This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2022. It also contains measures of each county's Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2022.

This data collection contains voter registration and turnout surveys. The files contain summaries at state, town, and county levels. Each level of data include: total population, total voting-age population, total voter registration (excluding ND, WI), total ballots cast, total votes cast for president, and voter registration by party. Note: see the documentation for information on missing data.

Dave Leip's website

The Dave Leip website here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php lists the available data. Files are occasionally updated by Dave Leip, and new versions are made available, but CCSS is not notified. If you suspect the file you want may be updated, please get in touch with CCSS. These files were last updated on 9 JUL 2024.

Note that file version numbers are those assigned to them by Dave Leip's Election Atlas. Please refer to the Data and Reproduction Archive Version number in your citations for the full dataset.

For additional information on file layout, etc. see https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/DOWNLOAD/spread_turnout.html.

Similar data may be available at https://www.electproject.org/election-data/voter-turnout-data dating back to 1787.

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.

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and county starting with January 2000. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. Libertarians were reported separately March 2017 through January 2019, and beginning again in January 2023. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and state senate district starting with June 2021. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

Number of voters in the different political affiliations for Anne Arundel County. This information is also published on the Board of Elections website.Field NameField Description YearYear report ranMonthMonth of reportParty CodeAbbreviation of party name.Party NameParty nameStatusDescription of voters in particular sections of the registration process.CountNumber of registered voters in the designated section.MajorDoes the section pertain to one of the major political parties in Maryland

U.S. President general county level voter registration and turnout data for 1992-2020. Each level of data include the following: Total Population (state and county) Total Voting-Age Population (state only) Total Voter Registration (except ND, WI - these two states do not have voter registration.) Total Ballots Cast (for 2004, not yet available for NC, PA. WI doesn't publish this data) Total Vote Cast for President Voter Registration by Party (AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MD, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, SD, WV, WY). Remaining states do not have voter registration by party). The following worksheets are included in each file: National Summary - summarizes registration and turnout totals by state - with boundary file information (fips) Data by County - data for all counties of all states plus DC - with boundary file information (fips) Data by Town - data for New England towns (ME, MA, CT, RI, VT, NH) - with boundary file information (fips) Data Sources - a list of data sources used to compile the spreadsheet.

The Detroit Area Study (DAS) is a face-to-face survey of adults in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area. Information was collected on the political attitudes and behavior of 596 adults in the period during the fall of 1956 and early spring 1957. This collection was a combination of two separate studies: PARTY LEADERSHIP AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR by Daniel Katz and Samuel Eldersveld, and INTRA-CLASS CORRELATION OF ATTITUDES IN DETROIT by Leslie Kish. Of the 596 respondents, 149 were categorized as belonging to a leadership sample consisting of 77 Republicans and 72 Democratic precinct leaders. For data on the political activities and attitudes of party leaders, see the related collection, DETROIT AREA STUDY, 1957: LEADER SURVEY (ICPSR 7107) (ICPSR 07107). Items in this survey focused on perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of the adult public toward party structures and organizations at the county, district, and precinct levels. In order to assess the sources of influence on the respondents' political attitudes and behavior, they were asked about the mass media they depended on most heavily for political information, as well as the frequency with which politics was discussed in meetings of their families, friends, neighbors, and other groups to which they belonged. A series of questions asked for whom respondents had voted in the 1956 presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional races, as well as which presidential candidate their family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors voted for. Other questions elicited information about the respondents' knowledge of and involvement in local party politics and their knowledge of precinct workers and their state party chairman. Also explored were respondents' feelings about the importance of voting, their general attitudes toward politics and political figures such as Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, their perception of the differences between the major parties on various issues, and their opinions on several controversial issues such as a national health care, school integration, ending the military draft, and monetary aid to countries that were not anti-communist. Additional items covered the use of telephones in respondents' homes, their living experiences before coming to Detroit, their handling of change of residences since coming to Detroit, and their feelings about their neighborhood. Demographic variables include the respondent's age, sex, race, education level, place of birth, marital status, number of children, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, political party affiliation, voter registration status and participation history, employment status, occupation, labor union membership, perceived social class, relationship to the head of household, length of time at present residence, and length of residence in the Detroit area. Demographic information was collected on the nationality, occupation, and political party affiliation of the respondent's father. Information was also collected on the number and ages of household members, the number of household members employed, labor union membership in the household, household income, whether anyone in the household was employed by the government, and the occupation and employment status of the head of the household.

The United States Historical Election Returns Series consists of several datasets, the major files are the United States Historical Election Returns, 1788-1968 (ICPSR 00001) and General Election Data for the United States, 1950-1990 (ICPSR 00013). ICPSR 00001 includes county-level returns for over 90 percent of all elections to the offices of president, governor, United States representative (1824-1990), and United States senator (1912-1990).The dataset also includes returns for approximately two-thirds of all elections to the offices of president, governor, and United States representative for the period 1788-1823. Study ICPSR 00013 contains county-level returns for all elections to the same national and state offices, plus one additional state-wide office, usually attorney general or secretary of state. This data collection provides summary information about candidates contesting elections and special elections anywhere in the nation, political party name and ICPSR party ID code, and the number of votes received by each candidate in the constituency for elections between 1788 and 1990. The information also include election for which returns are available solely at the constituency level and not found in the country-level files of elections returns described above. For detailed information about candidates and contests, please refer to study Constituency Statistics of Elections in the United States, 1788-1990 (ICPSR 7757). This release further include 1990 data from the District of Columbia election for United States senator and United States representative. The offices of two senators and one representative were created by the "District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative," which was approved by District voters in 1980. Elections for these offices were postponed until the 1990 general election. The three offices are currently local District positions, which will turn into federal offices if the District becomes a state. The primary election is held to nominate candidates from the major political parties (Democratic, Republican, and D.C. Statehood) to the general election ballot. In the general election, each party nominee will appear on the ballot, along with any independent and minor party candidates who qualify for the ballot directly by obtaining the required number of voter signatures on nominating petitions. To have appeared on the ballot in a primary election, a candidate for Senator or Representative needed to collect the signatures of one percent of the voters registered within his or her party, or 2,000 signatures, whichever is less. To have appeared on the ballot in the general election (as an independent or minor party candidate), the candidate needed to collect signatures of 3,000 registered voters.This collection is part of the United States Historical Election Returns Series.ICPSR has not confirmed the accuracy of the provided data. Further review of candidates' names and FIPS codes may be recommended. Candidates who ran for the offices of president, governor, and United States representative (1788-1823; 1824-1990), United States senator (1912-1990), and one additionally statewide office, usually attorney general or secretary of state (1968-1990). Datasets: DS1: Candidate Name and Constituency Totals, 1788-1990

Electoral registrations for parliamentary and local government elections as recorded in electoral registers for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The District of Columbia is the only non-state entity of the United States with a share of electoral votes in U.S. presidential elections. Since the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted Washington D.C. representation in these elections, the nation's capital has had three electoral votes in each election since 1964. In these 16 elections, Washington D.C.'s citizens have chosen the overall winner seven times, giving a success rate of 44 percent, which is the lowest in the country. As of 2024, no U.S. president has ever been born in Washington D.C., although former Vice President and Democratic nominee in the 2000 election, Al Gore, is the only major party candidate to have been born there, during his father's term in the House of Representatives. Always Democratic The District of Columbia has voted for the Democratic Party's nominee in every presidential election that has been contested in the capital. Not only do Democratic nominees perform well in D.C., they win these electoral votes by significant margins; Democrats have won over ninety percent of D.C.'s popular vote in the past four elections, and the worst performance ever by a Democrat was in 1980, where Jimmy Carter only won 75 percent of the popular vote. Factors such as heavy urbanization and ethnic diversity are generally cited as the reasons for D.C.'s strong Democrat voter base. Fifty-first state? The only time when a Democratic nominee did not receive all three electoral votes was in 2000, when one elector abstained from casting her ballot, as a protest of D.C.'s lack of voting representation in Congress. While the District of Columbia can take part in presidential elections, it is a federal district under Congress' jurisdiction, and does not have voting representation in either chamber of Congress. The statehood movement aims to make Washington D.C. the newest state to join the union, possibly under the name "New Columbia" or "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" (named after the abolitionist, Frederick Douglass), and bring an end to what it sees as "taxation without representation". Generally speaking, lawmakers are split along party lines on whether D.C. should receive statehood or not; with Democrats in favor of the proposition, while Republicans are opposed to the idea (as it would likely bolster the Democrat's numbers in Congress). A survey conducted in June 2020, showed that roughly 40 percent of registered voters support the idea of D.C. statehood, while 41 percent oppose the idea, and the remainder are undecided; the topic gained renewed attention in 2020 when President Trump used the capital's National Guard to disperse peaceful protesters from near the White House during the George Floyd protests.

This special topic poll, fielded June 19-25, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the current presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. This poll surveyed 1,127 Maryland residents, including an oversample of Black respondents, on the upcoming primary and general elections in their state. Residents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the presidency, their level of interest in the upcoming elections in Maryland, and whether they were registered to vote. Registered voters were polled on the likelihood that they would vote in the Democratic primary and general election in Maryland, and for whom they would vote in the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Views were sought on how things were going in the state of Maryland, the city of Baltimore, and Montgomery County, and the problems facing the state of Maryland and the respondents' own community. Respondents gave their opinions of Governor Bob Ehrlich and First Lady Kendel Ehrlich, the governor's handling of his job and issues such as the protection of Chesapeake Bay, and the influence of various groups on his administration. Opinions were also elicited on Lt. Governor Michael Steele, former Governor William Donald Schaefer, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume, and the Democratic and Republican parties in Maryland. Additional topics addressed the war in Iraq, slot-machine gambling, gay marriage, abortion, the state legislature's decision to force Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health benefits, and the effect of immigration on the respondent's community. Information was also collected on respondents' county of residence, and which local television news station they watched. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, household income, marital status, education level, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), presence of children in the household, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter registration status, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, and whether respondents considered themselves born-again or evangelical Christians.

This map is specifically designed to provide a visual overview of the 2020 Yuma County election results for the presidential race as well as showcasing the current status of registered voters for 2024 along with their respective party affiliations.

Summary details for each election year for the Victorian House of Assembly general elections since 1856. This data includes electoral system characteristics, seats in chamber, number of enrolled voters, ballots cast, rate of voter turnout and rate of informal voting.

Software Nesstar Publisher, Version: 3.54

Unit of Analysis House of Assembly, Victorian Parliament

Universe Seats in the Victorian House of Assembly (Lower House) and voters in Victoria.

Time Method Time series

Collection Mode Compilation/Synthesis

Cleaning Operations The data were checked by the archive for missing variable and value labels, out of range values and wild codes, logical inconsistencies, and confidentiality.

Notes Definitions of variables : Uncontested seats: the number of seats in which only one candidate ran for office, and won the seat without any votes having to be cast. The database shows the number of voters enrolled in uncontested seats. Although there have been very few uncontested seats at general elections in Australia since 1980, they were a regular feature of elections in some states until the 1960s. The frequency of uncontested seats and the number of enrolled voters they contain can be a useful indicator of the competitiveness of the party system at a general election. For more information and analysis, see Campbell Sharman, 'Uncontested Seats and the Evolution of Party Competition: The Australian Case', Party Politics, 9(6) November 2003: 679-702. ballots Ballots are the papers on which votes are recorded. A vote can be a single mark, or one or more marks or numbers to elect one or more candidates. At some elections, voters could mark ballots with more than one vote, giving the result that there were more votes cast than voters. This was the case for elections for the South Australian House of Assembly until 1927. Turnout - The turnout at at election is the proportion of voters on the electoral roll (registered voters) who cast a vote. In this database, turnout is measured as the rate of voting in contested seats, shown as a percentage of registered voters; see also compulsory voting. Electoral district - Electoral districts are also called electorates but, as the term electorate also refers to the whole body of voters across a political system, the term electoral district has been used in this database to keep the distinction clear; Electoral roll - The electoral roll is the list of voters who are registered to vote at an election. compulsory preferences - a requirement that a voter must rank all candidates on the ballot paper under a system of preferential voting. Electoral system - The electoral system is the set of rules which specifies how elections are organized and how votes are cast and counted at an election. The broad category of electoral system used to elect members at an election is shown in the database, and the entries are indexed in this database under the name of each electoral system. Australia has been adventurous in its experimentation with electoral rules and electoral law. It is planned to add more information on Australian electoral rules to the database. first past the post - A first past the post electoral system is one in which a voter is required to mark the ballot paper, usually with a cross or tick, indicating the voter's preferred candidate. The winning candidate is the one with the most votes. In electoral contests where there are only two candidates, the candidate with the most votes will have a majority (that is, more than 50 percent of the votes cast). If there are more than two candidates, the candidate with the most votes may only have a plurality (that is, more than any other candidate, but less that 50 percent of the votes cast). For this reason, first past the post voting is sometimes called plurality voting and is indicated in this database as 'first past the post (plurality) voting'. First past the post electoral systems were widely used in Australia until the rise of the Australian Labor Party prompted anti-Labor parties after 1910 to adopt preferential voting for most lower house elections in Australia. First past the post electoral systems are usually associated with single member districts, but they can also be used in multimember districts. The use of plurality voting with multimember districts is often called 'block voting'; the voter is given as many votes as there are candidates to be elected from the district. Such a system favours well organized party tickets and a successful party can win all the seats in a multimember district with a plurality of votes. This system was used for the Commonwealth Senate until 1919. Plurality voting can also be used in multimember districts by giving the voters as many ballots as there are candidates to be elected from the district. This enables voters to vote for several candidates or to cast more than one ballot for their favoured candidate (see also ballots). first preference vote - Preferential voting requires a voter to rank candidates on the ballot paper in the order of the voter's choice. A voter's most preferred candidate is the one against whose name the voter has written '1' on the ballot paper. This candidate represents the voter's first preference vote. This definition also applies to voting under systems of proportional representation. Where a first past the post (plurality) electoral system is used, the first preference vote refers to the number of ticks or crosses gained by each candidate. Change from previous election (Swing) The change in first preference vote won by a party at a given election when compared with the previous election, expressed as the difference between the percentage first preference vote shares. Note that the party must be listed in the database for both elections (see listed party) for a figure to appear in the column. If the party was a listed party in the previous election but ran candidates under a difference name, no figure for changed vote share will appear (see party name). Turnout - The turnout at at election is the proportion of voters on the electoral roll (registered voters) who cast a vote. In this database, turnout is measured as the rate of voting in contested seats, shown as a percentage of registered voters. Registration of voters - Registration (enrolment) as a voter is now compulsory for all Australian parliamentary elections (note the partial exception of South Australia, below). With minor qualifications for length of residence and variations for some state and territory elections, all eligible Australian citizens are required to be registered as voters. Comprehensive voter registration can be achieved by surveying households, and by requiring state agencies which compile lists of names and addresses to provided these lists to electoral authorities. For commentary on the context of compulsory registration, see David M Farrell and Ian McAllister, The Australian Electoral System: Origins, Variations and Consequences, pp 121-124 (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2006, ISBN 0868408581). History Compulsory enrolment was introduced for Victorian lower house elections in 1930. Election dates for the Tasmanian elections are: 20 April 1892, 20 September 1894, 14 October 1897, 1 November 1900, 1 October 1902, 1 June 1904, 14 April 1907, 29 December 1908, 16 November 1911, 26 November 1914, 15 November 1917, 21 October 1920, 30 August 1921, 26 June 1924, 9 April 1927, 30 November 1929, 14 May 1932, 2 March 1935, 2 October 1937, 15 March 1940, 12 June 1943, 10 November 1945, 8 November 1947, 13 May 1950, 5 December 1952, 28 May 1955, 31 May 1958, 15 July 1961, 27 June 1964, 29 April 1967, 30 May 1970, 19 May 1973, 20 March 1976, 5 May 1979, 3 April 1982, 2 March 1985, 1 October 1988, 3 October 1992, 30 March 1996, 18 September 1999, 30 November 2002, 25 November 2006. November 1982, 7 December 1985, 25 November 1989, 11 December 1993, 11 October 1997, 9 February 2002, 18 March 2006.

This special topic poll, conducted July 15-20, 1994, was undertaken to assess respondents' views on the state of affairs in Prince George's County, Maryland, and its upcoming county elections. Residents were polled on the biggest problems facing the county, whether things were going in the right or wrong direction, the quality of the public schools, whether the budget for public schools should be increased, decreased or maintained, and whether respondents would favor or oppose a tax increase if the money benefited the county's public schools. Views were sought on the quality of life in Prince George's County and whether it had improved, worsened, or stayed the same in the past ten years, whether respondents expected it to improve in the next ten years, what they liked the most and the least about living there, whether they would rather live somewhere else in the Washington area, and if so, where. Respondents were asked about the status of race relations in Prince George's County, whether it was improving, worsening, or staying the same, and how important it was that most people in their neighborhood shared their racial background. Questions regarding the Black and White populations of Prince George's County asked whether each group had too much, too little, or the right amount of influence in county politics, whether this influence was changing, and whether it would be better for the county if the population of these groups increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Residents were polled on the likelihood that they would vote in the upcoming Democratic primary election, their opinions of the candidates for county executive (Wayne Curry, Sue V. Mills, Artie Polk, and Beatrice Tignor), which candidate they would vote for, how strongly they supported him or her, how often they trusted county government to do what was right, and how important it was that the next county executive, school superintendent, or police chief elected was Black. Respondents also gave their impressions of Maryland gubernatorial candidate Parris Glendening, county attorney Robert Ostrom, and council member Richard Castaldi. Background variables include sex, age, education, religion, ethnicity, marital status, household income, number of children in household, political orientation, political party affiliation, voter registration and participation history, length of residency in Prince George's County, and previous residence.

This dataset contains Maricopa County Early Voting returns for voters registered in the Democratic political party by voting precinct for the currently active precinct based election.

This dataset contains Maricopa County Early Voting returns for voters registered in the Republican political party by voting precinct for the currently active precinct based election.

This special topic, conducted September 23-28, 1994, was undertaken to assess public opinion prior to the November 1994 District of Columbia mayoral election. Respondents were polled on whether they were registered to vote in the District of Columbia, the probability that they would vote in the November mayoral election, whom they would vote for (Democrat Marion Barry or Republican Carol Schwartz), whom they were leaning toward, if they leaned toward Schwartz, was that because they liked her or did not want to vote for Marion Barry, and whether they were satisfied with the mayoral candidates. Questions regarding the Democratic primary addressed whether respondents voted in the primary and if so, for whom they voted, the reasons not to vote for Marion Barry, Sharon Pratt Kelly, or John Ray, the biggest reason not to vote for Marion Barry, Sharon Pratt Kelly, or John Ray, whether Marion Barry's victory in the primary helped or hurt race relations in the District of Columbia and to what degree, whether it was a good or bad thing that Marion Barry won the Democratic primary and would probably be elected mayor and how strongly respondents held their opinions. Respondents were queried on whether they felt that things in the District of Columbia were moving in the right direction, whether the quality of life in the city was improving, worsening, or staying the same, how well Blacks and Whites were getting along in the city, whether race relations were improving, worsening, or staying the same, the biggest problem facing the city, and the suitability of the city as a place to live. Those surveyed were asked whether Marion Barry was a good or bad role model for young people, to rate Marion Barry's ability to handle city issues such as dealing with the United States Congress, improving the image of the mayor's office, attracting new businesses to the city, dealing with problems of drugs and crime, and helping the poor, whether Whites should support Marion Barry to avoid further dividing the city along racial lines, whether Marion Barry winning the Democratic primary was embarrassing to the city, whether they believe he was a changed man, and whether they would have voted for William Lightfoot if he had stayed in the mayoral race. Demographic information includes political party affiliation, which ward the respondent lives in, the length of time the respondent has been a registered voter in the District of Columbia, whether the respondent registered to vote specifically in order to vote for Marion Barry, education, year of birth, ethnicity, religious background, frequency of religious service attendance, whether the respondent would like to move to Virginia or Maryland, whether a household member works for the city government, household income, employment status, and whether an immediate family member, or the respondent, had ever been convicted of a crime or had a problem with alcohol or drugs.

For information about this map or how to use it, contact Jeremy Sment, jeremy.sment@gmail.com; or Tom Scharmen, comsalud@netscape.net

This data set contains machine-readable data on the district representation election on September 13, 2020 in Münster. If you are looking for visually prepared results or an interactive presentation, you can find them at the following link: https://wahlen.citeq.de/ergebnisse-1/20200913/05515000/html5/index.html Following the municipal territorial reform in 1975, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia legally required the district-free cities to form district representations in order to strengthen civic participation and civic work in self-government. The district councils decide on the matters of their districts. These include, for example, the entertainment and equipment of local schools, sports grounds or cemeteries, the construction and renovation of playgrounds, the design of parks and green areas, the naming of streets and squares, issues of monument protection and the support of local associations and initiatives. If a matter concerns the district, the district representation concerned must be consulted. It can forward suggestions and decision proposals to the decisive body. The district representation must in any case be informed about essential measures in the municipal district. The CSV files have the following columns: date: Date of election date choice: Name of the election AGS: AGS of the Authority area-nr: Number of the electoral area area name: Name of the electoral area Max Quick Messages: Number of expected rapid notifications in the electoral area ANZ Quick Messages: Number of fast notifications received so far in the electoral area A1: Eligible voters without blocking mark ‘W’ A2: Eligible voters with blocking mark ‘W’ A3: Eligible voters not in the electoral register A: Total Electoral Electoral B: Voters B1: Voters with an Election Certificate C: Invalid votes D: Valid votes D1: Votes for Party 1 ...: ... D99: Vote for Party 99