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).

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

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.

U.S. President general county level voter registration and turnout data for 1992-2022. Each level of data include the following: Total Population (state and county) Total Voting-Age Population (state only) Total Voter Registration (except ND, WI - these two states do not have voter registration.) Total Ballots Cast (for 2004, not yet available for NC, PA. WI doesn't publish this data) Total Vote Cast for President Voter Registration by Party (AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, SD, WV, WY). Remaining states do not have voter registration by party). The following worksheets are included in each file: National Summary - summarizes registration and turnout totals by state - with boundary file information (fips) Data by County - data for all counties of all states plus DC - with boundary file information (fips) Data by Town - data for New England towns (ME, MA, CT, RI, VT, NH) - with boundary file information (fips) Data Sources - a list of data sources used to compile the spreadsheet.

The 1860 election was one of the most divisive and influential elections in US history, with scholarly consensus citing it as one of the most decisive factors or catalysts that led to the outbreak of the American Civil War. The election saw candidates from four separate parties compete, with candidates not appearing on ballots in multiple states. The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln, and opposed the extension of slavery into new states, while the Democratic Party nominated Stephen A. Douglas and favored popular sovereignty, which allowed states to vote on the legality of slavery. This approach however did not appeal to many Democrats in the south, who feared that this did not protect the status of slavery, and so rather than supporting Douglas, southern Democrats split and nominated John C. Breckenridge as their candidate. The fourth candidate was John Bell of the Constitutional Union, whose party's main focus was to avoid the secession of the south at all costs. Results With a plurality of the popular votes, Abraham Lincoln won almost sixty percent of the electoral votes, and was named the sixteenth President of the United States. Despite winning almost thirty percent of the popular votes (the second highest amount), Douglas carried only one state, and received just four percent of the electoral votes. Breckenridge carried eleven states, however if both Democratic candidates pooled they would have received more popular votes, yet Lincoln would have still won due to the electoral college system. There were also ten southern states where Lincoln's name was not on the ballot, as he was so unpopular in the slave states that his team could not print or distribute ballots for voters to choose him (this issue would be rectified in the 1880s, with the introduction of the secret ballot). Outbreak of the war Political leaders and merchants in the south believed that a President with abolitionist views would implement measures that threatened the institution of slavery. Following Lincoln's victory, seven states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, and elected Jefferson Davis to President of the Confederacy (despite Breckenridge's strong performance in the election). Lincoln did not take any action against the Confederacy, but also refused to surrender federal property in the area. This led to Davis ordering a Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, which led to retaliation from the Union, the cessation of four more states into the Confederacy, and the beginning of the deadliest war in US history.

Under this agreement the American Association of Motor Vehicles (AAMVA) will provide connectivity, billing services, and staff a help desk to the MVAs of States, District of Columbia, and territories of the US, for SSA. SSA will, through AAMVA's network, provide verification of certain voter registration information to the State MVAs for their use in the registration of voters for elections for Federal office. SSA is providing the verified information in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

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.

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and state senate district starting with June 2021. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

The 1956 presidential election in the United States saw a rematch of the two main candidates who contested the 1952 election. Incumbent President Dwight D. Eisenhower was seeking re-election for the Republican Party, while Adlai E. Stevenson was again on the ballot for the Democratic Party. Eisenhower maintained his considerable popularity from the Second World War, by keeping his campaign promise of ending the Korean War, as well as growing the economy and being an effective and charismatic leader. Despite a heart attack in 1955, Eisenhower faced no competition for the Republican Party's re-nomination, with Richard Nixon returning as his running mate. The Democratic primaries were not as certain however, yet Stevenson was re-nominated in due course, as his campaign was better funded and organized than any of his opponents. The Democratic National Convention nominated Stevenson on the first vote (future-President Lyndon B. Johnson was also on the ballot), but then Stevenson made an unprecedented move by allowing the DNC to also choose his running mate. Estes Kefauver was eventually named as Stevenson's running mate, with John F. Kennedy and Al Gore Sr. coming in second and third place respectively. Eisenhower's campaign boost In 1954, during Eisenhower's first term, his administration had supported the Supreme Court's ruling in the Brown v Board of Education, which ended the racial segregation of schools. While this angered many white voters in the Deep South (where segregation was deeply entrenched in daily life), it did earn Eisenhower the support of almost forty percent of black voters, which was the last time a Republican candidate received such support from the African-American community. In the weeks before the election, Eisenhower's response to the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt also increased his popularity at home. Eisenhower condemned both invasions while speaking at the UN, and even pressured the withdrawal of troops from Egypt. Results Eisenhower won by yet another landslide, increasing his margins of victory in the 1952 elections. Eisenhower carried 41 states, taking 84 percent of the electoral vote, and 57 percent of the popular vote. Stevenson won a majority in just seven states, taking 42 and 14 percent of the popular and electoral votes respectively. A faithless elector in Alabama also cast one electoral vote for Walter Jones (a local judge) instead of giving it to Stevenson. This was the final election to be contested in just 48 states, with Hawaii and Alaska being represented from 1960 onwards.

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and county starting with January 2000. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. Libertarians were reported separately March 2017 through January 2019, and beginning again in January 2023. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

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

Research suggests that partisans are increasingly avoiding members of the other party—in their choice of neighborhood, social network, even their spouse. Leveraging a national database of voter registration records, we analyze 18 million households in the U.S. We find that three in ten married couples have mismatched party affiliations. We observe the relationship between inter-party marriage and gender, age, and geography. We discuss how the findings bear on key questions of political behavior in the US. Then, we test whether mixed-partisan couples participate less actively in politics. We find that voter turnout is correlated with the party of one’s spouse. A partisan who is married to a co-partisan is more likely to vote. This phenomenon is especially pronounced for partisans in closed primaries, elections in which non-partisan registered spouses are ineligible to participate.

Abstract (en): This data collection supplies standard monthly labor force data for the week prior to the survey. Comprehensive information is given on the employment status, occupation, and industry of persons 14 years old and older. Individual-level data were gathered from a national sample of over 189,000 persons in November 1980. Included is information on household composition and type of residence, occupational and demographic details, and voting behavior in the November 1980 general election. Items available include voting status, registration status, reasons for not voting, reasons for not registering, and length of time living at same address. Information on demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, marital status, veteran status, educational attainment, and Hispanic origin, is available for each respondent. Persons in the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States including members of the armed forces living in civilian housing units in November 1980. A national probability sample was used in selecting housing units. Approximately 77,000 household were selected for the sample. (1) All records contain weights, which must be used in any analysis. (2) The codebook is provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

This dataset represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using the Social Security - Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) system. Report for 2024.

Scholarship on women voters in the United States has focused on the gender gap showing that women are more likely to vote for Democratic Party candidates than men since the 1980s. The persistence of the gender gap has nurtured the conclusion that women are Democrats. This article presents evidence upending that conventional wisdom. Data from the American National Election Study are analyzed to demonstrate that white women are the only group of female voters who support Republican Party candidates for president. They have done so by a majority in all but 2 of the last 18 elections. The relevance of race for partisan choice among women voters is estimated with data collected in 2008, 2012, and 2016, and the significance of being white is identified after accounting for political party identification and other predictors.

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. Voting district is the generic name for geographic entities such as precincts, wards, and election districts established by State governments for the purpose of conducting elections. States participating in the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program as part of Public Law 94-171 (1975) provided the Census Bureau with boundaries, codes, and names for their VTDs. Each VTD is identified by a 1- to 6-character alphanumeric census code that is unique within county. For the 2010 Census, Kentucky and Rhode Island are the only States that did not provide voting district boundaries as part of Phase 2 (the Voting District Project) of the Redistricting Data Program and no VTDs exist for these States in the 2020 Census data products. Note that only Montana and Oregon do not have complete coverage of VTDs for the 2020 Census.

This dataset details the hours and locations for voter registration and voting in suburban Cook County between Oct. 8 and election day, Nov. 4, 2014. Voters may visit one of the 18 election day registration sites if they are not already registered and eligible to vote in their precinct. For more information on Early Voting see http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/earlyvoting/Pages/default.aspx , For more information on Grace Period Registration and Voting see http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/registertovote/Pages/GracePeriod.aspx . For more information on Election Day Registration and Voting see http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/registertovote/Pages/ElectionDayRegistration.aspx .

Why Choose Our Political Data?

In the fast-paced world of political campaigning, having access to precise and actionable data can make the difference between winning and losing. Here at The Data Group, we understand the unique needs of political campaigns and provide the accurate Political Data necessary to reach the right voters with the right message at the right time.

Key Features of Political Data

● Comprehensive Voter Profiles: Our Political Data is enriched with detailed profiles of voters, including demographic information, voting history, donor data and issue preferences. This allows campaigns to tailor their messages to resonate with individual voter concerns, increasing engagement and support.

● Integrated Direct Marketing Solutions: Our platform seamlessly integrates with direct marketing channels. Whether it’s email, social media, SMS, or traditional mail, we ensure that your message reaches your audience where they are most likely to engage.

Applications of Political Data

Voter Data isn’t just about numbers—it’s about strategic advantage. Here’s how our data can transform your campaign:

● Targeted Outreach: Identify and prioritize undecided voters in swing states/districts. ● Voter Mobilization: Increase voter turnout with personalized GOTV (Get Out The Vote) campaigns. Target hard to reach voters not found on other data sets. ● Issue Advocacy: Tailor your messaging to highlight issues that matter most to specific voter groups. ● Fundraising Efficiency: Focus your fundraising efforts on high-potential donors by analyzing past contributions and engagement levels. ● Event Planning: Maximize turnout at rallies and town halls by targeting invitations to likely attendees.

Why our Voter & Donor Data is the Best

● Precision Targeting: Our political data allows for micro-targeting, ensuring your marketing efforts are not just broad strokes but precise, hitting the mark every time. This precision reduces waste and increases the impact of your messages.

● Data-Driven Insights: Harness the power of data to refine your marketing strategies. Our insights help you understand voter sentiments and adjust your communications to be more persuasive and compelling.

● Cost-Effective Solutions: By focusing on the most promising voter segments and avoiding less productive areas, you save money and get a better return on investment. Our data-driven approach ensures that every dollar spent is strategically allocated.

● Proven Success: Campaigns that utilize our Political Data see measurable improvements in voter engagement and turnout. Our track record speaks for itself, with numerous successful campaigns attributing their wins to our superior data and marketing solutions.

The data we use comes from government agencies and mainstream media. We fill the missing data using regression imputation. The pandemic data comes from the Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) data tracker. As of Nov. 25, 2020, the death toll reached 261k in the U.S.

Adult Ranking is used to assess the possible effects of the national result on its voters’ mental wellness. States that are ranked 1-13 have a lower prevalence of mental illness and higher rates of access to care for adults. The states with higher rank (39-51) indicate that adults have a higher prevalence of mental illness and lower rates of access to care. There are seven measures that makeup Adult Ranking, including any mental illness, disorder, suicided, etc. Physical scientist (2018) is used as the representative of the College group. We extract the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The spirit of independence and freedom in thinking is particularly important in academic studies and research. The underlying assumption of choosing this factor

is the higher number of physical scientists, the freer academic atmosphere in which people can pursue truth, exercise reasoning, and respect science. Horse racing is one of the oldest of all sports that have taken place in the United States, which provides normous economic, employment, and social contribution for entertainment sector. It represents the traditional economy in the analysis. We use steed sales from USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) as an indicator of the horse racing prosperity, in other prospects, traditional economy.

Database records the management information about the transactions received for identification of the individuals applying for voter status.