronghold it is today. This was the only Republican ticket between 1948 and 1976 not to feature Richard Nixon. Campaign The civil rights movement was the prevalent issue in the election, and Johnson's progressive policies and pro-civil rights campaign compared with Goldwater's opposition of the civil rights movement and hardline conservative approach presented voters with two of the most converse candidates in US election history. Although Goldwater had come from behind to win the Republican nomination, he had pushed away many moderate Republicans along the way with his controversial and often harsh rhetoric. The Johnson campaign painted Goldwater as a right-wing extremist, while many prominent Republicans (including former President Eisenhower) refused to endorse Goldwater, with some even campaigning for Johnson. The Johnson campaign also made ads targeting Goldwater's willingness to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, and used parodies of Goldwater's own slogans against him. Throughout the campaign Johnson led in all polls by significant margins, and as election day drew nearer his campaign's focus was on getting people to actually go out and vote, as they feared that many voters would stay at home as they believed their votes were not necessary for a Johnson win. Results President Johnson won re-election with the largest popular vote margin in any election that included all states and Washington DC (as of 2016). Johnson won 61 percent of the popular vote, carrying 44 states (and Washington DC) which returned him over 90 percent of the electoral votes. In contrast, Goldwater won just his home state of Arizona, and five states in the Deep South, further solidifying the South's transition from blue to red. In history, Johnson is remembered as an effective leader who accomplished much in his five years in office, particularly in the civil rights movement, although his escalation of the Vietnam War has been a black mark on his legacy.

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.

United States presidential elections are quadrennial elections that decide who will be the President and Vice President of the United States for the next four years. Voter turnout has ranged between 54 and 70 percent since 1964, with white voters having the highest voter turnout rate (particularly when those of Hispanic descent are excluded). In recent decades, turnout among black voters has got much closer to the national average, and in 2008 and 2012, the turnout among black voters was higher than the national average, exceeded only by non-Hispanic white voters; this has been attributed to Barack Obama's nomination as the Democratic nominee in these years, where he was the first African American candidate to run as a major party's nominee. Turnout among Asian and Hispanic voters is much lower than the national average, and turnout has even been below half of the national average in some elections. This has been attributed to a variety of factors, such as the absence of voting tradition in some communities or families, the concentration of Asian and Hispanic communities in urban (non-swing) areas, and a disproportionate number of young people (who are less likely to vote).

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

Since the 1860 election, U.S. presidential elections have been dominated by candidates affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties. While the electoral votes decide the winner of the election, these are generally decided by the winner of the popular vote in each state (or district), and the winner of the nationwide popular vote does not always go on to win the electoral vote. Interestingly, there have been a number of occasions where the winner of the popular vote did not go on to win the electoral vote, for example in the 2016 election, or, most famously, in 2000.

This data is a recent survey data we collected by using Survey Monkey.

We asked how much people will vote Pete Buttigieg as President of the US, if he is nominee, and asked many reasons by scalar-bar questions which is created by us based on the initial open question survey.

This survey is completely original, not related with his campaign.

Insight Survey of Pete Buttigieg https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/L3H3CKD

We are looking for a data scientist or a causal analyst who has great ability to extract the insights from this type of data format. The winner of the best result will be honored by a spinning out company who will focus on commercial delivery of this analysis. Marketing Research has been struggling this type of open and close questions why people like a brand and products.

Find WHYs.

New democracies go to great lengths to implement institutional protections of the electoral process. However, in this paper we present evidence that shows that even in the United States—where the secret ballot has been in place for generations—doubts about the secrecy of the voting process are surprisingly prevalent. Many say that their cast ballot can be matched to their name or that others could observe their vote choices while they were voting. We find that people who have not previously voted are particularly likely to harbor doubts about the secrecy of voters’ ballots. Those who vote by mail in the privacy of their own homes also feel that others are able to discover their vote choices. Taken together, these findings suggest an important divergence between public perceptions about and the institutional status of the secret ballot in the United States, a divergence that may affect patterns of voting behavior and political participation.

In the fall of 2006 the American National Election Studies (ANES) carried out a pilot study after the 2006 mid-term elections in the United States. The 2006 ANES Pilot Study was conducted for the purpose of testing new questions and conducting methodological research to inform the design of future ANES studies. As such, it is not considered part of the ANES time series that has been conducted since 1948, and the pilot study only includes time series questions necessary to evaluate the new content. The election studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. This full release dataset contains all 675 interviews, with the survey portion of the interview lasting just over 37 minutes on average. The study had a re-interview rate of 56.25 percent. Respondents were asked questions over a variety of topics. They were queried on need for closure in various situations including unpredictable ones, how fast important decisions were made, and how often they could see that both people can be right when in disagreement. Respondents were asked many questions pertaining to their values. Some questions dealt with optimism and pessimism. Respondents were asked if they felt that were generally optimistic, pessimistic, or neither in regard to the future. They were asked specifically how they felt about the future of the United States. Respondents were also asked about their social networks, about who they talked to in the last six months, and how close they felt to them. Respondents were further queried about how many days in the last six months they talked to these people, their political views, interest in politics, and the amount of time it would take to drive to their homes. Other questions sought respondents' political attitudes including attentiveness to following politics, ambivalence, efficacy, and trust in government. Respondents were asked questions related to the media such as how much time and how many days during a typical week they watched or read news on the Internet, newspaper, radio, or television. Questions that dealt with abortion consisted of giving respondents various scenarios and asking if they favored or opposed it being legal for the women to have an abortion in that circumstance. The issue of justice was also included by asking respondents what percent of people of different backgrounds who are suspected of committing a crime in America are treated fairly. Respondents were also asked to give their opinion on gender in politics, specifically, whether gender played a role in how the respondent would vote for various political offices. Respondents were also queried on whether they would vote for Bill Clinton or George W. Bush and whether they had voted in the elections in November. Respondents were also asked if they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president, the way he was handling relations with foreign countries, and the way he was dealing with terrorism. Respondents were also asked how upsetting the thought of their own death was, and how likely it was that a majority of all people on Earth would die at once during the next 100 years because of a single event. Demographic variables include age, party affiliation, sex, religious preference, and political party affiliation.

We show that the butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County, Florida, in the 2000 presidential election caused more than 2,000 Democratic voters to vote by mistake for Reform candidate Pat Buchanan, a number larger than George W. Bush’s certified margin of victory in Florida. We use multiple methods and several kinds of data to rule out alternative explanations for the votes Buchanan received in Palm Beach County. Among 3,053 U.S. counties where Buchanan was on the ballot, Palm Beach County has the most anomalous excess of votes for him. In Palm Beach County, Buchanan’s proportion of the vote on election-day ballots is four times larger than his proportion on absentee (nonbutterfly) ballots, but Buchanan’s proportion does not differ significantly between election-day and absentee ballots in any other Florida county. Unlike other Reform candidates in Palm Beach County, Buchanan tended to receive election-day votes in Democratic precincts and from individuals who voted for the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate. Robust estimation of overdispersed binomial regress ion models underpins much of the analysis.

Terms of Access: By downloading the data, you agree to use the data only for academic research, agree not to share the data with outside parties, and agree not to attempt to re-identify individuals in the data set. We require this in order to protect the privacy of individuals in the data set and to comply with agreements made with TargetSmart. Abstract: We present the results of a large, $8.9 million campaign-wide field experiment, conducted among 2 million moderate and low-information “persuadable” voters in five battleground states during the 2020 US Presidential election. Treatment group subjects were exposed to an eight-month-long advertising program delivered via social media, designed to persuade people to vote against Donald Trump and for Joe Biden. We found no evidence the program increased or decreased turnout on average. We find evidence of differential turnout effects by modeled level of Trump support: the campaign increased voting among Biden leaners by 0.4 percentage points (SE: 0.2pp) and decreased voting among Trump leaners by 0.3 percentage points (SE: 0.3pp), for a difference-in-CATES of 0.7 points that is just distinguishable from zero (t(1035571) = −2.09, p = 0.036, DIC = 0.7 points, 95% CI = [−0.014, −0.00]). An important but exploratory finding is that the strongest differential effects appear in early voting data, which may inform future work on early campaigning in a post-COVID electoral environment. Our results indicate that differential mobilization effects of even large digital advertising campaigns in presidential elections are likely to be modest.

The 2016 U.S. presidential election was contested by Donald J. Trump of the Republican Party, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the Democratic Party. Clinton had been viewed by many as the most likely to succeed President Obama in the years leading up to the election, after losing the Democratic nomination to him in 2008, and entered the primaries as the firm favorite. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders soon emerged as Clinton's closest rival, and the popularity margins decreased going into the primaries. A few other candidates had put their name forward for the Democratic nomination, however all except Clinton and Sanders had dropped out by the New Hampshire primary. Following a hotly contested race, Clinton arrived at the Democratic National Convention with 54 percent of pledged delegates, while Sanders had 46 percent. Controversy emerged when it was revealed that Clinton received the support of 78 percent of Democratic superdelegates, while Sanders received just seven percent. With her victory, Hillary Clinton became the first female candidate nominated by a major party for the presidency. With seventeen potential presidential nominees, the Republican primary field was the largest in US history. Similarly to the Democratic race however, the number of candidates thinned out by the time of the New Hampshire primary, with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as the frontrunners. As the primaries progressed, Trump pulled ahead while the remainder of the candidates withdrew from the race, and he was named as the Republican candidate in May 2016. Much of Trump's success has been attributed to the free media attention he received due to his outspoken and controversial behavior, with a 2018 study claiming that Trump received approximately two billion dollars worth of free coverage during the primaries alone. Campaign The 2016 presidential election was preceded by, arguably, the most internationally covered and scandal-driven campaign in U.S. history. Clinton campaigned on the improvement and expansion of President Obama's more popular policies, while Trump's campaign was based on his personality and charisma, and took a different direction than the traditional conservative, Republican approach. In the months before the election, Trump came to represent a change in how the U.S. government worked, using catchy slogans such as "drain the swamp" to show how he would fix what many viewed to be a broken establishment; painting Clinton as the embodiment of this establishment, due to her experience as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. The candidates also had fraught relationships with the press, although the Trump campaign was seen to have benefitted more from this publicity than Clinton's. Controversies Trump's off the cuff and controversial remarks gained him many followers throughout the campaign, however, just one month before the election, a 2005 video emerged of Trump making derogatory comments about grabbing women "by the pussy". The media and public's reaction caused many high-profile Republicans to condemn the comments (for which he apologized), with many calling for his withdrawal from the race. This controversy was soon overshadowed when it emerged that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton for using a private email server while handling classified information, furthering Trump's narrative that the Washington establishment was corrupt. Two days before the election, the FBI concluded that Clinton had not done anything wrong; however the investigation had already damaged the public's perception of Clinton's trustworthiness, and deflected many undecided voters towards Trump. Results Against the majority of predictions, Donald Trump won the 2016 election, and became the 45th President of the United States. Clinton won almost three million more votes than her opponent, however Trump's strong performance in swing states gave him a 57 percent share of the electoral votes, while Clinton took just 42 percent. The unpopularity of both candidates also contributed to much voter abstention, and almost six percent of the popular vote went to third party candidates (despite their poor approval ratings). An unprecedented number of faithless electors also refused to give their electoral votes to the two main candidates, instead giving them to five non-candidates. In December, it emerged that the Russian government may have interfered in this election, and the 2019 Mueller Report concluded that Russian interference in the U.S. election contributed to Clinton's defeat and the victory of Donald Trump. In total, 26 Russian citizens and three Russian organizations were indicted, and the investigation led to the indictment and conviction of many top-level officials in the Trump campaign; however Trump and the Russian government both strenuously deny these claims, and Trump's attempts to frame the Ukrainian government for Russia's involvement contributed to his impeachment in 2019.

This poll, conducted December 14-16, 2000, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. The study was conducted to assess respondents' interest in and opinions about the 2000 presidential election. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy, as well as their opinions of both candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush. Those polled were asked whether they participated in the last presidential election on November 7, 2000, whom they voted for, whether they were satisfied with the outcome of the election, and whether Bush legitimately won the election. A number of questions examined respondents' views about George W. Bush being president: what kind of president Bush would be, what worried them about Bush, whether Bush could be trusted to deal with all problems a president has to deal with, whether he cared about ordinary people, and whether he would be able to lead the country effectively, work with members of both parties, improve education, reduce costs of prescription drug coverage for seniors, reduce taxes, and strengthen and reform Social Security. The survey also queried respondents on the most important things they wanted Bush to accomplish, the way the Bush and Gore campaigns handled the election, how much trust they had in the United States Supreme Court, if they approved of its decision that stopped the manual recount in Florida, the effects of the presidential election controversy on American democracy, whether the vote count in Florida was fair and accurate, whom voters in Florida intended to vote for, and whether Gore withdrew from the race at the right time. The poll also elicited respondents' views on the economic situation in the country, the tax cut proposal, the budget surplus, federal funding to reward schools that improve students' performance, increase in defense spending, and a proposal that would allow individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security savings on their own. The survey also collected information on respondents' use of computers and the Internet. Those polled were asked whether they had access to a computer and to the Internet, and if so where, and if they had an e-mail address, whether they shopped on-line, whether they bought gifts during the 1999 and 2000 holiday seasons on the Internet, and if they were going to do so in the future. Internet shoppers also compared the on-line and store shopping experiences. Background information on respondents includes age, gender, education, race/ethnic identity, voter registration, political party affiliation, political orientation, marital status, number of children in the household, and household income.

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset.

CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module.

Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA:

Identification and study administration variables: mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; election type; weighting factors; if multiple rounds: percent of vote selected parties received in first round; selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; selection of candidates for the final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election

Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; race; ethnicity; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; region of residence; rural or urban residence

Survey variables: political participation during the recent election campaign (persuade others, campaign activities) and frequency of political participation; contacted by candidate or party during the campaign; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current election; most important issue; evaluation of governments performance concerning the most important issue and in general; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; democracy is better than any other form of government; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; judgement of the performance of the party the respondent voted for in the previous election; judgement how well voters´ views are represented in elections; party and leader that represent respondent´s view best; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; sympathy scale for selected parties; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political participation during the last 5 years: contacted a politician or government, protest or demonstration, work with others who share the same concern; respect for individual freedom and human rights; assessment how much corruption is widespread in the country; self-placement on a left-right-scale; political information items

DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA:

number of seats contested in electoral district, number of candidates, number of party lists, percent vote of different parties, official voter turnout in electoral district

MACRO-LEVEL DATA:

percent of popular vote received by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percentage of official voter turnout; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; year of party foundation; ideological family the parties are closest to; European parliament political group and international organization the parties belong to; significant parties not represented before and after the election; left-right position of parties; general concensus on these left-right placements among informed observers in the country; alternative dimension placements; consensus on the alternative dimension placements; most salient factors in the election; consensus on the salience ranking; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; name of alliance and participant parties; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower house and upper house was asked: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; transferrable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; party threshold; used electoral formula; party lists close, open, or flexible; parties can run joint lists; possibility of...

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

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.