Analysis of ‘US non-voters poll data’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/us-non-voters-poll-datae on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

This dataset contains the data behind Why Many Americans Don't Vote.

Data presented here comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted from Sept. 15 to Sept. 25 among a sample of U.S. citizens that oversampled young, Black and Hispanic respondents, with 8,327 respondents, and was weighted according to general population benchmarks for U.S. citizens from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey March 2019 Supplement. The voter file company Aristotle then matched respondents to a voter file to more accurately understand their voting history using the panelist’s first name, last name, zip code, and eight characters of their address, using the National Change of Address program if applicable. Sixty-four percent of the sample (5,355 respondents) matched, although we also included respondents who did not match the voter file but described themselves as voting “rarely” or “never” in our survey, so as to avoid underrepresenting nonvoters, who are less likely to be included in the voter file to begin with. We dropped respondents who were only eligible to vote in three elections or fewer. We defined those who almost always vote as those who voted in all (or all but one) of the national elections (presidential and midterm) they were eligible to vote in since 2000; those who vote sometimes as those who voted in at least two elections, but fewer than all the elections they were eligible to vote in (or all but one); and those who rarely or never vote as those who voted in no elections, or just one.

The data included here is the final sample we used: 5,239 respondents who matched to the voter file and whose verified vote history we have, and 597 respondents who did not match to the voter file and described themselves as voting "rarely" or "never," all of whom have been eligible for at least 4 elections.

If you find this information useful, please let us know.

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Source: https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/tree/master/non-voters

This dataset was created by data.world's Admin and contains around 6000 samples along with Race, Q27 6, technical information and other features such as: - Q4 6 - Q8 3 - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Q10 3 in relation to Q8 6
• Study the influence of Q6 on Q10 4
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit data.world's Admin

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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.

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%

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The purpose of this study was to provide a database for investigating the impact of demographic and socio-economic milieux on party support and turnout in parliamentary constituencies. The dataset has been designed as a reference file for researchers. It contains basic electoral information (total votes cast, votes for each party, structure of party contest, whether a by-election won/held) in raw numeric form such that the secondary user can construct his or her own indices for each constituency. In addition, a selection of electorally relevant social and demographic variables drawn from the 1966 Sample Census is provided for the pre-1971 constituencies (053, 206 and 661).
Main Topics:

Variables
The parliamentary boundary changes of 1983 radically redrew Britain's electoral map. This study combines data on the relationships between the old and the new seats, estimates of 1979 voting within the new boundaries, the results of the 1983 General Election and socio-economic data from the 1981 census for each of the 633 seats in Great Britain.
Shifts in constituency electorates, 1979-1983; simulated 1979 election results for the 1983 constituencies; General Election results for 1983; socio-economic data on the 1983 constituencies and demographic characteristics.
Sex of 1983 candidate for the main parties; whether a candidate was a former MP.
The data set includes one variable (the ACORN classification) which is used with permission of CACI Ltd.

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.

"The AUTNES Candidate Survey 2013 was conducted after the Austrian national parliamentary election of 29 September 2013. The dataset is based on a written census survey of the 3.946 candidates for the National Council election. Candidates were asked questions on four topics: Political background and activities, campaigning, issues and policies as well as democracy and representation. The first subject area contains variables like the candidates’ party affiliation, its duration and possible changes as well as several indicators for political activity like association membership or the average weekly time spent with party activities. Next, candidates were asked about several details of their campaign: Its aim and strategy, time spent, occurring problems, communication means, personal campaign funds and relationship with the party. The third section on issues and policies also includes (besides questions about the candidates’ positions on several topics) coalition preferences, left–right self-placement and opinions on EU topics. The final part of the dataset holds information on candidates’ general attitudes about democracy, their preferred electoral system as well as their understanding of how a Member of Parliament should act.

Topics: 1. Political background and activities: Party for which the candidate ran in this election; year of joining the party; earlier membership in other parties; motivation to be active in politics; importance of selected reasons to stand as a candidate in this election; positions (e.g. local party office, mayor, etc.); membership in organizations or associations; time for party activities in an average week when there is no electoral campaign.

1. Campaigning: primary aim of campaign (self vs. party); time spent campaigning during the last four weeks before the election; hours per week during the last weeks of the campaign spent on selected campaign activities; followed the same strategy or adapted the strategy in the course of the campaign; reason for adapting the strategy; important problems or events that influenced opinions of voters in own constituency; importance of selected means of communication in the campaign; use of own campaign material (not provided by party); ranking of most important campaign issues (party’s manifesto, one particular issue in the party’s manifesto, the party’s record, the top candidate, other members of the party, the economic well-being of the constituency, social cohesion and solidarity in the constituency, demands of the voters in the constituency, own openness of the voters, own local or regional background, own political experience); frequency of mentioning other parties in the campaign; level of direct competition with other parties in the constituency (SPÖ, ÖVP, FPÖ, BZÖ, GRÜNE, NEOS, FRANK); level of intra-party competition for nomination as a candidate on each tier of the electoral system; number of people in the electoral district that worked for the party’s campaign; number of people in personal campaign team ; use of professional political consulting for the campaign in the electoral district; campaign funds; extent of coordination with the national, regional, local and other party branches; emphasis on issues specific to the constituency that were not raised by the national party; members of the party leadership visited the candidate’s constituency during the campaign; goal of the personal campaign (preferences vs. party votes); evaluation of chances to win a mandate; evaluation of the election campaign (fair, aggressive, boring); mentioned the party’s top candidate in the campaign; emphasized personal characteristics of the party’s top candidate (competence, honesty, assertiveness, charisma); factors influencing the election result of the party; knowledge of party manifesto content; opinion on the party manifesto (e.g. an important source of information for candidates on the positions of the party, etc.); the ideal election manifesto should be short and concise or an extensive summary of party positions; sources of information on the other parties’ positions in the campaign.

2. Issues and politics: most important political problems in Austria (current and during campaign); attitudes towards different political issues (politics should keep out of the economy, the national debt must not increase, politics should balance differences between large and small incomes, unemployment needs to be fought, taxes should be lowered, the state should not hold ownership of business companies, Austria’s cultural life is enriched by immigrants, immigration to Austria should be more constrained, adequate German language skills should be a prerequisite for immigration, Austria should take a tough stance on admission of asylum seekers, immigration from Islamic countries is a danger to the value systems in Austria, need of stronger measures to protect the environment, in a nursery small children are taken care of just as well as they are by their...