https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F12064410%2F466e70c347974ab1f64280395bb45974%2Fpolitical%20polarization%20flag.png?generation=1677875491440013&alt=media" alt="">

52,540 DAYS (March 4th, 1879 to January 7th, 2023)

This is a dataset that tracks political polarization in US Congress (46th to 117th) through proportions from 1879 to 2023.

All data are official figures from Voteview that have been compiled and structured by myself. Ideological positions are calculated using the DW-NOMINATE (Dynamic Weighted NOMINAl Three-step Estimation). This procedure was developed by Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the 1980s and is a "scaling procedure", representing legislators on a spatial map. In this sense, a spatial map is much like a road map--the closeness of two legislators on the map shows how similar their voting records are. Using this measure of distance, DW-NOMINATE is able to recover the "dimensions" that inform congressional voting behavior.

Why did I create this dataset? In my personal opinion, political polarization is the greatest threat to democracy today, particularly in America. Polarization not only creates an "US VS THEM" situation, but also renders legislative bodies less effective at passing meaningful legislation. By uploading time-series data regarding American polarization over the past two centuries, I hope that the community will use my dataset to determine insightful statistical trends. Achieving a quantitative yet objective viewpoint of political polarization is crucial to understanding both its underlying causes and its everlasting effects.

IMPORTANT:

The first dimension picks up differences in ideolology, which is represented through the "liberal" vs. "conservative" (also referred to as "left" vs. "right") proportions throughout American history. The second dimension picks up differences within the major political parties over slavery, currency, nativism, civil rights, and lifestyle issues during periods of American history.

Data Sources

The primary data source used was Voteview's official website, which publishes ideological data pertaining to America. Considering the meticulous documentation of congressional activities by such an accredited organization, no other organization is more equipped to provide insight on US polarization.

1. Voteview's Realtime NOMINATE Ideology and Related Data - Voteview's download links for NOMINATE scores, tutorials for generating ancillary data, and other publicly available databases are stored here.
2. Voteview's "Polarization in Congress" Data Analysis - Jeff Lewis, the project lead of Voteview, published a data analysis of the available polarization data. The detailed work gave insight into the true analytical potential of the dataset, and inspired many elements of my accompanying notebook.
3. Voteview's "The Polarization of the Congressional Parties" - Voteview released a detailed overview of their polarization data, the methodology behind their data, and the proper definitions and terminologies for the variables tracked. The guide mainly provided essential contextual knowledge needed to create a meaningful dataset.

Statistics Being Tracked

• Chamber (House or Senate)
• Congress (Number)
• Year (First Year of Congress)
• Party.mean.diff.d1 (Difference in Party Means - First Dimension)
• Prop.moderate.d1 (Proportion Moderates)
• Prop.moderate.dem.d1 (Proportion of Moderate Democrats (-0.25 to +0.25))
• Prop.moderate.rep.d1 (Proportion of Moderate Republicans (-0.25 to +0.25))
• Overlap
• Chamber.mean.d1 (Chamber Mean - First Dimension)
• Chamber.mean.d2 (Chamber Mean - Second Dimension)
• Dem.mean.d1 (Democratic Party Mean - First Dimension)
• Dem.mean.d2 (Democratic Party Mean - Second Dimension)
• Rep.mean.d1 (Republican Party Mean - First Dimension)
• Rep.mean.d2 (Republican Party Mean - Second Dimension)
• North.rep.mean.d1 (Northern Republican Mean - First Dimension)
• North.rep.mean.d2 (Northern Republican Mean - Second Dimension)
• South.rep.mean.d1 (Southern Republican Mean - First Dimension)
• South.rep.mean.d2 (Southern Republican Mean - Second Dimension)
• North.dem.mean.d1 (Northern Democrat Mean - First Dimension)
• North.dem.mean.d2 (Northern Democrat Mean - Second Dimension)
• South.dem.mean.d1 (Southern Democrat Mean - First Dimension)
• South.dem.mean.d2 (Southern Democrat Mean - Second Dimension)

Dataset History

2023-03-03 - Dataset is created (52,595 days after temporal coverage start date).

GitHub Repository - The same data but on GitHub.

Polarization Plots Notebook

[Link to Notebook](h...

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

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

Timeline of COVID-19 policies and mandates that affect feeling anxious and depressed.

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.

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

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

Context

After observing many naive conversations about COVID-19, claiming that the pandemic can be blamed on just a few factors, I decided to create a data set, to map a number of different data points to every U.S. state (including D.C. and Puerto Rico).

Content

This data set contains basic COVID-19 information about each state, such as total population, total COVID-19 cases, cases per capita, COVID-19 deaths and death rate, Mask mandate start, and end dates, mask mandate duration (in days), and vaccination rates.

However, when evaluating a pandemic (specifically a respiratory virus) it would be wise to also explore the population density of each state, which is also included. For those interested, I also included political party affiliation for each state ("D" for Democrat, "R" for Republican, and "I" for Puerto Rico). Vaccination rates are split into 1-dose and 2-dose rates.

Also included is data ranking the Well-Being Index and Social Determinantes of Health Index for each state (2019). There are also several other columns that "rank" states, such as ranking total cases per state (ascending), total cases per capita per state (ascending), population density rank (ascending), and 2-dose vaccine rate rank (ascending). There are also columns that compare deviation between columns: case count rank vs population density rank (negative numbers indicate that a state has more COVID-19 cases, despite being lower in population density, while positive numbers indicate the opposite), as well as per-capita case count vs density.

Acknowledgements

Several Statista Sources: * COVID-19 Cases in the US * Population Density of US States * COVID-19 Cases in the US per-capita * COVID-19 Vaccination Rates by State

Other sources I'd like to acknowledge: * Ballotpedia * DC Policy Center * Sharecare Well-Being Index * USA Facts * World Population Overview

Inspiration

I would like to see if any new insights could be made about this pandemic, where states failed, or if these case numbers are 100% expected for each state.

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.

There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, of which ** 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.

This layer shows the congressional districts of the 114th Congress of the United States. Found within this layer is the membership listing of the 114th U.S. House of Representatives. Elected to a two-year term, each representative serves the people of a specific congressional district by introducing bills and serving on committees, among other duties. The districts are symbolized by the political party of the current representative.

© marinecadastre.gov This layer is a component of Boundaries and Regions.

This map service presents spatial information for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. The service is maintained by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management (OCM), in partnership with Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). More information about this product can be found at www.MarineCadastre.gov.

© MarineCadastre.gov

This dataset consists of five different surveys conducted to disentangle the relationships between populist attitudes, programmatic preferences, and socio-demographic characteristics in several party systems. The surveys gather data aimed at assessing the nature of the associations between populist attitudes and programmatic preferences, political values, and socio-demographic characteristics, and the direct and indirect effects of such attitudes on voting and electoral competition. The second wave of the Populist Attitudes and Political Preferences survey gives access to data from five online public opinion surveys conducted in Spain (2020), Argentina (2020), Portugal (2020), Italy (2020), and Germany (2021). These surveys allow us to map populist attitudes as well as other political preferences.

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

According to exit polling in *** key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, almost ********** of voters who had never attended college reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, a similar share of voters with ******** degrees reported voting for Kamala Harris.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed white voters reported voting for Donald Trump. In contrast, ** percent of Black voters reported voting for Kamala Harris.

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S. dollars reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, ** percent of voters with an income of 100,000 U.S. dollars or more reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.