This web map displays data from the voter registration database as the percent of registered voters by census tract in King County, Washington. The data for this web map is compiled from King County Elections voter registration data for the years 2013-2019. The total number of registered voters is based on the geo-_location of the voter's registered address at the time of the general election for each year. The eligible voting population, age 18 and over, is based on the estimated population increase from the US Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management and was calculated as a projected 6 percent population increase for the years 2010-2013, 7 percent population increase for the years 2010-2014, 9 percent population increase for the years 2010-2015, 11 percent population increase for the years 2010-2016 & 2017, 14 percent population increase for the years 2010-2018 and 17 percent population increase for the years 2010-2019. The total population 18 and over in 2010 was 1,517,747 in King County, Washington. The percentage of registered voters represents the number of people who are registered to vote as compared to the eligible voting population, age 18 and over. The voter registration data by census tract was grouped into six percentage range estimates: 50% or below, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91% or above with an overall 84 percent registration rate. In the map the lighter colors represent a relatively low percentage range of voter registration and the darker colors represent a relatively high percentage range of voter registration. PDF maps of these data can be viewed at King County Elections downloadable voter registration maps. The 2019 General Election Voter Turnout layer is voter turnout data by historical precinct boundaries for the corresponding year. The data is grouped into six percentage ranges: 0-30%, 31-40%, 41-50% 51-60%, 61-70%, and 71-100%. The lighter colors represent lower turnout and the darker colors represent higher turnout. The King County Demographics Layer is census data for language, income, poverty, race and ethnicity at the census tract level and is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 year Average provided by the United States Census Bureau. Since the data is based on a survey, they are considered to be estimates and should be used with that understanding. The demographic data sets were developed and are maintained by King County Staff to support the King County Equity and Social Justice program. Other data for this map is located in the King County GIS Spatial Data Catalog, where data is managed by the King County GIS Center, a multi-department enterprise GIS in King County, Washington. King County has nearly 1.3 million registered voters and is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to conduct all elections by mail. In the map you can view the percent of registered voters by census tract, compare registration within political districts, compare registration and demographic data, verify your voter registration or register to vote through a link to the VoteWA, Washington State Online Voter Registration web page.

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

This 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.

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.

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

Dave Leip's website

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

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

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

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

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).

Data Source: CA Secretary of State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1960 US presidential election was the first to take place in all fifty states (although not Washington DC), and the first time where the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prevented the incumbent president from running for a third term in office. The race was contested between John F. Kennedy of the Democratic Party, and incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon of the Republican Party. Kennedy defeated future-President Lyndon B. Johnson in the Democratic National Convention and asked Johnson to serve as his running mate, while Nixon won the Republican nomination comfortably, despite an early challenge from Nelson Rockefeller. This campaign is also notable for being the first to use televised debates between the candidates, including one that used split-screen technology, allowing the candidates to speak live from opposite sides of the country.

Campaign

Early in the campaign, both candidates were vibrant and charismatic, and garnered a loyal follower base. Kennedy spent most of his campaign criticizing the previous administration for falling behind the Soviet Union in terms of the military, economy and the space race, while Nixon highlighted the achievements made by Eisenhower's administration, and promised to build on them. Most historians agree that Kennedy's campaign was more structured and used better tactics than Nixon's, by canvassing heavily in swing states and districts instead of giving equal attention to all parts of the country (as Nixon did), with Kennedy focusing on metropolitan areas while Johnson canvassed in the south. Nixon's campaign was also more prone to mistakes, such as not preparing and refusing make-up for televised debates (making him look ill), while his running mate promised to elect African-Americans to the cabinet, however this just alienated black voters who were ambivalent in their reaction. Kennedy's connection with Martin Luther King Jr. also helped him to take a much larger share of the black vote than his opponent.

Results and Controversy

The popular vote was split by fewer than 120,000 out of seventy million votes. Kennedy took 49.7 percent of the popular vote, while Nixon took 49.5 percent. Nixon, however took more states than Kennedy, carrying 26 to Kennedy's 22, but Kennedy's tactical campaigning paid off, as his 22 states returned 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Unpledged Democratic electors in the south gave 15 electoral votes to Harry F. Byrd, as they opposed Kennedy's stance on civil rights. Due to the close nature of the results, many Republicans called for recounts and accused the Kennedy campaign of cheating or committing voter fraud. For example, they highlighted that more votes were cast in certain districts of Texas (Johnson's home state) than the number of registered voters, and when Nixon lost Illinois despite winning 92 out of 101 counties, many suggested a link between the Kennedy campaign and organized crime syndicates in Chicago. These claims have subsequently been proven to be false, and historians generally agree that Kennedy's campaigning methods and Nixon's wastefulness won Kennedy the election. John F. Kennedy was subsequently named the 35th President of the United States, and is remembered favorably as one of the most popular and charismatic leaders in US history. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, less than three years into his first term, and was succeeded by his Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson.

Overview

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

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

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

Starter Notebook

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

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

Voter File Descriptions

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

tbl_prod_GABUYYYYMM_sample.csv

The samples are defined as,

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

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

Geographic File Descriptions

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

cb_2019_us_entity_rr.geojson where,

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

Specifically, we include the following geographic entities,

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

Usage Restrictions

A quote from the Georgia Secretary of State dataset website,

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

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

This poll, conducted November 1-4, 2006, 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. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president, whether they approved of the way the United States Congress and their own representative in Congress was handling their job, and to rate the condition of the national economy. Registered voters were asked whether they were following the upcoming congressional mid-term elections on November 7, 2006, whether they were likely to vote, and which candidate they would vote for if the election were being held that day. Registered voters who had already voted were asked which candidate they voted for, how enthusiastic they were about their vote, and whether their vote was more for one political party, or more against the other political party. Opinions were solicited on what was the most important issue in the vote for Congress, whether things in the country were generally going in the right direction, whether their reason for voting for Congress included showing support for George W. Bush, and which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the situation in Iraq and the economy. Information was collected on whether respondents had been contacted by any organization working in support of a candidate for Congress and if so, which political party they were asked to vote for, which political party best represented their own personal values, and whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. Demographic variables include sex, age, religious preference, race, education level, voter registration and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, marital status, whether anyone in the household was a veteran, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

Replication data and code for The Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters by Jacob R Brown and Ryan D Enos, Nature Human Behavior 2021. Segregation across social groups is an enduring feature of nearly all human societies and is associated with numerous social maladies. In many countries, reports of growing geographic political polarization raise concerns about the stability of democratic governance. Here, using advances in spatial data computation, we measure individual partisan segregation by calculating the local residential segregation of every registered voter in the United States, creating a spatially weighted measure for more than 180 million individuals. With these data, we present evidence of extensive partisan segregation in the country. A large proportion of voters live with virtually no exposure to voters from the other party in their residential environment. Such high levels of partisan isolation can be found across a range of places and densities and are distinct from racial and ethnic segregation. Moreover, Democrats and Republicans living in the same city, or even the same neighbourhood, are segregated by party.

The US presidential election of 1932 was contested between incumbent President Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic Party. The election took place during the Great Depression, and although Hoover's administration presided over the outbreak of the depression, he received little competition for his party's nomination. Roosevelt was the overwhelming favorite to receive the Democratic nomination, however was not officially nominated until the fourth ballot of the convention. Republican decline The Republican Party had won 14 out of 18 elections since Lincoln's victory in 1860, and they oversaw a decade of significant prosperity in the 1920s, however the effects of the Wall Street Crash in October 1929 led to economic downturn and the breakdown of Republican leadership. Much of Roosevelt's campaign was based on highlighting the failures of Hoover's administration in the wake of the depression, as well as promising to repeal Prohibition, which was becoming increasingly unpopular (Democrats also argued that the taxation of alcohol sales would aid in economic recovery). Many prominent Republicans were openly critical of Hoover's leadership, with some going as far as supporting the opposite party, while the Democrats were more united and organized than they had been in decades. Results Following one of the most decisive victories in US presidential election history in 1928, Hoover was then on the receiving end of the largest swings in US history, losing 34 of the forty states he won in his previous election. Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking over 57 percent of the popular vote, and almost 89 percent of the electoral vote. Hoover's share of the popular vote was just forty percent, which gave him just 11 percent of the electoral vote, and this was eighteen percent fewer popular votes and 73 percent fewer electoral votes than in 1928. The third party candidate with the most votes was Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party, who received 2.2 percent of the popular vote. Roosevelt was inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States in March 1933, and would win the next three elections, making him the only US president to spend more than two terms in the white house.

This survey was conducted in the 15 southern and border states prior to the Super Tuesday primaries on March 8. Respondents were asked if they were registered to vote and what their party primary preference was. If not registered, respondents were asked why and whether they would vote if some particular candidate were currently running. Democrats and Republicans were asked for their opinions of their party's candidates, which candidate(s) they could not vote for should they be nominated by their party, if they saw candidates' television commercials, for whom they intended to vote or whether it was too early to say, which candidate had the best chance of winning, and which candidate cared the most. Democrats were asked whether the candidacy of Jesse Jackson was helping their party. Registered voters gave their opinions about the condition of the national economy, United States military superiority over the Soviet Union, the situation in Central America, whether the federal government was helping blacks enough, and the federal budget deficit. Background information on individuals includes age, marital status, income, religious preference, children, employment status, farm employment, education, race, and union membership.

The data were gathered through two different processes. The data in Parts 1, 3, and 5 were gathered by asking respondents questions concerning the 2004 United States Presidential Election and the debates between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Questions from Parts 1, 3, and 5 concerned opinions of presidential candidates Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat) and President George W. Bush (Republican) and vice-presidential candidates Senator John Edwards (Democrat) and Vice-President Dick Cheney (Republican) before and after their respective debates, opinions of each presidential and vice-presidential candidate's qualities and attributes, which candidate was more likely to win his debate, and which candidate won his debate. Further debate questions addressed the likelihood respondents were going to watch each debate, the level of influence and importance of the debates, and whether one candidate unfairly attacked his opponent in the debate. Also, respondents were asked for their opinion of George W. Bush's handling of the presidency, whether the country was going the right direction, the degree to which their opinion of the vice-president affected their vote for president, their opinion of the condition of the national economy, whether the candidates shared the moral values of many United States citizens, the likelihood the respondent was going to vote in the 2004 presidential election, and what mattered more in the presidential election: national security or the national economy. Pulse data (Parts 2, 4, and 6) were collected in order to obtain response time reactions to the candidates and their statements. They were obtained by panelists being instructed to move their cursor to the left and right to indicate how much they like or dislike the messages being delivered by each candidate throughout the debate. Background information for Parts 1, 3, and 5 includes age, education, employment status, head of household status, home ownership status, household income and whether the household was dual-income, housing type, labor union membership status, likelihood of voting in the 2004 election, marital status, military service status, number of children in the household, political party affiliation, political ideology, race, religious affiliation, sex, voter registration status, and whether the respondent voted in the 2000 United States presidential election.

Boundaries of Orleans Parish voting precincts as defined by the New Orleans City Charter. New Orleans voting precincts are drawn according to the New Orleans Home Rule Charter as required by the State of Louisiana. A precinct is defined in the state of Louisiana's election code as the smallest political unit of a ward having defined geographical boundaries. Precinct boundaries were updated September 25, 2015, in order to satisfy population changes discovered by the Orleans Registrar of Voters Office. The changes have been made by the City of New Orleans and verified by the Louisiana Secretary of State's Office. Information about voter registation can be found here: https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/RegistrationStatisticsParish.aspx https://www.municode.com/library/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH58EL_ARTIIELPRState LawRS 18:532. Establishment of precinctsA. Subject to the provisions of R.S. 18:532.1 and 1903, the governing authority of each parish shall establish precincts, define the territorial limits for which each precinct is established, prescribe their boundaries, and designate the precincts. The governing authority of each parish shall by ordinance adopt the establishment and boundaries of each precinct in accordance with the timetable as set forth herein and in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.B.(1)(a) Each precinct shall be a contiguous, compact area having clearly defined and clearly observable boundaries coinciding with visible features readily distinguishable on the ground and approved extensions of such features, such as designated highways, roads, streets, rivers, or canals, and depicted on United States Bureau of the Census base maps for the next federal decennial census, except where the precinct boundary is coterminous with the boundary of a parish or an incorporated place when the boundaries of a single precinct contain the entire geographic area of the incorporated place. Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph, on and after July 1, 1997, any precinct boundary which does not coincide with a visible feature shall be changed by the parish governing authority to coincide with a visible feature in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.(b) For the purposes of this Paragraph, the term "approved extension" shall mean an extension of one visible feature to another visible feature which has been approved by the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives or their designees and which is or which will be a census tabulation boundary.(2) No precinct shall be wholly contained within the territorial boundaries of another precinct, except that a precinct which contains the entire geographical area of an incorporated place and in which the total number of registered voters at the last general election was less than three hundred may be so contained.(3) No precinct shall contain more than two thousand two hundred registered voters within its geographic boundaries. Within thirty days after the completion of each canvass, the registrar of voters of each parish shall notify the parish governing authority of every precinct in the parish which contains more than two thousand two hundred registered voters within its geographic boundaries. Within sixty days of such notification, the parish governing authority shall divide such precincts by a visible feature in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.(4)(a) No precinct shall contain less than three hundred registered voters within its geographical boundaries, except:(i) When necessary to make it more convenient for voters in a geographically isolated and unincorporated area to vote. A voter in a geographically isolated and unincorporated area shall mean a voter whose residen

The 1876 United States presidential election is remembered as being one of the closest and contentious elections in US history. It was contested between the Republican Party's Rutherford B. Hayes and the Democratic Party's Samuel J. Tilden. Hayes was eventually named as the nineteenth President of the United States, winning by just one electoral vote. Tilden won 51 percent of the popular vote, and this makes him the only presidential candidate to ever win a majority of popular votes, but not be named president, and this was the second of five times where the person with the most votes was not named president. Controversy After the first round of counting, both candidates carried 17 states each, with four states too close to call. At this point, Tilden had 184 electoral votes (one short of a majority) to Hayes' 165. With both parties claiming victory in the final four states, and no official decision being made, an informal deal was agreed upon by both parties. This deal was the Compromise of 1877, and it gave the remaining twenty electoral votes to Hayes in return for the withdrawal of Federal troops from the south; thus establishing Democratic political dominance in the south, and ending the period of Reconstruction following the civil war. Suppression of the black vote Over the next few decades, the Democratic Party was able to use this dominance in the former-Confederate states to establish obstacles for poor-white and black voters when registering to vote. Following the civil war, black voters outnumbered white voters in at least five southern states, and these voters tended to vote Republican (the party of Lincoln, who is regarded as the figure most responsible for breaking down the institution of slavery). White dominance was achieved by introducing measures such as literacy tests and poll taxes, which disproportionately affected black voters, disenfranchising a significant number of them from participating in US politics. Although many of these practices were overturned through the civil rights era in the 1950s and 1960s, voter suppression continues to this day through the gerrymandering of district lines, as well as ID requirements and controversial computer systems that disproportionately affect ethnic-minorities during the voting process.

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

The 1868 US presidential election was the first to take place after the American Civil War, abolition of slavery, and the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party's Ulysses S. Grant competed with the Democratic Party's Horatio Seymour, even though incumbent President Andrew Johnson was eligible to run on the Democratic ticket. President Johnson had ascended to the presidency following Lincoln's assassination, however his inability to unite Republicans and Democrats during the post-civil war reconstruction led to impeachment charges being brought before Johnson, and he was almost removed from office, surviving by just one vote (36 of 54 "guilty" votes were needed to remove Johnson from office, however only 35 guilty votes were cast). Results The 1868 election was fought on an "anti-black, pro-white" platform by the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party campaigned on Grant's popularity as the Union military leader in the civil war. Grant won almost 53 percent of the popular vote, however this gave him almost three quarters of the electoral vote. Grant carried a total of 26 states, compared to Seymour's 8, and many of Grants victories were in states he had fought against in the civil war (although in 1868 Mississippi, Texas and Virginia had not yet been readmitted into the Union, and could not take part in the Presidential election). Grant's victories in the south have been attributed to lower levels of engagement among politically disenfranchised, white voters, as well as huge popularity among newly-freed, black voters. More than 700,000 black voters registered in 1867, and black voters were the majority in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

With Abraham Lincoln's victory in the 1860 presidential election, the Republican Party cemented its position as one of the two major political parties in the United States. Since 1860, candidates from both parties have faced one another in 41 elections, with the Republican candidate winning 24 elections, to the Democrats' 17. The share of electoral college votes is often very different from the share of the popular vote received by each candidate in the elections, as the popular vote differences tend to be much smaller. Electoral college system In the U.S., the electoral college system is used to elect the president. For most states, this means that the most popular candidate in each state then receives that state's allocation of electoral votes (which is determined by the state's population). In the majority of elections, the margin of electoral votes has been over thirty percent between the two major party candidates, and there were even some cases where the winner received over ninety percent more electoral votes than the runner-up. Biggest winners The largest margins for the Republican Party occurred in the aftermath of the American Civil War, in the pre-Depression era of the 1920s, with Eisenhower after the Second World War, and then again with the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush campaigns in the 1970s and 80s. For the Democratic Party, the largest victories occurred during the First and Second World Wars, and for Lindon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton in the second half of the 20th century. In the past six elections, the results of the electoral college vote have been relatively close, compared with the preceding hundred years; George W. Bush's victories were by less than seven percent, Obama's victories were larger (by around thirty percent), and in the most recent elections involving Donald Trump he both won and lost by roughly 14 percent.

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.