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.

According to a 2023 survey, Americans between 18 and 29 years of age were more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than any other surveyed age group. While 39 percent identified as Democrats, only 14 percent identified ad Republicans. However, those 50 and older identified more with the Republican Party.

Minimum and maximum values of correlation time series for feeling anxious, feeling depressed, worried about finances between political parties.

Minimum and maximum values of eigenvalue centrality time series for feeling anxious, feeling depressed, and worried about finances between political parties.

This web map features the 117th Congressional Districts for the United States. The districts are symbolized by the political party of the current incumbent. At larger scales, the districts are labeled with the name of the incumbent.

Minimum and maximum values of correlation time series for feeling anxious, feeling depressed, worried about finances between demographic regions.

Timeline of COVID-19 policies and mandates that affect finances.

Two public opinion surveys were conducted. For the first, main survey, data was collected by YouGov from 1,517 participants between 17th and 21st November 2017. Participants were identified through YouGov's pre-existing panel of survey participants and were selected to produce a nationally representative sample for the UK population. This process involved panel members being sent a link to complete the survey. Only participants who answered all questions were included in the survey data. Participants who completed the questions in a time shorter than it would take to read the questions were excluded, resulting in a valid sample of 1,497 people (out of an initial sample of 1,517). The first survey comes in 4 parts: 1- Attitudes to parties, 2- Views and desires for party representation, 3- Views and desires for party participation, 4- Views and desires for party governance. A range of explanatory variables are also included for statistical analysis. A second, shorter survey was fielded via YouGov on 8th-9th of April 2019, and gained 1,692 valid responses. This was composed of 10 questions that explored views of specific political parties.

The link between citizens and the state is the crux of democratic politics, yet it is crumbling. Numerous studies have diagnosed a crisis in representative politics with decreased participation and growing levels of distrust bringing the legitimacy of democratic institutions into doubt. For many a solution has been offered by digital technology, leading parties to embrace new digital campaigning software. To explore the capacity of digital innovations to renew democracy this study argues that we need to understand the nature of the 'disconnect' between parties and the people. As such, this study departs from traditional analyses of 'digital democracy' by focusing on public attitudes. Adapting the methodological approach used by Allen and Birch (2015) the project will discern how the public and parties conceive democratic linkage in practice and as an ideal, highlighting contradictions and convergence to diagnose the problem. Correlating these insights to the functions of digital software and theories of democratic linkage (Dalton, Farrell and McAllister, 2011) the capacity of digital innovations to renew party politics is considered. To enable analysis 3 work packages (WP) are conducted. WP1: How do parties perceive democratic linkage, and how have parties used digital management systems since 2010? WP1 will first identify available forms of the type of digital innovation of interest to this project - namely 'digital management software' - and will categorise the functions they perform. Second, it will explore and develop theories of democratic linkage to provide a framework for subsequent analysis. Then, using interviews, internal party data and 3 case studies of constituency parties (1 from Labour, the Conservatives and Scottish National Party) the PI and RA will map perceptions of democratic linkage and usage of digital technology. This data will provide new insight on developments in party politics and will be used to produce case study accounts and articles that trace the form of change and consider the impact of digital technology on party organisation. WP2: How do citizens perceive democratic linkage, and how does parties' use of digital management systems affect public attitudes? WP 2 explores the impact of new technology. Working with YouGov the PI will commission 2 surveys. The first will assess public attitudes towards parties', seeking to discern how the public want parties to engage and how they perceive this to work in practice. Data will be analysed to identify conceptions of democratic linkage (WP1) and then compared with party attitudes to identify synergies and incongruities in public and party conceptions. This analysis offers a diagnosis of the state of current linkage, and will identify areas of 'disconnect' to be further examined in WP3. This WP will also probe public attitudes towards parties' use of digital campaigning techniques. Utilising a split sample survey, designed in collaboration with Dr Chris Jones, the PI will assess whether practices such as social media data mining are compatible with public notions of democratic linkage. This will inform an article, infographics and practitioner briefing papers. WP3: Can digital campaigning methods resolve the disconnect between citizens and the state? In collaboration with the think tank Involve, the PI will use 3 deliberative events to explore parties' and citizens' attitudes towards democratic linkage and test the capacity of different forms of digital technology to reconcile these perceptions. Building on survey data these events will test attitudes; exploring whether sustained reflection affects how public and party desires are conceived (drawing on work by Stoker, Hay and Barr, forthcoming). Events will identify ideal forms of linkage - findings that will be used, returning to WP1, to...

This contains data relevant for the 2016 US Presidential Election, including up-to-date primary results.

Exploration Ideas

• What candidates within the Republican party have results that are the most anti-correlated?
• Which Republican candidate is Hillary Clinton most correlated with based on county voting patterns? What about Bernie Sanders?
• What insights can you discover by mapping this data?

Do you have answers or other exploration ideas? Add your ideas to this forum post and share your insights through Kaggle Scripts!

Do you think that we should augment this dataset with more data sources? Let us know here!

Data Description

The 2016 US Election dataset contains several main files and folders at the moment. You may download the entire archive via the "Download Data" link at the top of the page, or interact with the data in Kaggle Scripts through the ../input directory.

• PrimaryResults.csv: main primary results file
  • State: state where the primary or caucus was held
  • StateAbbreviation: two letter state abbreviation
  • County: county where the results come from
  • Party: Democrat or Republican
  • Candidate: name of the candidate
  • Votes: number of votes the candidate received in the corresponding state and county (may be missing)
  • FractionVotes: fraction of votes the president received in the corresponding state, county, and primary
• database.sqlite: SQLite database containing the PrimaryResults table with identical data and schema
• county_shapefiles: directory containing county shapefiles at three different resolutions for mapping

Original Data Sources

• Iowa County-Level Results
• New Hampshire County-Level Results
• County Shapefiles

As part of a wider project looking at public attitudes towards political parties, 3 deliberative workshops were conducted to examine attitudes towards political parties. In total 68 people attended the workshops. Workshop 1 - Composed of party activists/ members Workshop 2 - Composed of non-party activists/members (i.e. general public) Workshop 3 - Composed of a 50/50 split of party activists/members and non-activists/members. Participants were selected to represent a range of ages, genders, ethnicities, occupational status. Within the workshops participants were led through a series of tasks designed to create the 'Ideal Party'. The discussion focused on preferences for policy-making, participation/engagement, and governing. These discussions were transcribed to capture participants comments and their responses to tasks (i.e. lists of words produced in response to tasks). The activities aimed to interrogate citizens' desires for parties and to determine which aspects of party behaviour were most important for citizens views.

The link between citizens and the state is the crux of democratic politics, yet it is crumbling. Numerous studies have diagnosed a crisis in representative politics with decreased participation and growing levels of distrust bringing the legitimacy of democratic institutions into doubt. For many a solution has been offered by digital technology, leading parties to embrace new digital campaigning software. To explore the capacity of digital innovations to renew democracy this study argues that we need to understand the nature of the 'disconnect' between parties and the people. As such, this study departs from traditional analyses of 'digital democracy' by focusing on public attitudes. Adapting the methodological approach used by Allen and Birch (2015) the project will discern how the public and parties conceive democratic linkage in practice and as an ideal, highlighting contradictions and convergence to diagnose the problem. Correlating these insights to the functions of digital software and theories of democratic linkage (Dalton, Farrell and McAllister, 2011) the capacity of digital innovations to renew party politics is considered. To enable analysis 3 work packages (WP) are conducted. WP1: How do parties perceive democratic linkage, and how have parties used digital management systems since 2010? WP1 will first identify available forms of the type of digital innovation of interest to this project - namely 'digital management software' - and will categorise the functions they perform. Second, it will explore and develop theories of democratic linkage to provide a framework for subsequent analysis. Then, using interviews, internal party data and 3 case studies of constituency parties (1 from Labour, the Conservatives and Scottish National Party) the PI and RA will map perceptions of democratic linkage and usage of digital technology. This data will provide new insight on developments in party politics and will be used to produce case study accounts and articles that trace the form of change and consider the impact of digital technology on party organisation. WP2: How do citizens perceive democratic linkage, and how does parties' use of digital management systems affect public attitudes? WP 2 explores the impact of new technology. Working with YouGov the PI will commission 2 surveys. The first will assess public attitudes towards parties', seeking to discern how the public want parties to engage and how they perceive this to work in practice. Data will be analysed to identify conceptions of democratic linkage (WP1) and then compared with party attitudes to identify synergies and incongruities in public and party conceptions. This analysis offers a diagnosis of the state of current linkage, and will identify areas of 'disconnect' to be further examined in WP3. This WP will also probe public attitudes towards parties' use of digital campaigning techniques. Utilising a split sample survey, designed in collaboration with Dr Chris Jones, the PI will assess whether practices such as social media data mining are compatible with public notions of democratic linkage. This will inform an article, infographics and practitioner briefing papers. WP3: Can digital campaigning methods resolve the disconnect between citizens and the state? In collaboration with the think tank Involve, the PI will use 3 deliberative events to explore parties' and citizens' attitudes towards democratic linkage and test the capacity of different forms of digital technology to reconcile these perceptions. Building on survey data these events will test attitudes; exploring whether sustained reflection affects how public and party desires are conceived (drawing on work by Stoker, Hay and Barr, forthcoming). Events will identify ideal forms of linkage - findings that will be used, returning to WP1, to consider the capacity of different forms of digital technology to promote linkage and hence renew party...

The downloadable ZIP file contains Esri shapefiles and PDF maps. Contains the information used to determine the location of the new legislative and congressional district boundaries for the state of Idaho as adopted by Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting on March 9, 2002. Contains viewable and printable legislative and congressional district maps, viewable and printable reports, and importable geographic data files.These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2001. CD/DVD -ROM availability: https://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/m1uotc/CP71156191150001451These files were created by a six-person, by-partisan commission, consisting of six commission members, three democrats and three republicans. This commission was given 90 days to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries for the state of Idaho. Due to lawsuits, the process was extended. This legislative plan was approved by the commission on March 9th, 2002 and was previously called L97. All digital data originates from TIGER/Line files and 2000 U.S. Census data.Frequently asked questions:How often are Idaho's legislative and congressional districts redrawn? Once every ten years after each census, as required by law, or when directed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The most recent redistricting followed the 2000 census. Redistricting is not expected to occur again in Idaho until after the 2010 census. Who redrew Idaho's legislative and congressional districts? In 2001, for the first time, Idaho used a citizens' commission to redraw its legislative and congressional district boundaries. Before Idaho voters amended the state Constitution in 1994 to create a Redistricting Commission, redistricting was done by a committee of the Idaho Legislature. The committee's new district plans then had to pass the Legislature before becoming law. Who was on the Redistricting Commission? Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting was composed of Co-Chairmen Kristi Sellers of Chubbuck and Tom Stuart of Boise and Stanley. The other four members were Raymond Givens of Coeur d'Alene, Dean Haagenson of Hayden Lake, Karl Shurtliff of Boise, John Hepworth of Buhl (who resigned effective December 4, 2001), and Derlin Taylor of Burley (who was appointed to replace Mr. Hepworth). What are the requirements for being a Redistricting Commissioner? According to Idaho Law, no person may serve on the commission who: 1. Is not a registered voter of the state at the time of selection; or 2. Is or has been within one (1) year a registered lobbyist; or 3. Is or has been within two (2) years prior to selection an elected official or elected legislative district, county or state party officer. (This requirement does not apply to precinct committeepersons.) The individual appointing authorities may consider additional criteria beyond these statutory requirements. Idaho law also prohibits a person who has served on the Redistricting Commission from serving in either house of the legislature for five years following their service on the commission. When did Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting meet? Idaho law allows the Commission only 90 days to conduct its business. The Redistricting Commission was formed on June 5, 2001. Its 90-day time period would expire on September 3, 2001. After holding hearings around the state in June and July, a majority of the Commission voted to adopt new legislative and congressional districts on August 22, 2001. On November 29th, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the Commission's legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional and directed them to reconvene and adopt an alternative plan. The Commission did so, adopting a new plan on January 8, 2000. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Commission's second legislative map unconstitutional on March 1, 2002 and ordered the Commission to try again. The Commission adopted a third plan on March 9, 2002. The Supreme Court denied numerous challenges to this third map. It then became the basis for the 2002 primary and General elections and is expected to be used until the 2012 elections. What is the basic timetable for Idaho to redraw its legislative and congressional districts?Typically, and according to Idaho law, the Redistricting Commission cannot be formally convened until after Idaho has received the official census counts and not before June 1 of a year ending in one. Idaho's first Commission on redistricting was officially created on June 5, 2001. By law, a Commission then has 90 days (or until September 3, 2001 in the case of Idaho's first Commission) to approve new legislative and congressional district boundaries based on the most recent census figures. If at least four of the six commissioners fail to approve new legislative and congressional district plans before that 90-day time period expires, the Commission will cease to exist. The law is silent as to what happens next. Could you summarize the important dates for Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting one more time please? After January 1, 2001 but before April 1, 2001: As required by federal law, the Census Bureau must deliver to the states the small area population counts upon which redistricting is based. The Census Bureau determines the exact date within this window when Idaho will get its population figures. Idaho's were delivered on March 23, 2001. Why conduct a census anyway? The original and still primary reason for conducting a national census every ten years is to determine how the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives are to be apportioned among the 50 states. Each state receives its share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House based on the proportion of its population to that of the total U.S. population. For example, the population shifts during the 1990's resulted in the Northeastern states losing population and therefore seats in Congress to the Southern and the Western states. What is reapportionment? Reapportionment is a federal issue that applies only to Congress. It is the process of dividing up the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on each state's proportion of the total U.S. population as determined by the most recent census. Apportionment determines the each state's power, as expressed by the size of their congressional delegation, in Congress and, through the electoral college, directly affects the selection of the president (each state's number of votes in the electoral college equals the number of its representatives and senators in Congress). Like all states, Idaho has two U.S. senators. Based on our 1990 population of 1,006,000 people and our 2000 population of 1,293,953, and relative to the populations of the other 49 states, Idaho will have two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even with the state's 28.5% population increase from 1990 to 2000, Idaho will not be getting a third seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Assuming Idaho keeps growing at the same rate it did through the decade of the 1990's, it will likely be 30 or 40 years (after 3 or 4 more censuses) before Idaho gets a third congressional seat. What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts within each state to achieve population equality among all congressional districts and among all legislative districts. The U.S. Constitution requires this be done for all congressional districts after each decennial census. The Idaho Constitution also requires that this be done for all legislative districts after each census. The democratic principle behind redistricting is "one person, one vote." Requiring that districts be of equal population ensures that every elected state legislator or U.S. congressman represents very close to the same number of people in that state, therefore, each citizen's vote will carry the same weight. How are reapportionment and redistricting related to the census? The original and still primary reason for conducting a census every ten years is to apportion the (now) 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the several states. The census records population changes and is the legally recognized basis for redrawing electoral districts of equal population. Why is redistricting so important? In a democracy, it is important for all citizens to have equal representation. The political parties also see redistricting as an opportunity to draw districts that favor electing their members and, conversely, that are unfavorable for electing their political opposition. (It's for this reason that redistricting has been described as "the purest form of political bloodsport.") What is PL 94-171? Public Law (PL) 94-171 (Title 13, United States Code) was enacted by Congress in 1975. It was intended to provide state legislatures with small-area census population totals for use in redistricting. The law's origins lie with the "one person, one vote" court decisions in the 1960's. State legislatures needed to reconcile Census Bureau's small geographic area boundaries with voting tabulation districts (precincts) boundaries to create legislative districts with balanced populations. The Census Bureau worked with state legislatures and others to meet this need beginning with the 1980 census. The resulting Public Law 94-171 allows states to work voluntarily with the Census Bureau to match voting district boundaries with small-area census boundaries. With this done, the Bureau can report to those participating states the census population totals broken down by major race group and Hispanic origin for the total population and for persons aged 18 years and older for each census subdivision. Idaho participated in the Bureau's Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program and, where counties used visible features to delineate precinct boundaries, matched those boundaries with census reporting areas. In those instances where counties did not use visible features to

ORDINANCE NO. 6364AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REVISED SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR ALL OF THE SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS OF THE COUNTY, REPEALING SONOMA COUNTY CODE SECTION 1-8, AND DIRECTING COUNTY STAFF TO MAINTAIN FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS THE COUNTY'S REDISTRICTING WEBSITE TO CONTINUE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND THE REVISED BOUNDARIES.The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, ordains as follows:Section I. Public Participation. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has taken steps above and beyond the requirements of Elections Code Section 21508 to engage the community and invite public participation in the supervisorial boundary redistricting process. The Board has encouraged residents, including those in underrepresented communities and non-English speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps have included all of the following:Provided information to media organizations that provide county news coverage, including media organizations that serve language minority communities.Provided information through good government, civil rights, civic engagement, and community groups or organizations that are active in the county, including those active in language minority communities, and those that have requested to be notified concerning county redistricting.Arranged for live translation in Spanish at redistricting public hearings and workshops.The County retained a public outreach and local engagement consultant who performed 34 Community Engagement Opportunities (including 13 focus group sessions; 16 group or radio presentations; 3 Town Halls; 2 map drawing parties).On February 23, 2021, the Board established the Sonoma County Advisory Redistricting Commission (ARC) to advise and assist the Board with redrawing supervisorial district boundaries. The ARC had 19 members, comprised of two appointees per district and nine at-large members.On June 28, 2021, the ARC held its first public meeting to learn about redistricting and listen to public comment.On July 26, 2021, the ARC held another public meeting to continue to discuss the redistricting process and listen to public input.On August 23, 2021, the ARC held a public hearing to discuss redistricting, receive public input about communities of interest, and learn about mapping tools.On September l, 2021, the ARC held a meeting to consider the redistricting process, receive map-drawing training and listen to public feedback.On September 13, 2021, the ARC held a meeting to discuss equity.On September 15, 2021, the County held a Town Hall meeting to review the redistricting process and how the public can provide input.On October 5, 2021, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to review the new census data and discuss the redistricting process.On October 18, 2021, the ARC held a duly noticed public meeting to consider draft supervisorial district maps.On October 18, 2021, the ARC held a duly noticed public meeting to consider draft supervisorial district maps.On October 22, 2021, the ARC held a duly noticed public meeting to discuss the draft maps and listen to public feedback.On October 25, 2021, the ARC held a duly noticed public meeting to discuss the draft maps, listen to public feedback and vote on a proposed supervisorial district map to present to the Board of Supervisors. The ARC recommended the Board continue to listen to public feedback and update the map to respond to continued community input and comply with federal and state laws.On November 2, 2021, the Board held a public hearing to consider the ARC's proposed map and recommendations.On November 16, 2021, the Board held a public hearing to consider proposed maps and continue to listen to public feedback.On November 22, 2021, County staff held a Town Hall meeting focused on the City of Rohnert Park's comments and to gather public input;On November 29, 2021, the Board held a public workshop to consider a proposed map and continue to listen to public input.On December 7, 2()21, the Board held a final public hearing to introduce, waive reading and consider adoption of an ordinance to adopt a new supervisorial district map.Section Il. Information Gathered. The Board has considered the 2020 federal census data, the ARC's recommendations, in addition to all of the other community input through the ARC process, as well as the Board's own public hearings, the public workshop and additional public comments. Additionally, the Board also retained a demographer, National Demographics Corporation, to analyze the population and demographic data. Since the release of the 2020 federal census data, the ARC and the Board have considered numerous variations of the supervisorial district boundaries to ensure the final version of the map satisfies the criteria of federal and state law. Based on that information and community input, the Board has developed the final revised County of Sonoma supervisorial district boundaries as specified and set forth in the map attached to this ordinance as Attachment A ("Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries").Section Ill. Findings. Based on the information gathered as set forth above, the Board makes the following findings:The Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries are based on the total population of residents of the county as determined by the 2020 federal decennial census;The Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries comply with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Section 10301 et seq.);The Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries comply with California Elections Code Section 21500 because those boundaries have been developed in accordance with these criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:To the extent practicable, the supervisorial districts are geographically contiguous;To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods and local communities of interest are respected in a manner that minimizes their division;To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of a city or census designated place is respected in a manner that minimizes its division;The Revised Supervisorial District Boundaries are easily identifiable and understandable by residents and to the extent practicable are bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the county;To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria above, the Revised Supervisorial District Boundaries are geographically compact; andThe Revised Supervisorial District Boundaries have not been developed for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.Communities of Interest. Based on public comment received during the Public Participation process set forth in Section I above, the Board has determined that the following are communities of interest as defined in Elections Code Section 21500(c)(2) because these are populations that share common social or economic interests that should be included within a single supervisorial district for purposes of effective and fair representation:Roseland has recently been annexed to the City of Santa Rosa and shares socioeconomic characteristics with Moorland; both areas represent a community of interest that should be included within a single supervisorial district that includes portions of the downtown area of Santa Rosa for purposes of effective and fair representation;Coastal communities share common interests and should remain within one supervisorial district for the purposes of effective and fair representation;Russian River communities share common social and economic interests and should remain within one supervisorial district for purposes of effective and fair representation;Coffey Park-Larkfield-Mark West-Wikiup community shares common interests and should remain within one supervisorial district for purposes of effective and fair representation;The Springs area (Eldridge, Fetters Hot Springs, Agua Caliente, Boyes Hot Springs) share common interests and should remain within one supervisorial district for purposes of effective and fair representation; andThe community within the Bennett Valley Area Plan, approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in Resolution No. 11-0461, on September 30, 2011, share common interests and should remain within one supervisorial district for purposes of effective and fair representation.Section IV. Adoption Procedures. California Elections Code Section 21500(e) allows the County to adopt supervisorial district boundaries by resolution or ordinance and clarifies that revised supervisorial district boundary adoption occurs on the date of passage of such ordinance or resolution. The Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries attached hereto as Attachment A have been posted on the County'sRedistricting website at https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Policy-Grants-and-SpeciaIProjects/2021-Redistricting/for at least seven days prior to final adoption in compliance with Elections Code SectionSection V. Adoption of Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries. Based on the above findings and adoption procedures, the Board hereby determines that the Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries comply with all federal and state laws. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Revised Sonoma County Supervisorial District Boundaries.Section VI. Posting on County's Redistricting Website. In compliance with Elections Code Section 21508(g), the Board directs County staff to maintain the County of Sonoma's Redistricting website at https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Policy-Grants-and-Special-Projects/2021-Redistrictingfor at least 10 years after the adoption of new supervisorial district

As of April 3, 2024, results from the 2024 Democratic presidential primaries showed incumbent candidate Joe Biden with more than enough delegates to receive the party's nomination. However, in protest against the President's support for Israel's war against Hamas more than 100,000 Michigan Democrats cast "uncommitted" votes, earning two state delegates. On Super Tuesday nearly 45,000 Minnesota Democrats voted "uncommitted" in protest, surpassing support for Minnesota Representative Dean Phillips and earning four "uncommitted" delegates. Presidential primaries within the sitting president’s party carry less weight compared to those in open-seat elections due to minimal opposition within their party. With widespread support from party members and leaders already secured, incumbent presidents hold considerable advantages in terms of fundraising, campaign infrastructure, and endorsements. While specific rules vary slightly across different states, Democratic primary delegates are awarded based on the share of votes a candidate receives, either statewide or within congressional districts.

The United States has had 46 presidents since George Washington's election in 1789. While Washington himself was not affiliated with any political party, and even argued against partisanship (something that the other Founding Fathers agreed with), political differences and personal rivalries between the Founding Fathers eventually led to the founding of the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson. Washington's successor, John Adams, was the only Federalist president, before the Democratic-Republicans occupied the White House from 1801 until 1829.

Formation of the Democratic and Republican parties

The 1820s again saw political and personal rivalries lead to a split among the country's leadership, and the Democratic-Republican Party made way for the formation of the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party. The Democratic Party was formed by Andrew Jackson and his supporters, and was traditionally the more conservative of the major political parties in the U.S. until the mid-twentieth century. The National Republican Party was short lived, and eventually amalgamated with the Whig Party in the 1830s, who would go on to be the main opposition to the Democratic Party for the subsequent two decades. Four U.S. presidents belonged to the Whig Party, although it may be important to note that these four men only served a combined eight years in office, as two of them died a short while into their tenure. The issue of slavery was the most dominant and divisive issue in U.S. politics in the mid-nineteenth century, and regional splits emerged in both parties; the rifts did not break apart the Democratic Party, who favored state sovereignty on the issue, whereas the divide in the Whig Party saw it splinter into the right-wing Know Nothing Party in the south, and anti-slavery Republican Party in the north. The 1856 election was the first to feature candidates of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, marking the beginning of the major political rivalry that has dominated U.S. politics for the past 160 years.

Realignment

Abraham Lincoln became the U.S.' first Republican president with his victory in the 1860 election. From then until 1933, twelve of the U.S.' 16 presidents belonged to the Republican Party, while just four* were from the Democratic Party. Due to the legacy left by the American Civil War, the southern, former-Confederate states were a political stronghold for the Democratic Party, and rarely voted for Republican candidates in presidential elections; in contrast to this, the north, west and newly-admitted states tended to vote Republican. In the 1910s, the Republican Party transitioned into the more ideologically conservative option of the two major parties, and more fiscally conservative following the Great Depression; however, it was not until the Johnson administration in the 1960s, particularly due to matters regarding African-American civil rights, where the core voter bases switched into what is typically expected today. In the past century, there have been ten Republican and nine Democratic presidents (including Joe Biden), with Democrats occupying the White House for roughly 52 of these years. Republican voters in the twenty-first century are generally more conservative and right-leaning in regards to both economic and social issues, whereas Democratic voters tend to be the opposite. There are also strong correlations between political parties and their voters, based on issues such as location, ethnicity, wealth, education and age.

Florida was admitted to the union in 1845, and has taken part in 43 U.S. presidential elections since this time. In these 43 elections, Florida has voted for the overall winner thirty times, giving a success rate of seventy percent. Since 1928, Florida has voted for the winning candidate in 21 out of 24 elections, and is considered a key battleground state in modern elections. Florida has voted for a major party nominee in every election, backing the Republican nominee 17 times, Democrat 25 times, and the only time it did not vote Republican or Democrat was in 1848 when it voted for the Whig Party's Zachary Taylor. Florida did not take part in the 1864 election due to its secession from the Union in the American Civil War, and like most other southern states it primarily voted Democrat until the mid-twentieth century, when it then started leaning more Republican. No U.S. President has ever been born in Florida, or resided there when taking office; although Donald Trump declared himself a resident of Florida in 2019, therefore making it his official home state during the 2020 election. The 2020 election in Florida proved to be a surprise for many, as Donald Trump won the popular vote by a 3.4 percent margin; most polls had favored Biden going into election day, however intensive campaigning and increased Republican support among Cuban Americans has been cited as the reason for Trump's victory in Florida.

Florida's importance

In 1920, Florida's population was fewer than one million people; however it has grown drastically in the past century to almost 22 million people, making Florida the third most populous state in the country. With this population boom, Florida's allocation of electoral votes has surged, from just six in the 1920s, to 29 in recent elections (this is expected to increase to 31 votes in the 2024 election). Unlike the other most populous states, such as California and New York, which are considered safe Democratic states, or Texas, which is considered a safe Republican state, presidential elections in Florida are much more unpredictable. Florida is a southern state, and its majority-white, rural and suburban districts tend to vote in favor of the Republican Party (Republicans have also dominated state elections in recent decades), although, Florida is also home to substantial Hispanic population, and is a popular destination for young workers in the tourism sector and retirees from across the U.S., with these groups considered more likely to vote Democrat. However, the discrepancy between voters of Cuban (58 percent voted Republican) and Puerto Rican (66 percent voted Democrat) origin in the 2020 election shows that these traditional attitudes towards Hispanic voters may need to be re-evaluated.

2000 controversy The 2000 U.S. presidential election is one of the most famous and controversial elections in U.S. history, due to the results from Florida. The election was contested by the Republican Party's George W. Bush and the Democratic Party's Al Gore; by the end of election day, it became clear that Florida's 25 electoral votes would decide the outcome, as neither candidate had surpassed the 270 vote margin needed to win nationwide. While Florida's early results showed Bush in the lead, Gore's share of the results in urban areas then brought their totals close enough to trigger a recount; after a month of recounts and legal proceedings, Bush was eventually declared the winner of Florida by a margin of 537 popular votes (or 0.009 percent). Although Gore did win a plurality of the votes nationwide, Bush had won 271 electoral votes overall, and was named the 43rd President of the United States; this was just one of five elections where the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the election. In the six most recent U.S. presidential elections in Florida, the difference in the share of popular votes between the Republican and Democratic candidates has been just two percent on average.

Since the 1860 election, U.S. presidential elections have been dominated by candidates affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties. While the electoral votes decide the winner of the election, these are generally decided by the winner of the popular vote in each state (or district), and the winner of the nationwide popular vote does not always go on to win the electoral vote. Interestingly, there have been a number of occasions where the winner of the popular vote did not go on to win the electoral vote, for example in the 2016 election, or, most famously, in 2000.

According to a survey from late December 2024, the two most important issues among Republican voters in the United States were inflation and immigration, with ** and ** percent ranking it their primary political concerns respectively. In contrast, only *** percent of Democrats considered immigration their most important issue. Inflation and healthcare were the leading issues among democrats in the U.S.

Since 1852, the U.S. presidential election has been contested in California 44 times, with Californians successfully voting for the winning candidate on 35 occasions, giving an overall success rate of 80 percent. California has awarded the majority of its electoral votes to the Republican Party in 23 elections, the Democratic Party in 20 elections, and the only year when a third-party candidate won a majority was in 1912, where Theodore Roosevelt won the state while campaigning as the Progressive Party's nominee. Between 1952 and 1988, there was only one election that was not won by the Republican candidate, while all elections since 1992 have been won by the Democratic nominee. In the 2024 election, Oakland-born Vice President Kamala Harris ran as the Democratic nominee, and comfortably won her home state but lost the nationwide vote. Californian under-representation? California was admitted to the union in 1850, and was granted just four electoral votes in its first three presidential elections. In the past two centuries, California's population has grown rapidly, largely due to a positive net migration rate from within the U.S. and abroad. Today, it has the highest population of any state in the U.S, with almost forty million people, and has therefore been designated 54 electoral votes; the most of any state. Although California has been allocated around ten percent of the total electoral votes on offer nationwide, The Golden State is home to roughly twelve percent of the total U.S. population, therefore a number closer to 62 electoral votes would be more proportional to the U.S. population distribution. Despite this, California's total allocation was reduced to 54 in the 2024 election. Native Californians As of 2020, Richard Nixon is the only native Californian to have been elected to the presidency, having won the election in 1968 and 1972. California also voted for Nixon in the 1960 election, although John F. Kennedy was the overall winner. Two other U.S. Presidents had declared California as their home state; they were Herbert Hoover, who won the 1928 election, and Ronald Reagan, who won in 1980 and 1984 respectively. While states generally support candidates who were born or reside there, Californian candidates have failed to carry their home state or state of birth in four U.S. presidential elections, these were; John C. Frémont in 1854 (who actually came third in California), Herbert Hoover in 1932, and Adlai Stevenson in both the 1952 and 1956 elections.

There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, of which 52 are allocated to the state of California. Seats in the House are allocated based on the population of each state. To ensure proportional and dynamic representation, congressional apportionment is reevaluated every 10 years based on census population data. After the 2020 census, six states gained a seat - Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon. The states of California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia lost a seat.

In the 2024 Mexican presidential elections, with 35.92 million votes in favor, Claudia Sheinbaum was declared the winner. That is around 59.76 percent of the total votes. Moreover, the candidate for Morena only registered four states with less than 50 percent of the votes and only one, Aguascalientes, that she lost against Xochitl Galvez.