PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau practices "data suppression", filtering some block groups from demographic publication because they do not meet a population threshold. This practice...

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.

AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

AP VoteCast combines interviews with a random sample of registered voters drawn from state voter files with self-identified registered voters selected using nonprobability approaches. In general elections, it also includes interviews with self-identified registered voters conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak® panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

Interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents may receive a small monetary incentive for completing the survey. Participants selected as part of the random sample can be contacted by phone and mail and can take the survey by phone or online. Participants selected as part of the nonprobability sample complete the survey online.

In the 2020 general election, the survey of 133,103 interviews with registered voters was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 3, concluding as polls closed on Election Day. AP VoteCast delivered data about the presidential election in all 50 states as well as all Senate and governors’ races in 2020.

Using this Data - IMPORTANT

This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

National Survey

The national AP VoteCast survey of voters and nonvoters in 2020 is based on the results of the 50 state-based surveys and a nationally representative survey of 4,141 registered voters conducted between Nov. 1 and Nov. 3 on the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. It included 41,776 probability interviews completed online and via telephone, and 87,186 nonprobability interviews completed online. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points for voters and 0.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

State Surveys

In 20 states in 2020, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 1,000 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 3,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for voters and 5.5 percentage points for nonvoters.

In an additional 20 states, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 500 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 2,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for voters and 6.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

In the remaining 10 states, AP VoteCast is based on about 1,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for voters and 11.0 percentage points for nonvoters.

Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the poll estimates, as well as the variability associated with the survey weights as a result of calibration. After calibration, the nonprobability sample yields approximately unbiased estimates.

As with all surveys, AP VoteCast is subject to multiple sources of error, including from sampling, question wording and order, and nonresponse.

Sampling Details

Probability-based Registered Voter Sample

In each of the 40 states in which AP VoteCast included a probability-based sample, NORC obtained a sample of registered voters from Catalist LLC’s registered voter database. This database includes demographic information, as well as addresses and phone numbers for registered voters, allowing potential respondents to be contacted via mail and telephone. The sample is stratified by state, partisanship, and a modeled likelihood to respond to the postcard based on factors such as age, race, gender, voting history, and census block group education. In addition, NORC attempted to match sampled records to a registered voter database maintained by L2, which provided additional phone numbers and demographic information.

Prior to dialing, all probability sample records were mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Postcards were addressed by name to the sampled registered voter if that individual was under age 35; postcards were addressed to “registered voter” in all other cases. Telephone interviews were conducted with the adult that answered the phone following confirmation of registered voter status in the state.

Nonprobability Sample

Nonprobability participants include panelists from Dynata or Lucid, including members of its third-party panels. In addition, some registered voters were selected from the voter file, matched to email addresses by V12, and recruited via an email invitation to the survey. Digital fingerprint software and panel-level ID validation is used to prevent respondents from completing the AP VoteCast survey multiple times.

AmeriSpeak Sample

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by mail, email, telephone and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box-only addresses, some addresses not listed in the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and some newly constructed dwellings. Registered voter status was confirmed in field for all sampled panelists.

Weighting Details

AP VoteCast employs a four-step weighting approach that combines the probability sample with the nonprobability sample and refines estimates at a subregional level within each state. In a general election, the 50 state surveys and the AmeriSpeak survey are weighted separately and then combined into a survey representative of voters in all 50 states.

State Surveys

First, weights are constructed separately for the probability sample (when available) and the nonprobability sample for each state survey. These weights are adjusted to population totals to correct for demographic imbalances in age, gender, education and race/ethnicity of the responding sample compared to the population of registered voters in each state. In 2020, the adjustment targets are derived from a combination of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, Catalist’s voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. Prior to adjusting to population totals, the probability-based registered voter list sample weights are adjusted for differential non-response related to factors such as availability of phone numbers, age, race and partisanship.

Second, all respondents receive a calibration weight. The calibration weight is designed to ensure the nonprobability sample is similar to the probability sample in regard to variables that are predictive of vote choice, such as partisanship or direction of the country, which cannot be fully captured through the prior demographic adjustments. The calibration benchmarks are based on regional level estimates from regression models that incorporate all probability and nonprobability cases nationwide.

Third, all respondents in each state are weighted to improve estimates for substate geographic regions. This weight combines the weighted probability (if available) and nonprobability samples, and then uses a small area model to improve the estimate within subregions of a state.

Fourth, the survey results are weighted to the actual vote count following the completion of the election. This weighting is done in 10–30 subregions within each state.

National Survey

In a general election, the national survey is weighted to combine the 50 state surveys with the nationwide AmeriSpeak survey. Each of the state surveys is weighted as described. The AmeriSpeak survey receives a nonresponse-adjusted weight that is then adjusted to national totals for registered voters that in 2020 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, the Catalist voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. The state surveys are further adjusted to represent their appropriate proportion of the registered voter population for the country and combined with the AmeriSpeak survey. After all votes are counted, the national data file is adjusted to match the national popular vote for president.

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.

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.

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.

Why do some areas experience lower voter turnout even under compulsory voting systems? This paper examines the impact of migration turnover—encompassing both in- and out-migration—on voter turnout across communities. While past research has focused on migrant/non-migrant differences or in-/out-migration separately, we propose that both migratory movements tend to decrease political participation due to increased transaction and social costs. Using surveys and a new panel dataset combining census and voting records from over 5,000 Brazilian municipalities, we identify a robust negative association between local migratory turnover and voter turnout. This relationship holds across various time frames, levels of aggregation, analytical approaches, and definitions of variables. Analyses using individual-level data further corroborate these results. Additional tests suggest social costs constitute a key mechanism deterring turnout. These findings highlight the need to consider the broader consequences of population mobility for democratic processes and representation, particularly in areas experiencing higher levels of turnover.

Boundaries of Orleans Parish voting precincts as defined by the New Orleans City Charter. New Orleans voting precincts are drawn according to the New Orleans Home Rule Charter as required by the State of Louisiana. A precinct is defined in the state of Louisiana's election code as the smallest political unit of a ward having defined geographical boundaries. Precinct boundaries were updated September 25, 2015, in order to satisfy population changes discovered by the Orleans Registrar of Voters Office. The changes have been made by the City of New Orleans and verified by the Louisiana Secretary of State's Office. Information about voter registation can be found here: https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/RegistrationStatisticsParish.aspx https://www.municode.com/library/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH58EL_ARTIIELPRState LawRS 18:532. Establishment of precinctsA. Subject to the provisions of R.S. 18:532.1 and 1903, the governing authority of each parish shall establish precincts, define the territorial limits for which each precinct is established, prescribe their boundaries, and designate the precincts. The governing authority of each parish shall by ordinance adopt the establishment and boundaries of each precinct in accordance with the timetable as set forth herein and in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.B.(1)(a) Each precinct shall be a contiguous, compact area having clearly defined and clearly observable boundaries coinciding with visible features readily distinguishable on the ground and approved extensions of such features, such as designated highways, roads, streets, rivers, or canals, and depicted on United States Bureau of the Census base maps for the next federal decennial census, except where the precinct boundary is coterminous with the boundary of a parish or an incorporated place when the boundaries of a single precinct contain the entire geographic area of the incorporated place. Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph, on and after July 1, 1997, any precinct boundary which does not coincide with a visible feature shall be changed by the parish governing authority to coincide with a visible feature in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.(b) For the purposes of this Paragraph, the term "approved extension" shall mean an extension of one visible feature to another visible feature which has been approved by the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives or their designees and which is or which will be a census tabulation boundary.(2) No precinct shall be wholly contained within the territorial boundaries of another precinct, except that a precinct which contains the entire geographical area of an incorporated place and in which the total number of registered voters at the last general election was less than three hundred may be so contained.(3) No precinct shall contain more than two thousand two hundred registered voters within its geographic boundaries. Within thirty days after the completion of each canvass, the registrar of voters of each parish shall notify the parish governing authority of every precinct in the parish which contains more than two thousand two hundred registered voters within its geographic boundaries. Within sixty days of such notification, the parish governing authority shall divide such precincts by a visible feature in accordance with R.S. 18:532.1.(4)(a) No precinct shall contain less than three hundred registered voters within its geographical boundaries, except:(i) When necessary to make it more convenient for voters in a geographically isolated and unincorporated area to vote. A voter in a geographically isolated and unincorporated area shall mean a voter whose residen

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview:July 2020 municipal wards were collected by LTSB through the WISE-Decade system. Current statutes require each county clerk, or board of election commissioners, no later than January 15 and July 15 of each year, to transmit to the LTSB, in an electronic format (approved by LTSB), a report confirming the boundaries of each municipality, ward and supervisory district within the county as of the preceding “snapshot” date of January 1 or July 1 respectively. Population totals for 2011 wards are carried over to the 2018 dataset for existing wards. New wards created since 2011 due to annexations, detachments, and incorporation are allocated population from Census 2010 collection blocks. LTSB has topologically integrated the data, but there may still be errors.Election Data Overview:The 1990-2000 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. Disaggregation of Election Data:Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward. The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population. When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the WEC at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file. Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note…We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2020) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if Cityville has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward 5 was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards 1 and 4 according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election ResultsThe process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2018: Wards 2018Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (occurred with spring 2020) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2018Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2020 (then MCD 2020, and County 2020) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2020 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though MCD and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same, so data should total within a county the same between wards 2011 and wards 2020.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2020. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2020, and annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.*WEC replaced the previous Government Accountability Board (GAB) in 2016, which replaced the previous State Elections Board in 2008.

This dataset lists the total population 18 years and older by census block in Connecticut before and after population adjustments were made pursuant to Public Act 21-13. PA 21-13 creates a process to adjust the U.S. Census Bureau population data to allow for most individuals who are incarcerated to be counted at their address before incarceration. Prior to enactment of the act, these inmates were counted at their correctional facility address.

The act requires the CT Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to prepare and publish the adjusted and unadjusted data by July 1 in the year after the U.S. census is taken or 30 days after the U.S. Census Bureau’s publication of the state’s data.

A report documenting the population adjustment process was prepared by a team at OPM composed of the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division (OPM CJPPD) and the Data and Policy Analytics (DAPA) unit. The report is available here: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/OPM/CJPPD/CjAbout/SAC-Documents-from-2021-2022/PA21-13_OPM_Summary_Report_20210921.pdf

Note: On September 21, 2021, following the initial publication of the report, OPM and DOC revised the count of juveniles, reallocating 65 eighteen-year-old individuals who were incorrectly designated as being under age 18. After the DOC released the updated data to OPM, the report and this dataset were updated to reflect the revision.

The 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics Noisy Measurement File is an intermediate output of the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) TopDown Algorithm (TDA) (as described in Abowd, J. et al [2022], and implemented in DAS_2020_DHC_Production_Code/das_decennial/programs/engine/primitives.py at main uscensusbureau/DAS_2020_DHC_Production_Code (github.com) The 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics Noisy Measurement File includes zero-Concentrated Differentially Private (zCDP) (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016]) noisy measurements, implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism (Cannone C., et al., [2023] ), which added positive or negative integer-valued noise to each of the resulting counts. These are estimated counts of individuals and housing units included in the 2020 Census Edited File (CEF), which includes confidential data collected in the 2020 Census of Population and Housing. The noisy measurements included in this file were subsequently post-processed by the TopDown Algorithm (TDA) to produce the Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics Summary File. In addition to the noisy measurements, constraints based on invariant calculations --- counts computed without noise --- are also included (with the exception of the state-level total populations, which can be sourced separately from data.census.gov). The Noisy Measurement File was produced using the official "production settings," the final set of algorithmic parameters and privacy-loss budget allocations that were used to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File. The noisy measurements are produced in an early stage of the TDA. Afterward, these noisy measurements are post-processed to ensure internal and hierarchical consistency within the resulting tables. The Census Bureau has released these noisy measurements to enable data users to evaluate the impact of disclosure avoidance variability on 2020 Census data. The 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics (DHC) Noisy Measurement File has been cleared for public dissemination by the Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board (CBDRB-FY22-DSEP-004). These data are available for download (i.e. not restricted access). Due to their size, they must be downloaded through the link on this metadata page and not through the standard ICPSR download. The link will take you to the Globus site where these data are housed. A README file is located in the Globus repository. Please refer to that for pertinent information. The Globus holding site requires users to create an account to access these data. Accounts can be created through existing institutional access and by personal access. Please see the Globus "How to get Started" page for more information.

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.

The 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Noisy Measurement File is an intermediate output of the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) TopDown Algorithm (TDA) (as described in Abowd, J. et al [2022] https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.529e3cb9, and implemented in the DAS 2020 Redistricting Production Code). The 2020 Redistricting NMF was an intermediate output of the DAS during the execution of the algorithm to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File. The NMFs are intermediate privacy-protected outputs of the DAS; they were generated using the Census Bureau's implementation of the Discrete Gaussian Mechanism, calibrated to satisfy zero-Concentrated Differential Privacy with bounded neighbors. The NMF values, called "noisy measurements" are the output of applying the Discrete Gaussian Mechanism to counts from the 2020 Census Edited File (CEF). They are generally inconsistent with one another (for example, in a county composed of two tracts, the noisy measurement for the county's total population may not equal the sum of the noisy measurements of the two tracts' total population), and frequently negative (especially when the population being measured was small), but are integer-valued. The NMF was later post-processed as part of the DAS code to take the form of microdata and to satisfy various constraints. The NMF documented here contains both the noisy measurements themselves as well as the data needed to represent the DAS constraints; thus, the NMF could be used to reproduce the steps taken by the DAS code to produce microdata from the noisy measurements by applying the production code base. The 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Noisy Measurement File includes zero-Concentrated Differentially Private (zCDP) (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016]) noisy measurements, implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism. These are estimated counts of individuals and housing units included in the 2020 Census Edited File (CEF), which includes confidential data initially collected in the 2020 Census of Population and Housing. The noisy measurements included in this file were subsequently post-processed by the TopDown Algorithm (TDA) to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File. The NMF provides estimates of counts of persons in the CEF by various characteristics and combinations of characteristics including their reported race and ethnicity, whether they were of voting age, whether they resided in a housing unit or one of 7 group quarters types, and their census block of residence after the addition of discrete Gaussian noise (with the scale parameter determined by the privacy-loss budget allocation for that particular query under zCDP). Noisy measurements of the counts of occupied and vacant housing units by census block are also included. Lastly, data on constraints--information into which no noise was infused by the Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) and used by the TDA to post-process the noisy measurements into the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File --are provided. These data are available for download (i.e. not restricted access). Due to their size, they must be downloaded through the link on this metadata page and not through the standard ICPSR download. The link will take you to the Globus site where these data are housed. A README file is located in the Globus repository. Please refer to that for pertinent information. The Globus holding site requires users to create an account to access these data. Accounts can be created through existing institutional access and by personal access. Please see the Globus "How to get Started" page for more information.

Census Blocks from 2020. Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171).Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.govGeography: Census BlocksCurrent Vintage: 2020P.L. 94-171 Table(s): P1. Race; P2. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race; P3. Race for the Population 18 Years and Over; P4. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race for the Population 18 Years and Over; P5. Group Quarters Population by Major Group Quarters Type; H1. Housing Occupancy StatusData downloaded from: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-files.htmlNational Figures: data.census.govPublic Law 94-171, enacted in 1975, directs the U.S. Census Bureau to make special preparations to provide redistricting data needed by the 50 states.1 It specifies that within 1 year following Census Day, the Census Bureau must send the governor and legislative leadership in each state the data they need to redraw districts for the U.S. Congress and state legislatures. To meet this legal requirement, the Census Bureau set up a program that affords state officials an opportunity before each decennial census to define the small areas for which they wish to receive census population totals for redistricting purposes. Officials may receive data for voting districts (e.g., election precincts, wards) and state house and senate districts, in addition to standard census geographic areas such as counties, cities, census tracts, and blocks. State participation in defining areas is voluntary and nonpartisan. For further information on Public Law 94-171 and the 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program, see:www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/program -management.htmlData processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop.

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.

This study contains selected economic, demographic, and electoral data for counties, cities, and incorporated areas of 25,000 inhabitants or more, urbanized areas, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), in the entire United States. For each of the seven data files, information is provided on population characteristics, income, occupation, education, household characteristics, age, and nationality. Data are also provided on presidential votes, the leading party, Social Security and public assistance, and rural population and agriculture (Parts 2 and 3), local government general revenue and expenditures, taxes, employment, manufacturing establishments, retail trade, wholesale establishments, and yearly payroll (Parts 2, 3, and 6), and crime, hospitals, and seasonal weather conditions (Part 6).

Voting DistrictsThis feature layer, utilizing National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) data from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), depicts Voting Districts (VTDs) in the United States and Puerto Rico. Per the USCB, "VTDs refer to the generic name for geographic entities, such as precincts, wards, and election districts, established by state governments for the purpose of conducting elections.”Data currency: This cached Esri federal service is checked weekly for updates from its enterprise federal source (Voting Districts) and will support mapping, analysis, data exports and OGC API – Feature access.Data.gov: Not availableGeoplatform: Not availableFor more information, please visit: Voting and RegistrationFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comThumbnail image courtesy of Mrs. GemstoneNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Governmental Units, and Administrative and Statistical Boundaries Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), this theme is defined as the "boundaries that delineate geographic areas for uses such as governance and the general provision of services (e.g., states, American Indian reservations, counties, cities, towns, etc.), administration and/or for a specific purpose (e.g., congressional districts, school districts, fire districts, Alaska Native Regional Corporations, etc.), and/or provision of statistical data (census tracts, census blocks, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, etc.). Boundaries for these various types of geographic areas are either defined through a documented legal description or through criteria and guidelines. Other boundaries may include international limits, those of federal land ownership, the extent of administrative regions for various federal agencies, as well as the jurisdictional offshore limits of U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries associated solely with natural resources and/or cultural entities are excluded from this theme and are included in the appropriate subject themes."For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

Maine US Census Blocks; 2020 Census - January 1, 2020 vintage.Need to download the data? The Census Bureau provides access to county-by-county zipped files here: https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2020PL/STATE/23_MAINE/. Look for the folder with "tabblock_20" in the name for the Census blocks. Folders are identified by state ID (Maine: 23) and county ID:Androscoggin: 01Aroostook: 03Cumberland: 05Franklin: 07Hancock: 09Kennebec: 11Knox: 13Lincoln: 15Oxford: 17Penobscot: 19Piscataquis: 21Sagadahoc: 23Somerset: 25Waldo: 27Washington: 29York: 31The source TIGER/Line Files of this feature layer 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 File is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census Blocks are statistical areas bounded on all sides by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and/or by nonvisible boundaries such as city, town, township, and county limits, and short line-of-sight extensions of streets and roads. Census blocks are relatively small in area; for example, a block in a city bounded by streets. However, census blocks in remote areas are often large and irregular and may even be many square miles in area. A common misunderstanding is that data users think census blocks are used geographically to build all other census geographic areas, rather all other census geographic areas are updated and then used as the primary constraints, along with roads and water features, to delineate the tabulation blocks. As a result, all 2010 Census blocks nest within every other 2010 Census geographic area, so that Census Bureau statistical data can be tabulated at the block level and aggregated up to the appropriate geographic areas. Census blocks cover all territory in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Blocks are the smallest geographic areas for which the Census Bureau publishes data from the decennial census. A block may consist of one or more faces.

Brazil Foreign Capital Census: Stock: Companies Owned by Non Residents: DIC: 100% of Voting Power Held by Non Resident Investors: More Than One Investor data was reported at 49,789,410,148.881 USD in 2015. This records a decrease from the previous number of 67,683,123,775.873 USD for 2010. Brazil Foreign Capital Census: Stock: Companies Owned by Non Residents: DIC: 100% of Voting Power Held by Non Resident Investors: More Than One Investor data is updated yearly, averaging 58,736,266,962.377 USD from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2015, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 67,683,123,775.873 USD in 2010 and a record low of 49,789,410,148.881 USD in 2015. Brazil Foreign Capital Census: Stock: Companies Owned by Non Residents: DIC: 100% of Voting Power Held by Non Resident Investors: More Than One Investor data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Central Bank of Brazil. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Investment – Table BR.OC002: Foreign Capital Census: Companies Owned by Non-Residents.