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 is about the official result of voter registration for preparing new voter lists 2016 published by National Election Committee on its website. There is a table contains the data of voter registration in 25 provinces and capital across the country including name of provinces/capital, total number of commune/sangkat and polling stations, total estimated statistic of each province’s population and people over 18, total number of voters and its percentage registered in the voter lists and as well as the total number of female in the voter lists. These data were collected from NEC’s website in PDF format by ODC's map and data team. Geographic data is encoded in the WGS 84, Zone 48 North coordinate reference system.

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

This dataset contains data about domestic absentee voting, provisional balloting, poll books, polling place, precincts, poll workers, and voting technology used in the 2016 election cycle. The corresponding comprehensive report addresses voter registration, uniformed and overseas citizen voting, domestic absentee voting, provisional balloting, poll books, polling place, precincts, poll workers, and voting technology used in the 2016 election. The Election Administration and Voting Survey report is part of EAC's Election Administration and Voting Survey biennial project.

In U.S. presidential elections since 1964, voter turnout among male and female voters has changed gradually but significantly, with women consistently voting at a higher rate than men since the 1980 election. 67 percent of eligible female voters took part in the 1964 election, compared to 72 percent of male voters. This difference has been reversed in recent elections, where the share of women who voted has been larger than the share of men by around four percent since 2004.

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

Description to be added

Provides demographic information on persons who did and did not register to vote. Also measures number of persons who voted and reasons for not registering.

Reference data of age and sex profile of registered electors by Districts in 2016 (English) (CSV)

Reference data of age and sex profile of newly registered electors of the Central and Western District Council Constituencies in 2016 (CSV)

These are resources related to the voter registration exercise being performed ahead of the 2017 General Elections.

These are resources related to the voter registration exercise being performed ahead of the 2017 General Elections.

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.

Changes in partisan outcomes between consecutive elections must come from changes in the composition of the electorate or changes in the vote choices of consistent voters. The extent to which electoral change is driven by composition versus conversion has critical implications for political systems including the policy mandates of election victories and politicians' strategies while campaigning and governing. Here, we analyze electoral change between the 2012 and 2016 U.S. presidential elections using administrative data. At the precinct level, the smallest geography at which vote counts are available, we merge election returns with individual-level turnout records from 37 million registered voters in six key states. We find that both factors were substantively meaningful drivers of electoral change. While the extent to which each factor aided the GOP in 2016 varied by state, we estimate that pro-GOP conversion among two-election voters was particularly important in states including Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where the pro-GOP swings were largest. Our results suggest conversion remains a crucial component of electoral change.

Reference data of age and sex profile of newly registered electors by Districts in 2016 (Traditional Chinese)

This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2018. It also contains measures of each county’s Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2016.

The Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed the AVE data, release 1.0. The dataset contains information from a three-wave panel survey designed to gather the views of a representative sample of ordinary Australians just before and after the 2nd July 2016 Australian federal elections. The survey monitored Australian voters’ experience at the polls, perceptions of the integrity and convenience of the registration and voting process, patterns of civic engagement, public confidence in electoral administration, and attitudes towards reforms, such as civic education campaigns and convenience voting facilities. Respondents were initially contacted in the week before the election between 28 June and 1 July and completed an online questionnaire lasting approximately 15 minutes. This forms the pre-election base line survey (wave 1). The same individuals were contacted again after the election to complete a longer survey, an average of 25 minutes in length. Respondents in wave 2 were contacted between 4 July and 19 July, with two thirds completing the survey after the first week. About six weeks later, the same respondents were interviewed again (wave 3) beginning on 23 August and ending on 13 September. The initial sample contains 2,139 valid responses for the first wave of questionnaires, 1,838 for the second wave (an 86 percent retention rate), and 1,543 for the third wave (84 percent retention rate). Overall, 72 percent of the respondents were carried over from the pre-election wave to the final wave. The following files can be accessed: a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats; b) codebook; c) questionnaire. The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093). **** EIP further publications: BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Government and Opposition 50(3): 521 - 548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.6 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘When Guardians Matter...

This web map shows the Loudoun County elections results by districts (both county and Member House of Representatives 10th District), precinct and towns (Leesburg, Hillsboro and Middleburg) . The map was kept up-to-date during election night. For questions regarding the elections please contact the Office of Voter Registration & Elections. For questions regarding this application please contact the Office of Mapping and Geographic Information.

Données sur la participation et la distribution des votes pour les élections législatives marocaines de 2016. Les résultats des listes locales ont été copiés de http://www.elections.ma. Les résultats des listes nationales ont été communiqués par la Fédération de la Gauche Démocratique. Les sources ne reportent pas le taux de votes nuls ou le nombre d'inscrits. Data on turnout and vote distribution for the Moroccan parliamentary elections of 2016. Results for local lists have been copied from http://www.elections.ma. Results for national lists have been communicated by Federation de la Gauche Democratique. Sources do not report the rate of spoilt votes nor the number of registered voters.

Register of Deeds Race by Ward Nov 8 2016

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.