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

In 2022, the state of Oregon had the highest share of registered voters in the United States, with 77.2 percent of its population registered to vote. In contrast, Florida had the lowest share of registered voters, at 55.8 percent of its population.

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

In the 1824 U.S presidential election, which was the first where a popular vote was used to determine the overall winner, approximately three percent of the U.S. population voted in the election, while only one percent actually voted for the winner. Over the following decades, restrictions that prevented non-property owning males from voting were gradually repealed, and almost all white men over the age of 21 could vote by the 1856 election. The next major development was the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution following the American Civil War, which granted suffrage to all male citizens of voting age, regardless of race. Turnout then grew to almost twenty percent at the turn of the century, however Jim Crow laws played a large part in keeping these numbers lower than they potentially could have been, by disenfranchising black communities in the south and undoing much of the progress made during the Reconstruction Era. Extension of voting rights Female suffrage, granted to women in 1920, was responsible for the largest participation increase between any two elections in U.S. history. Between the 1916 and 1920 elections, overall turnout increased by almost seven percent, and it continued to grow to 38 percent by the 1940 election; largely due to the growth in female participation over time. Following a slight reduction during the Second World War and 1948 elections, turnout remained at between 36 and forty percent from the 1950s until the 1990s. Between these decades, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971 respectively re-enfranchised many black voters in the south and reduced the voting age in all states from 21 to 18 years old. Participation among female voters has also exceeded male participation in all elections since 1980. Recent trends The 1992 election was the first where more than forty percent of the total population cast ballots, and turnout has been above forty percent in all presidential elections since 2004. Along with the extension of voting rights, the largest impact on voter turnout has been the increase in life expectancy throughout the centuries, almost doubling in the past 150 years. As the overall average age has risen, so too has the share of the total population who are eligible to vote, and older voters have had the highest turnout rates since the 1980s. Another factor is increased political involvement among ethnic minorities; while white voters have traditionally had the highest turnout rates in presidential elections, black voters turnout has exceeded the national average since 2008. Asian and Hispanic voter turnouts have also increased in the past twenty years, with the growing Hispanic vote in southern and border states expected to cause a major shift in U.S. politics in the coming decades.

In terms of the most popular presidents, in the 1940 election, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to have been elected by more than one fifth of the total population. Three presidents were elected by more than 22 percent of the total population, respectively Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Barack Obama in 2008, while Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984 saw him become the only president in U.S. history to win with the support of more than 23 percent of the total population. While the vote count for the 2020 election is still to be finalized, President-elect Joe Biden has already received 81.28 million votes as of December 02, which would also translate to over 24.5 percent of the total population, and will likely near 25 percent by the end of the counting process.

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

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.

Disclosure of information with far right's ideas, negationism of science and anti-vaccine attitude x Risk of COVID-19

The electoral preference by Bolsonaro in the first round of Brazil presidential election 2018 per state, shows a relation with the amount of deaths by Covid-19 per 100000, excess death per 100,000, increased P-score and intensity in reducing Brazilian population growth in the 1st quarter 2021

Content

In the period from January to April (1st Quadrimester Q1) from 2021 and 2019 per state (UF)

Main variables for each of the 27 Brazilian states and 4 States groups

1. The main population rates: - Number deaths, excess deaths, births, birth rate, mortality rate, vegetative growth, p-score, total population, population> 70A., Demographic density

2. The main rates of Pandemic by Coronavirus - Covid-19:

   • No. Total cases, cases Q1, Nº Total deaths, Nº Q1 deaths, Total deaths / 100000 hab, mortality rate, cases / 100000 hab

3. The main metrics of the 2018 presidential election:

   • Voters, voting paragraphs, nº of votes in Bolsonararo 1st turn, nº of abstinences.

Groups of Brazilian UFS (Federation States)

1. States that Bolsonaro received more than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn
2. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn and more than 50% in the 2nd turn
3. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st and 2nd shifts
4. Sum of the 27 Brazilian states

PT(BR) - version

Divulgação de informações com idéias da extrema direita, negacionismo da ciência e atitude anti-vacina x risco de Covid-19

A preferência eleitoral por Bolsonaro no 1º turno de 2018 por estado, mostra-se relacionada com a quantidade de mortes por COVID-19, excesso de mortes por 100000, aumento do P-score e intensidade na redução do crescimento populacional brasileiro no 1ºquadrimestre de 2021.

No período de Janeiro a Abril(1º Quadrimestre Q1) de 2021 e 2019 por estado (UF)

Principais variáveis

1. As principais taxas populacionais: - nº mortes, excesso de mortes, nº nascimentos, taxa de natalidade, taxa de mortalidade, crescimento vegetativo, P-score, população total, população > 70a., densidade demográfica

2. As principais taxas da pandemia por Coronavirus - COVID-19:

   • nº casos totais, nº casos Q1, nº mortes totais, nº mortes Q1, mortes totais/100000 hab, taxa de Mortalidade, casos/100000 hab

3. As principais métricas da eleição presidencial de 2018:

   • nº eleitores, nº votantes, nº de votos em Bolsonaro 1º turno, nº de abstinências.

Grupos de UFs (Estados da Federação)

1.Estados que Bolsonaro recebeu mais de 50% dos votos no 1º turno 2.Estados que Bolsonaro recebeu menos que 50% dos votos no 1º turno e mais de 50% no 2º turno 3.Estados que Bolsonaro recebeu menos que 50% dos votos no 1º e 2º turnos 4.Soma dos 27 Estados Brasileiros

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

In 2022, there were 161.42 million people registered to vote in the United States. This is a decrease from the previous election, when 168.31 million people were registered to vote.

Voting requirements

While voting laws differ from state to state, the basic requirements are the same across the entire country. People are allowed to vote in elections in the United States if they are a U.S. citizen, meet their state’s residency requirements, are at least 18 years old before Election Day, and are registered to vote before the registration deadline.

Vote early and often

Generally, younger people are not registered to vote at the same rate as older individuals. Additionally, young people tend not to vote as much as older people, particularly in midterm elections. However, in the 2016 presidential election, a significant number of people across all age groups voted in the election, resulting in a high voter turnout.

This data collection contains electoral and demographic data at several levels of aggregation (kreis, land/regierungsberzirk, and wahlkreis) for Germany in the Weimar Republic period of 1919-1933. Two datasets are available. Part 1, 1919 Data, presents raw and percentagized election returns at the wahlkreis level for the 1919 election to the Nationalversammlung. Information is provided on the number and percentage of eligible voters and the total votes cast for parties such as the German National People's Party, German People's Party, Christian People's Party, German Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party, and Independent Social Democratic Party. Part 2, 1920-1933 Data, consists of returns for elections to the Reichstag, 1920-1933, and for the Reichsprasident elections of 1925 and 1932 (including runoff elections in each year), returns for two national referenda, held in 1926 and 1929, and data pertaining to urban population, religion, and occupations, taken from the German Census of 1925. This second dataset contains data at several levels of aggregation and is a merged file. Crosstemporal discrepancies, such as changes in the names of the geographical units and the disappearance of units, have been adjusted for whenever possible. Variables in this file provide information for the total number and percentage of eligible voters and votes cast for parties, including the German Nationalist People's Party, German People's Party, German Center Party, German Democratic Party, German Social Democratic Party, German Communist Party, Bavarian People's Party, Nationalist-Socialist German Workers' Party (Hitler's movement), German Middle Class Party, German Business and Labor Party, Conservative People's Party, and other parties. Data are also provided for the total number and percentage of votes cast in the Reichsprasident elections of 1925 and 1932 for candidates Jarres, Held, Ludendorff, Braun, Marx, Hellpach, Thalman, Hitler, Duesterburg, Von Hindenburg, Winter, and others. Additional variables provide information on occupations in the country, including the number of wage earners employed in agriculture, industry and manufacturing, trade and transportation, civil service, army and navy, clergy, public health, welfare, domestic and personal services, and unknown occupations. Other census data cover the total number of wage earners in the labor force and the number of female wage earners employed in all occupations. Also provided is the percentage of the total population living in towns with 5,000 inhabitants or more, and the number and percentage of the population who were Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.

Time series with results of the German Empire’s elections from 1871 to 1918 for the Empire’s parliament (Reichstage) and the parliaments of the three largest federal states Prussia, Saxony and Bavaria.

The publication to the electoral history summarises the most important results of the political elections of the German Empire from 1881 to 1918. The results are commentated and related to the political, economical, social and confessional structure of the german areas. The aim is to describe the impact of industrialization and urbanization on the political behaviour and the development of political parties.

The research of historical elections relies – in contrast to the contemporary research of elections – on the analysis of aggregate data about regions or districs.

The following topics are addressed by the selected data of this study:

The first three data-tables contain socio-economic data being of central importance for the interpretation of the electoral results (population by sex and age; portion of employed in industry and handcraft, trade and communication as well as agriculture; employment by mode of employment and by occupational status).

The fourth data-table overviews the results of the elections for the parliament of the German Empire (Reichstagswahlen) from 1871 to 1912 by electoral districts and by German federal states. The table gives a review about the development of the eligible voters, the voter participation and the strength of the parties by federal states and/or by governmental districts for this time period.

The study of Juergen Schmaedeke (1995: Waehlerbewegung im Wilhelminischen Deutschland. Erster Band. Die Reichstagswahlen von 1880 bis 1912: Eine historisch-statistische Untersuchung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag) contains detailed data about electoral results of the single German Empire’s parliament elections (Reichstagswahlen) for 397 German Empire’s electoral districts from 1880 to 1912. The data of this study are available on request at the study-number: ZA8145.

Topics:

Data-Tables in the research- and downloadsystem HISTAT (Topic: Elections)

A. Population and Employment of the German Empire A.1 Population by sex and age (1871-1911) A.2.a Employees by economic sector in thousand (1882-1907) A.2.b Female employees in percent of employees (1882-1907) A.2.c Family members (of Employees) without main occupation in thousand (1882-1907) A.2.d Employees and their relatives in percent of the population (1882-1907) A.3 Employees by mode of employment and by occupational status (1882-1907)

B. Results of the German empire’s parliament elections (Reichstagswahlen) B.1 Results of the empire’s parliament elections (1871-1912) B.2 Distribution of seats in the German empires parliament (Deutscher Reichstag) (1890-1912)

C. Electoral results by larger governmental districts and federal states in the German empire (1871-1912)

D. Religious denomination and electoral behaviour (1871-1887)

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/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. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).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 GAB/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 GAB 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 2011) 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 five 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 one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The 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 GAB/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 spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 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 2017) 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 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 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 municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.

Political attitudes and behaviors with regard to demographic change.

Topics: Assessment of the national economic situation (retrospective, current, prospective); concern regarding demographic change; anticipated problems caused by an aging society; perceived age limit of older and younger people; knowledge test: Proportion of the country´s population over 65; perception of commonalities in own age group; perceived frequency of media reports on generational conflicts; political interest; assessment of one´s own economic situation (retrospective, current, prospective); voter turnout (Sunday question); party preference (voters and non-voters); perceptions of social conflicts between selected social groups (people with and without children, politically left and right, young and old, poor and rich, employed and retired, Germans and foreigners, East Germans and West Germans); most important political goals (post-materialism, Inglehart indicators); opinion on selected statements about old and young (frequent abuse of social benefits in Germany, assessment of representation of younger people´s interests in politics, assessment of representation of older people in political positions, older people should organize their own party, older people should support younger people and younger people should support older people); perceived strength of general intergenerational support; financial support of a family member of another generation resp. frequency of self-received financial support (intergenerational transfers); frequency of support from a person in everyday life who belongs to another generation or frequency of self-received support; satisfaction with democracy; political trust (Bundestag, politicians, Federal Constitutional Court, federal government, media); opinion on selected statements about young and old (importance of contact with significantly younger persons, evaluation of the representation of the interests of older persons in politics, older persons live at the expense of the following generations, older persons have built up what the younger persons live on today, importance of contact with significantly older persons, evaluation of the representation of younger persons in political positions; political efficacy; electoral norm (voter turnout as a civic duty); sympathy scalometer of political parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, Die Linke); satisfaction with selected policy areas (reduction of unemployment, health, education, financial security for the elderly, family, care in old age); preferred level of government spending in the aforementioned areas; preferred government responsibility in the aforementioned areas; most competent party to solve the problems in the aforementioned areas (problem-solving competence); salience of the aforementioned policy areas; self-ranking on a left-right continuum; assessment of the representation of older people´s interests by political parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, Die Linke); assessment of the representation of younger people´s interests by political parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, Greens, Die Linke); recall Bundestag elections 2013 (voter turnout, voting decision); expected occurrence of various future scenarios (conflicts between older and younger people, refusal of younger people to pay for the pensions of older people, older people more likely to assert their political interests than younger people, increasing old-age poverty, refusal of younger people to pay for the medical care of older people, Germany will no longer be able to afford current pension levels, Elderly will no longer receive all available medical benefits); reliance most likely on state, family or self for own retirement; knowledge test: Year of phased introduction of retirement at 67; civic engagement; hours per week of volunteering; perception of social justice; general life satisfaction; party affiliation and strength of party identification; concerns regarding own retirement security (financial/medical) or feared unemployment; religious affiliation; religiosity; salience of selected life domains (family and friends, health, leisure, politics, income, education, work, and occupation); self-assessment of class affiliation; residence description.

Demography: age (grouped) and year of birth; sex; household size; number of persons under 18 in household; household composition (one, two, or three generations); number of children and grandchildren; regrets about own childlessness; partnership; living with partner; married to partner; German citizenship; German citizenship since birth or year of acquiring German citizenship; country of birth (in the old federal states (West Germany, in the new federal states (East Germany or former GDR) or abroad); highest school degree; university degree; current and former employment; current and former occupation.

Additionally coded were: Federal state; area; region West East; weighting factors; interview date.

The digital Electoral Boundaries and their legal identifiers have been supplied by the Electoral Commission from each state and territory as well as the Australian Electoral Commission and are available below. These boundaries undergo re-distribution depending on population of the electorate before each election.\r \r Electoral Boundaries are part of Geoscape Administrative Boundaries, which is built and maintained by Geoscape Australia using authoritative government data. Further information about contributors to Administrative Boundaries is available here.\r \r The full Administrative Boundaries dataset contains boundaries in seven themes: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) boundaries, electoral boundaries, state and territory boundaries, local government areas, suburbs/localities, wards and town points.\r \r As at November 2019, users have the option to download datasets with feature coordinates referencing the new Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020 (GDA2020) in addition to datasets on the GDA94 datum.\r \r For GDA2020 datasets, the name of the zip folder and the root folder (once extracted) include a reference to GDA2020. For GDA94 datasets, the zip and root folder names do not contain the datum name (i.e. they remain the same as previous releases).\r \r For example, the zip and root folder for Administrative Boundaries downloaded in GDA2020 for November 2019 looks like this:\r \r •\tNOV19_AdminBounds_ESRIShapefileorDBFfile_GDA2020; or \r •\tNOV19_AdminBounds_MapInfoTABFormat_GDA2020\r \r The zip and root folder for Administrative Boundaries in GDA94 for November 2019 looks like this: \r \r •\tNOV19_AdminBounds_ESRIShapefileorDBFfile; or \r •\tNOV19_AdminBounds_MapInfoTABFormat\r \r Irrespective of the datum chosen, files within the respective folder use exactly the same naming structures.\r \r ** There were no updates in the August 2024 release **\r \r Further information on Administrative Boundaries, including FAQs on the data, is available here through Geoscape Australia’s network of partners. They provide a range of commercial products based on Administrative Boundaries, including software solutions, consultancy and support.\r \r Note: On 1 October 2020, PSMA Australia Limited began trading as Geoscape Australia. \r \r

License Information\r

\r The Australian Government has negotiated the release of Administrative Boundaries to the whole economy under an open CCBY 4.0 license.\r \r Users must only use the data in ways that are consistent with the Australian Privacy Principles issued under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).\r \r Users must also note the following attribution requirements:\r \r Preferred attribution for the Licensed Material:\r \r

Administrative Boundaries © Geoscape Australia licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).\r \r Preferred attribution for Adapted Material:\r \r Incorporates or developed using Administrative Boundaries © Geoscape Australia licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

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

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.

As of December 7, 2020, 66.7 percent of the eligible voting population in the United States voted in the 2020 presidential election. As of this date, voter turnout was highest in Minnesota, at 80 percent.

Us Senators serving Macon-Bibb County.The two Senators that serve the State of Georgia are Johnny Isakson and David Perdue.The United States Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—comprise the legislature of the United States.The composition and powers of the Senate are established by Article One of the United States Constitution. The Senate is composed of senators, each of whom represents a single state in its entirety, with each state being equally represented by two senators, regardless of its population, serving staggered terms of six years; with fifty states presently in the Union, there are 100 U.S. Senators. From 1789 until 1913, Senators were appointed by legislatures of the states they represented; following the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, they are now popularly elected. The Senate chamber is located in the north wing of the Capitol, in Washington, D.C.As the upper house, the Senate has several powers of advice and consent which are unique to it; these include the ratification of treaties and the confirmation of Cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, other federal executive officials, flag officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers. In addition to these, in cases wherein no candidate receives a majority of electors for Vice President, the duty befalls upon the Senate to elect one of the top two recipients of electors for that office. It further has the responsibility of conducting trials of those impeached by the House. The Senate is widely considered both a more deliberative and more prestigious body than the House of Representatives due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies, which historically led to a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere.The presiding officer of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States, who is President of the Senate. In the Vice President's absence, the President Pro Tempore, who is customarily the senior member of the party holding a majority of seats, presides over the Senate. In the early 20th century, the practice of majority and minority parties electing their floor leaders began, although they are not constitutional officers.

Count of persons by Municipality, Municipal Ward, Locality, Postcode, District of the Legislative Assembly and Region of the Legislative Council currently enrolled on the Victorian register of electors and eligible to vote in a Victorian state election on the date specified. Also includes a count of properties with enrolled electors residing.\r Should not be interpreted as a count of population by area, rather a count of eligible enrolled persons. Refer section 48 of the Constitution Act 1975 and sections 20 to 23A of the Electoral Act 2002. Enrolment data is subject to the influence of major electoral events (and distance from them), enrolment campaigns and related processing conducted by both the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission. \r LGA, district and region codes in the dataset are specific to the VEC and bear no resemblance to any other dataset.

The European Union (EU) as the flagship of supra-nationalism is in a severe crisis. Its legitimacy is increasingly questioned by populist and nationalist parties which claim that the political elites and procedures have become detached from the people and that immigrants endanger the welfare and the culture of the autochthonous population. In this context, the project investigates the potential of transnational citizenship and voting opportunities as current and future pathways contributing to reduce the distance between the people and politicians and to overcome the dichotomy between migrants and sedentary populations. Based on normative theorizing, current empirical tendencies, and existing ideas, we first develop two proposals for transnationalizing voting spaces on the European and on the national level. The first proposal lays out how voters from EU member states could vote for parties from other member states in the election to the European Parliament. The second proposal envisions that voters from other EU member states could elect (a limited number of) representatives in the national parliament of each EU member state. These proposals build on and expand current trends to allow voting beyond the confines of territory (requirement: residency) and nationality (requirement: citizenship). Second, with the help of a pan-European Electronic Voting Advice Application (VAA), we will gather information not only about the current extent of transnational voting (by external and dual citizens) and transnational campaigning of parties. We will also find out whether and where people and parties are willing to support and use those further opportunities for transnational voting that we lay out in our two proposals. VAAs play a double role in our project: Conceptually, they are necessary preconditions for making our proposals viable. Empirically, a VAA that we will set up together with the European University Institute in Florence will create the data for our and further scientific studies.Finally, our project brings together two strands of research: The first strand of research is concerned with citizenship rights and practices beyond the realm of the Westphalian nation state, while the second deals with the design of electoral systems for multi-national polities. We will test whether voters and parties are mainly driven by polity-centered considerations (interest in and identification with particular or multiple nation states or with the EU) or by policy-centered considerations (policy positions and preferences). Altogether, the project will stimulate the discussion about a third transnational pathway for securing the effectiveness and legitimacy of the European Union beyond supranationalism and nationalism. It will tremendously expand our empirical knowledge out the current level of transnational orientations and practices of people and parties in Europe, and at the same time we will find out whether and where people and parties support expanded options for transnational voting. Furthermore, the project will allow us to keep at the forefront of research dealing with VAAs. Finally, the gained insights might be stimulating for other multi-lingual or multi-national democratic systems.