Description

This dataset contains the county-wise vote share of the United States presidential election of 2020, and in the future 2024, the main advantage of the dataset is that it contains various important county statistics such as the counties racial composition, median and mean income, income inequality, population density, education level, population and the counties occupational distribution.

_Imp: this dataset will be updated as the 2024 results come in, I will also be adding more county demographic data, if you have any queries or suggestions please feel free to comment _

Motivation

The reasons for constructing this dataset are many, however the prime reason was to aggregate all the data on counties along with the election result data for easy analysis in one place. I noticed that Kaggle contains no datasets with detailed county information, and that using the US census bureau site is pretty difficult and time consuming to extract data so it would be better to have a pre-prepared table of data

Columns

• The first columns contain information on the county and state
• The next columns contain the 2020 vote both raw and %
• The next columns contain the education level of the county population
• Following that we have information about the income and income inequality in the county
• Then we have the county racial composition
• The counties population and population density
• The final columns contain information about the distribution of occupations in the county

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

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.

FWISD8 Early Voting & Ballot by Mail Data

Precincts, Voters, and Election Participation

By Jason Brown [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains comprehensive information about early voting and ballot by mail for Fort Worth ISD District 8. It includes key data points such as the full name, address lines 1-4, city, state, zip/zip+4 code of the voter; precinct and sub-precinct; ballot style, ballot party and voter party; election code and phone area/prefix/number; early voting site (if applicable) plus firstname and lastname of the voter. In addition to this voting information, the dataset also includes a field for the date that each voter cast their vote or submitted their mail in ballot. All of this data can be used to identify trends in voting behavior within a precinct or across Fort Worth ISD District 8 as a whole. With it, researchers may gain valuable insights into what motivates voters to go out and cast their ballots as well as other key information that can be used to increase democratic experiences in future elections

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides information on the voting and ballot by mail process in Fort Worth ISD District 8. This data can be used to answer questions about who participated and how they voted, as well as which areas are most active when it comes to voting.

To get started, here are some tips for using the dataset: - Explore the data columns - The columns provided in this dataset include full name, address information (address line 1 through 4), city, state, zip code, precinct number/subdivision numbers for early voting sites and precinct locations , ballot style/party affiliations of voters , election code, phone numbers of registered voters (area code & prefix) and vote-by-mail site . As you explore different use cases of this data set you may find other interesting connections or patterns between one column or another that can help answer questions or provide insights into voting practices in the area. - Look at voter turnout - Using this dataset you can analyze voter turnout over a given period of time to identify trends in voter engagement both within one district but also across various districts across Texas. Pay attention to both early voting sites & traditional polling locations when making comparisons as they tend towards different kinds of participation among residents - people who prefer early voting might not prefer traditional polling locations vice versa so it's important to look at both types together..
- Understand Voter Motivation - Examine what most drives voter involvement in elections? Examining factors such as location (rural vs urban), age demographics etc., can tell us about what motivates voters either positively or negatively regarding engagement in elections held within their district . Comparing these numbers with actual votes casted provides rich insight into motivation behind why people may not have voted .

By understanding the existing patterns between these datasets using sophisticated analytics methods ,we could make highly accurate predictions about which areas will have higher levels of turnout at an upcoming election . With this knowledge we could implement policies that help increase interest/participation even further enabling a more open/fair democratic process for everyone involved!

Research Ideas

• Understanding Voter Behavior: Using this dataset, research organizations and political campaigns can gain insight into how certain demographics are voting and who they are voting for.
• Targeted Campaign Ads: With this dataset, marketing teams can create demographic-specific ads aimed at getting people to turn out to vote or targeting voters with a specific persuasion.
• Polling Place Location: Analyzing the data in regards to polling places could help cities identify where it is most beneficial to open and close polling locations, as well as the length of opening hours needed at each location depending on voter turnout or trend along party lines in a particular area

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

See the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: ev_vtrex_isdfw8.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------| | full_name | Full name of the voter. (String) | | addr_line1 ...

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

Description:

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

Key Features:

Poll Date:The date when the poll was conducted.

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

Sample Size: The number of respondents in the poll.

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

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

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

Use Cases:

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

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.

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 Cumulative Report includes complete official election results for the 2020 Presidential General Election as of November 29, 2020. Results are released in three separate reports: The Vote By Mail 1 report contains complete results for ballots received by the Board of Elections on or before October 21, 2020, that could be accepted and opened before Election Day. The Vote By Mail 2 Canvass report contains complete results for all remaining Vote By Mail ballots that were received in a drop box or in person at the Board of Elections by 8:00pm on November 3, or were postmarked by November 3 and received timely by the Board of Elections by 10:00am on Friday, November 13. The Vote By Mail 2 Canvass begins on Thursday, November 5. The Provisional Canvass contains complete results for all provisional ballots issued to voters at Early Voting or on Election Day. For more information on this process, please visit the 2020 Presidential General Election Ballot Canvass webpage at https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Elections/2020GeneralElection/general-ballot-canvass.html. For turnout information, please visit the Maryland State Board of Elections Press Room webpage at https://elections.maryland.gov/press_room/index.html.

Description:

This dataset combines data from three sources to provide a comprehensive overview of county-level socioeconomic indicators, educational attainment, and voting outcomes in the United States. The dataset includes variables such as unemployment rates, median household income, urban influence codes, education levels, and voting percentages for the 2020 U.S. presidential election. By integrating this data, the dataset enables analysis of how factors like income, education, and unemployment correlate with political preferences, offering insights into regional voting behaviors across the country.

References:

The following reference datasets were used to construct this dataset.

[1] Harvard Dataverse, Voting Data Set by County. Available: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi: 10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ

[2] USDA Economic Research Service, Educational Attainment and Un- employment Data. Available: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ county-level-data-sets/county-level-data-sets-download-data/

This data is from the US Census Bureau and is self-reported.

To download XML and JSON files, click the CSV option below and click the down arrow next to the Download button in the upper right on its page.

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: weighting factors;election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; 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; current employment status; main occupation; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; occupation of chief wage earner and of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence

Survey variables: respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; last election was conducted fairly; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; political parties care what people think; political parties are necessary; recall of candidates from the last election (name, gender and party); number of candidates correctly named; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of the state of the economy in the country; assessment of economic development in the country; degree of improvement or deterioration of economy; politicians know what people think; contact with a member of parliament or congress during the past twelve months; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; people express their political opinion; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; assessment of parties and political leaders 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:

founding year of parties; ideological families of parties; international organization the parties belong to; left-right position of parties assigned by experts; election outcomes 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; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; most salient factors in the election; head of state (regime type); if multiple rounds: selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; procedure for candidate selection at final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election of head of state; head of government (president or prime minister); selection of prime minister; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower and upper houses was coded: 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; electoral formula; party threshold; parties can run joint lists; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; ally party support; constitu...

Elections, specially in countries such as Brazil, with an electorate of the order of 100 million people, yield large-scale data-sets embodying valuable information on the dynamics through which individuals influence each other and make choices. In this work we perform an extensive analysis of data sets available for Brazilian proportional elections of legislators and city councilors throughout the period 1970–2014, which embraces two distinct political regimes: a military regime followed by a democratic one. We perform a comparative analysis of elections for legislative positions, in different states and years, through the distribution p(v) of the number of candidates receiving v votes. We show the impact of the different political regimes on the vote distributions. Although p(v) has a common shape, with a scaling behavior, quantitative details change over time and from one electorate to another. In order to interpret the observed features, we propose a multi-species model consisting in a system of nonlinear differential equations, with values of the parameters that reflect the heterogeneity of candidates. In its simplest setting, the model can not explain the cutoff, formed by the most voted candidates, whose success is determined mainly by their peculiar, intrinsic characteristics, such as previous publicity. However, the modeling allows to interpret the scaling of p(v), yielding a predictor of the degree of feedback in the interactions of the electorate. Knowledge of the feedback is relevant beyond the context of elections, since a similar interactivity may occur for other social contagion processes in the same population.

This data set consists of all Fulton County Election results from April 2012 to present. Included with each record is the race, candidate, precinct, number of election day votes, number of absentee by mail votes, number of advance in person votes, number of provisional votes, total number of votes, name of election, and date of election. This data set is updated after each election.

This table contains data on the percent of adults (18 years or older) who are registered voters and the percent of adults who voted in general elections, for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the Statewide Database, University of California Berkeley Law, and the California Secretary of State, Elections Division. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Political participation can be associated with the health of a community through two possible mechanisms: through the implementation of social policies or as an indirect measure of social capital. Disparities in political participation across socioeconomic groups can influence political outcomes and the resulting policies could have an impact on the opportunities available to the poor to live a healthy life. Lower representation of poorer voters could result in reductions of social programs aimed toward supporting disadvantaged groups. Although there is no direct evidentiary connection between voter registration or participation and health, there is evidence that populations with higher levels of political participation also have greater social capital. Social capital is defined as resources accessed by individuals or groups through social networks that provide a mutual benefit. Several studies have shown a positive association between social capital and lower mortality rates, and higher self- assessed health ratings. There is also evidence of a cycle where lower levels of political participation are associated with poor self-reported health, and poor self-reported health hinders political participation. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Any Election, there is under voting in which more people vote in one particular race than another. This dataset includes over 30 years of primary elections and shows a countywide race versus a statewide or congressional race and the total number of undervotes.

This paper estimates the effect of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) on voter turnout in California and Oregon. AVR systems register to vote all eligible individuals who transact with proscribed government agencies, most commonly the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs). The article isolates one part of the causal impact of AVR on turnout by taking advantage of a temporal feature of license renewals. Many individuals interact with the DMV periodically due to the need to renew drivers’ licenses. Because licenses in both California and Oregon expire on birthdays, an individual’s birth date can be treated as an exogenous variable discriminating between some individuals are registered to vote in time for an election, whereas others are not. Our instrumental variable analysis compares registration and voting rates for individuals with birth dates prior and subsequent to the voter registration deadline. After calculating a causal effect of AVR on turnout at the individual level, we extrapolate this AVR “birthday” effect to overall voter turnout for these states.

The 119th Congressional Districts dataset reflects boundaries from January 3rd, 2025 from the United States Census Bureau (USCB), and the attributes are updated every Sunday from the United States House of Representatives and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Information for each member of Congress is appended to the Census Congressional District shapefile using information from the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives' website https://clerk.house.gov/xml/lists/MemberData.xml and its corresponding XML file. Congressional districts are the 435 areas from which people are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. This dataset also includes 9 geographies for non-voting at large delegate districts, resident commissioner districts, and congressional districts that are not defined. After the apportionment of congressional seats among the states based on census population counts, each state is responsible for establishing congressional districts for the purpose of electing representatives. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a state as practicable. The 119th Congress is seated from January 3, 2025 through January 3, 2027. In Connecticut, Illinois, and New Hampshire, the Redistricting Data Program (RDP) participant did not define the CDs to cover all of the state or state equivalent area. In these areas with no CDs defined, the code "ZZ" has been assigned, which is treated as a single CD for purposes of data presentation. The TIGER/Line shapefiles for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) each contain a single record for the non-voting delegate district in these areas. The boundaries of all other congressional districts reflect information provided to the Census Bureau by the states by May 31, 2024. A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529006

Context

Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote

Content

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.

Acknowledgements

We wouldn't be here without the help of others. If you owe any attributions or thanks, include them here along with any citations of past research.

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

This data has been taken from LGInform reference ID 3361. It shows the percentage of overall turnout for local elections in Plymouth from 1997 up to 2016. It shows the percentage of overall turnout for local elections - This metric is the overall percentage turnout for each main round of local council elections. It is calculated based on the total number of ballots reported divided by the total electorate (people eligible to vote) for the wards holding elections and is expressed as a percentage. Local councillors are elected for 4-year terms by the local community, at the end of this term elections are held for the relevant wards. The election cycle varies for different councils, some councils elect all of their councillors at the same time (once every four years), other councils elect half or a third of their councillors at each election. Therefore this should be kept in mind when comparing the figures for different councils. Source name: The Elections Centre, Plymouth University Collection name: Local Elections Handbook Polarity: No polarity Polarity is how sentiment is measured "Sentiment is usually considered to have "poles" positive and negative these are often translated into "good" and "bad" sentiment analysis is considered useful to tell us what is good and bad in our information stream