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 Over the following decades, restrictions that prevented non-property owning males from voting were gradually repealed, and almost all white men over the age of 21 could vote by the 1856 election.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 selected electoral and demographic national data for nine nations in the 1950s and 1960s. The data were prepared for the Data Confrontation Seminar on the Use of Ecological Data in Comparative Cross-National Research held under the auspices of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research on April 1-18, 1969. One of the primary concerns of this international seminar was the need for cooperation in the development of data resources in order to facilitate exchange of data among individual scholars and research groups. Election returns for two or more national and/or local elections are provided for each of the nine nations, as well as ecological materials for at least two time points in the general period of the 1950s and 1960s. While each dataset was received at a single level of aggregation, the data have been further aggregated to at least a second level of aggregation. In most cases, the data can be supplied at the commune or municipality level and at the province or district level as well. Part 1 (Germany, Regierungsbezirke), Part 2 (Germany, Kreise), Part 3 (Germany, Lander), and Part 4 (Germany, Wahlkreise) contain data for all kreise, laender (states), administrative districts, and electoral districts for national elections in the period 1957-1969, and for state elections in the period 1946-1969, and ecological data from 1951 and 1961. Part 5 (France, Canton), and Part 6 (France, Departemente) contain data for the cantons and departements of two regions of France (West and Central) for the national elections of 1956, 1962, and 1967, and ecological data for the years 1954 and 1962. Data are provided for election returns for selected parties: Communist, Socialist, Radical, Federation de Gauche, and the Fifth Republic. Included are raw votes and percentage of total votes for each party. Ecological data provide information on total population, proportion of total population in rural areas, agriculture, industry, labor force, and middle class in 1954, as well as urbanization, crime rates, vital statistics, migration, housing, and the index of "comforts." Part 7 (Japan, Kanagawa Prefecture), Part 8 (Japan, House of Representatives Time Series), Part 9 (Japan, House of (Councilors (Time Series)), and Part 10 (Japan, Prefecture) contain data for the 46 prefectures for 15 national elections between 1949 and 1968, including data for all communities in the prefecture of Kanagawa for 13 national elections, returns for 8 House of Representatives' elections, 7 House of Councilors' elections, descriptive data from 4 national censuses, and ecological data for 1950, 1955, 1960, and 1965. Data are provided for total number of electorate, voters, valid votes, and votes cast by such groups as the Jiyu, Minshu, Kokkyo, Minji, Shakai, Kyosan, and Mushozoku for the Communist, Socialist, Conservative, Komei, and Independent parties for all the 46 prefectures. Population characteristics include age, sex, employment, marriage and divorce rates, total number of live births, deaths, households, suicides, Shintoists, Buddhists, and Christians, and labor union members, news media subscriptions, savings rate, and population density. Part 11 (India, Administrative Districts) and Part 12 (India, State) contain data for all administrative districts and all states and union territories for the national and state elections in 1952, 1957, 1962, 1965, and 1967, the 1958 legislative election, and ecological data from the national censuses of 1951 and 1961. Data are provided for total number of votes cast for the Congress, Communist, Jan Sangh, Kisan Mazdoor Praja, Socialist, Republican, Regional, and other parties, contesting candidates, electorate, valid votes, and the percentage of valid votes cast. Also included are votes cast for the Rightist, Christian Democratic, Center, Socialist, and Communist parties in the 1958 legislative election. Ecological data include total population, urban population, sex distribution, occupation, economically active population, education, literate population, and number of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jainis, Moslems, Sikhs, and other religious groups. Part 13 (Norway, Province), and Part 14 (Norway, Commune) consist of the returns for four national elections in 1949, 1953, 1957, and 1961, and descriptive data from two national censuses. Data are provided for the total number

Since 1964, voter turnout rates in U.S. presidential elections have generally fluctuated across all age groups, falling to a national low in 1996, before rising again in the past two decades. Since 1988, there has been a direct correlation with voter participation and age, as people become more likely to vote as they get older. Participation among eligible voters under the age of 25 is the lowest of all age groups, and in the 1996 and 2000 elections, fewer than one third of eligible voters under the age of 25 participated, compared with more than two thirds of voters over 65 years.

Voting Reminder Civic App Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Voting Reminder Civic App market size reached USD 1.28 billion in 2024. The market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12.6% during the forecast period, reaching USD 3.76 billion by 2033. This growth is primarily driven by increased digitization of electoral processes, rising smartphone penetration, and growing government and civil society initiatives to improve voter engagement and turnout. As per our comprehensive analysis, the sector is witnessing robust expansion as stakeholders recognize the crucial role of digital platforms in fostering democratic participation and streamlining civic engagement.

One of the most significant growth factors for the Voting Reminder Civic App market is the global trend toward digital transformation in governance and civic participation. Governments and election authorities across the world are increasingly leveraging technology to simplify voter registration, provide timely election reminders, and ensure voters have access to accurate polling information. The adoption of civic apps has become an essential part of modern election management strategies, helping to address challenges such as voter apathy, misinformation, and logistical barriers. The integration of features like push notifications, real-time updates, and secure authentication mechanisms has further enhanced the efficacy and reliability of these platforms, making them indispensable tools for election authorities and advocacy groups alike.

Another key driver is the rapid proliferation of smartphones and internet connectivity, especially in emerging economies. The widespread availability of affordable mobile devices and improved network infrastructure has made it easier for a larger segment of the population to access voting reminder apps. This trend is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are typically more comfortable with digital platforms and are often targeted by voter engagement campaigns. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of remote and digital solutions for civic engagement, as traditional in-person outreach became challenging. This shift has led to increased investments in app development, user experience enhancements, and data security protocols, all of which are contributing to market growth.

The expanding role of non-profit organizations, political parties, and grassroots movements in promoting voter participation is also fueling demand for voting reminder civic apps. These stakeholders are increasingly utilizing digital tools to amplify their outreach efforts, tailor messages to specific voter segments, and track engagement metrics in real time. The ability to customize app functionalities for different campaigns, languages, and regions has made these platforms highly versatile and effective. Furthermore, collaborations between technology providers, electoral commissions, and civil society organizations are fostering innovation and driving the development of new features aimed at addressing emerging challenges such as misinformation, accessibility, and data privacy.

From a regional perspective, North America continues to dominate the Voting Reminder Civic App market, accounting for the largest share in 2024, followed closely by Europe and Asia Pacific. The high degree of digital literacy, established electoral infrastructure, and supportive policy frameworks in these regions have contributed to widespread adoption of civic apps. Meanwhile, emerging markets in Asia Pacific and Latin America are witnessing rapid growth, driven by increasing smartphone penetration and government-led digital inclusion initiatives. The Middle East & Africa region, while currently representing a smaller share, is expected to experience significant growth over the forecast period as democratic processes and civic engagement gain momentum. Regional disparities in regulatory environments, technological infrastructure, and voter behavior, however, continue to influence adoption rates and market dynamics.

Compon

Voting Reminder Civic App Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Voting Reminder Civic App market size reached USD 1.13 billion in 2024, reflecting robust growth driven by increasing digitization of civic engagement and rising voter awareness initiatives. The market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 17.8% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated USD 5.17 billion by 2033. This expansion is primarily fueled by advancements in mobile technology, heightened governmental and non-governmental focus on improving voter turnout, and the proliferation of smartphones and internet connectivity worldwide.

A key growth driver for the Voting Reminder Civic App market is the escalating demand for digital tools that streamline and enhance voter engagement. Governments and advocacy groups are increasingly leveraging mobile and web-based platforms to disseminate timely election reminders, provide accurate polling location information, and educate voters on electoral processes. The convenience and accessibility offered by these apps have proven crucial in boosting voter participation, especially among younger demographics who are more inclined to use digital solutions. Moreover, the integration of personalized notifications and real-time updates has made these applications indispensable for modern election campaigns and civic outreach efforts.

Another significant factor propelling the growth of the Voting Reminder Civic App market is the global trend towards transparent and accountable democratic processes. In response to declining voter turnout rates in several regions, both governmental and non-profit organizations are investing in innovative technologies to ensure that citizens are well-informed and motivated to participate in elections. The ability of these apps to deliver localized, relevant, and timely information has transformed the way election stakeholders interact with the electorate. Additionally, the adoption of advanced analytics and data-driven insights within these platforms enables organizations to tailor their outreach strategies, further enhancing the effectiveness of voter engagement campaigns.

The proliferation of smartphones and increased internet penetration, particularly in emerging economies, is further accelerating the adoption of Voting Reminder Civic Apps. As mobile connectivity becomes ubiquitous, even in rural and remote areas, these apps are bridging the digital divide and empowering previously underserved populations with critical electoral information. The widespread availability of affordable smartphones and the growing digital literacy among citizens are making it easier for organizations to reach a broader audience. Furthermore, the ongoing global shift towards remote and digital services, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has underscored the importance of digital civic engagement tools, positioning the Voting Reminder Civic App market for sustained growth in the coming years.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the Voting Reminder Civic App market, accounting for the largest revenue share in 2024. This leadership is attributed to the region’s advanced technological infrastructure, high smartphone penetration, and proactive efforts by government agencies and civil society organizations to boost voter turnout. Europe follows closely, driven by similar factors and a strong emphasis on digital democracy. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the fastest growth over the forecast period, owing to rapid urbanization, expanding internet access, and increasing political engagement among younger populations. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also experiencing steady growth, supported by ongoing digital transformation initiatives and rising civic awareness.

Component Analysis

The Voting Reminder Civic App market is segmented by component into Software and Services. Software solutions form the backbone of this market, providing the core platforms that enable voter engagement, election reminders, and information dissemination. These software platforms are continually evolving, incorporating advanced features such as push notifications, geolocation services, and personalized content delivery to enhance user experience and drive higher engagement rates. The competitive landscape within the software segment is characterized by rapid innovation, with vendors striving to develop intuitive, secure, an

Supplementary Empirical Teaching Units in Political Science (SETUPS) for American Politics are computer-related modules designed for use in teaching introductory courses in American government and politics. The modules are intended to demonstrate the process of examining evidence and reaching conclusions and to stimulate students to independent, critical thinking and a deeper understanding of substantive content. They enable students with no previous training to make use of the computer to analyze data on political behavior or to see the results of policy decisions by use of a simulation model. The SETUPS: AMERICAN POLITICS modules were developed by a group of political scientists with experience in teaching introductory American government courses who were brought together in a workshop supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation in the summer of 1974. The American Political Science Association administered the grant, and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research was host to the workshop and provided data for most of the SETUPS. The modules were tested and evaluated during the 1974-1975 academic year by students and faculty in 155 classes at 69 universities and colleges. Appropriate revisions were made based upon this experience. This collection comprises 15 separate modules: (1) Political Socialization Across the Generations, (2) Political Participation, (3) Voting Behavior, The 1980 Election, (4) Elections and the Mass Media, (5) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Court Decisions, (6) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Police Interrogations, (7) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, State Expenditures, (8) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE Simulation, (9) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE II Simulation, (10) Fear of Crime, (11) Presidential Popularity in America, Presidential Popularity, (12) Presidential Popularity in America, Advanced Analyses, (13) Campaign '80, The Public and the Presidential Selection Process, (14) Voting Behavior, The 1976 Election, and (15) Policy Responsiveness and Fiscal Strain in 51 American Communities. Parts 8 and 9 are FORTRAN IV program SIMSTATE sourcedecks intended to simulate the interaction of state policies. Variables in the various modules provide information on respondents' level of political involvement and knowledge of political issues, general political attitudes and beliefs, news media exposure and usage, voting behavior (Parts 1, 2, and 3), and sectional biases (15). Other items provide information on respondents' views of government, politics, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter as presidents, best form of government, government spending (Part 3), local police, the Supreme Court (Parts 4 and 15), the economy, and domestic and foreign affairs. Additional items probed respondents' opinions of prayer in school, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment Law, nuclear energy, and the most important national problem and the political party most suitable to handle it (Part 3). Also included are items on votes of Supreme Court judges (Part 5), arrest of criminal suspects and their treatment by law enforcement agencies (Part 6), federal government expenditures and budgeting (Part 7), respondents' feelings of safety at home, neighborhood crime rate, frequency of various kinds of criminal victimization, the personal characteristics of the targets of those crimes (Part 10), respondents' opinions of and choice of party presidential candidates nominees (Part 13), voter turnout for city elections (15), urban unrest, and population growth rate. Demographic items specify age, sex, race, marital status, education, occupation, income, social class identification, religion, political party affiliation, and union membership.

Whites have become decreasingly likely to support the Democratic Party. I show this shift is being driven by two mechanisms. The first mechanism is the process of ideological sorting. The Democratic Party has lost support among conservative whites because the relationships between partisanship, voting behavior, and policy orientations have strengthened. The second mechanism relates to demographic changes. The growth of liberal minority populations has shifted the median position on economic issues to the left and away from the median white citizen’s position. The parties have responded to these changes by shifting their positions and whites have become less likely to support the Democratic Party as a result. I test these explanations using 40 years of ANES and DW-NOMINATE data. I find that whites have become 7.7-points more likely vote for the Republican Party and mean white partisanship has shifted .25 points in favor of the Republicans as a combined result of both mechanisms.

During the parliamentary election in Israel of 2022, the number of registered voters was about 6.8 million. Over the years observed, the number of voters had a steady growth along with the population of Israel.

Initial voting populations within the United States at t0 = 1932.

Disclosure of information with far right's ideas, negationism of science and anti-vaccine attitude x Risk of COVID-19The electoral preference by Bolsonaro in the first round of Brazil presidential election 2018 per state, shows a strong predictive value of the amount of deaths by Covid-19, excess death per 100,000, increased P-score and intensity in reducing Brazilian population growth in the 1st Tour 2021### Content of this DatabaseIn the period from January to April (1st Quadrimester Q1) from 2021 and 2019 per state (UF) we show:Main variables for each of the 27 Brazilian states and 3 States groups and 1 country BRA1. The main population rates: - Number deaths, excess deaths, births, birth rate, mortality rate, vegetative growth, p-score, total population, population > 70A., Demographic density2. 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 hab3. 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 turn2. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn and more than 50% in the 2nd turn3. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st and 2nd shifts4. Sum of the 27 Brazilian states

Mid-year (30 June) estimates of the usual resident population for electoral wards in England and Wales.

Individuals are increasingly exposed to news and opinion from beyond national borders. This news and opinion are often concentrated in clusters of ideological homophily, such as political parties, factions, or interest groups. But how does exposure to cross-border information affect the diffusion of ideas across national and ideological borders? Here, we develop a non-linear mathematical model for the cross-border spread of two ideologies. First, we describe the standard deterministic model where the populations of each country are assumed to be constant and homogeneously mixed. We solve the system of differential equations numerically by the Runge-Kutta method and show how small changes in the influence of a minority ideology can trigger shifts in the global political equilibrium. Second, we simulate recruitment as a stochastic differential process for each political affiliation and fit model solutions to population growth rates and voting populations in US presidential elections from 1932 to 2020. We also project the dynamics of several possible scenarios from 2020 to the end of the century. We show that cross-border influence plays a fundamental role in determining election outcomes. An increase in foreign support for a national party’s ideas could change the election outcome, independent of domestic recruitment capacity. One key finding of our study suggests that voter turnout in the US will grow at a faster rate than non-voters in the coming decades. This trend is attributed to the enhanced recruitment capabilities of both major parties among non-partisans over time, making political disaffection less prominent. This phenomenon holds true across all simulated scenarios.

Since 1824, when the popular vote was first used to determine the overall winner in U.S. presidential elections, the share of the population who participate in these elections has gradually increased. Despite this increase, participation has never reached half of the total population; partly due to the share of the population below the voting age of eighteen, but also as many potential voters above the age of eighteen do not take part, or are ineligible to vote. For example, in the 2016 election, approximately twenty million U.S. adults were ineligible to vote, while over 94 million simply did not participate; in this election, Donald Trump won the electoral college with 63 million votes, which means that 19.4 percent of the total U.S. population (or 27.3 percent of eligible voters) voted for the current president.

Development throughout history

While the figures for the 2016 election may appear low, over 42 percent of the total population participated in this election, which was the third highest participation rate ever recorded (after the 2008 and 2020 elections). In the first election decided by a popular vote in 1824, only 350 thousand votes were cast from a total population of 10.6 million, although this increased to over four million votes by the 1856 election, as restrictions that applied to non-property holding white males were gradually lifted. Participation levels then dropped during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, as those who lived in Confederate states could not vote in 1864, and many white southerners were restricted or discouraged in the following election. Although universal suffrage was granted to black males in the wake of the Civil War, the majority of black Americans lived in the southern states, where lawmakers introduced Jim Crow laws in the late 1800s to suppress and disenfranchise the black vote, as well as poor white voters.

The next major milestone was the introduction of women's suffrage in 1920, which saw voter participation increase by seven million votes (or seven percent) between the 1916 and 1920 elections. Between the 1910s and 1970s, the Great Migration saw many black Americans move away from the south to northern and western states, where they faced fewer obstacles when voting and greater economic mobility. This period of black migration began to decline in the 1960s and 1970s, during which time many Jim Crow laws were repealed in the south, through legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Female participation also grew gradually, and has exceeded male voting participation in all elections since the 1980s. The minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in all states in 1971, although this seemingly had a minimal impact on the short-term trajectory of voter participation.

Recent elections

The 1992 election was the first in which more than one hundred million votes were cast, which was almost 41 percent of the total population. All elections since 2004 have also had more than one hundred million votes cast, which has again been more than forty percent of the total population. Another key factor in the increase in voter participation is the fact that people are living longer than ever before, and that those aged 65 and over have had the highest turnout levels since 1992. While some figures may be subject to change, the 2020 election set new records for voter turnout. Despite the global coronavirus pandemic, which many thought could cause the lowest turnout in decades, a record number of voters cast their ballots early or by mail, setting a new record of votes just shy of 160 million. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden and Donald Trump received 81.3 million and 74.2 million votes respectively, both beating Barack Obama's previous record of 69.3 million ballots in 2008.

What makes people vote for an underdog? The common expectation is that people avoid wasting their vote on a party with a small probability of being elected. Yet, many voters choose to support underdogs and we still understand little about their motivations. We argue that voters gauge the support for their preferred party in the voting population from their social networks. When social networks exhibit the characteristics of echo chambers, a feature observed in real-life political networks, voters with a strong preference for an underdog tend to overestimate their chances of winning. We test this claim with voting experiments in which some treatment groups receive signals from a simulated network. We compare the effect of networks with a high degree of homogeneity against random networks. Our findings suggest that homophilic networks generate a net positive effect on the level of support for underdogs, which provides empirical evidence to back up anecdotal claims that echo chambers foster the development of fringe parties.

These data were developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable. .
For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2018-2022 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e22Estimate from 2018-22 ACS_m22Margin of Error from 2018-22 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_22Change, 2010-22 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLineStatistical (buffer)BeltLineStatisticalSub (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)County (statewide)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)HSSA = High School Statistical Area (11 county region)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)State of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2018-2022). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2018-2022Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/3b86ee614e614199ba66a3ff1ebfe3b5/about

Mid-year (30 June) estimates of the usual resident population for Westminster Parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales.

The online election voting tools market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for secure, transparent, and efficient electoral processes globally. The market, estimated at $2 billion in 2025, is projected to exhibit a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated $6 billion by 2033. This expansion is fueled by several key factors. Governments and election authorities are increasingly adopting digital solutions to enhance voter participation, reduce costs associated with traditional voting methods, and improve the accuracy and speed of vote counting. Furthermore, the rising adoption of internet and mobile technologies, coupled with growing awareness of cybersecurity measures, is further accelerating market growth. The market is segmented by various deployment models (cloud-based, on-premises), voting systems (electronic, internet-based), and end-users (governmental organizations, private organizations). Competition within the market is fierce, with a range of established and emerging players offering diverse solutions. However, challenges such as concerns about cybersecurity vulnerabilities, maintaining voter privacy, and ensuring equitable access to technology across different demographics continue to influence market expansion. The significant growth trajectory of the online election voting tools market presents lucrative opportunities for technology providers. Companies are focusing on developing innovative solutions that address security concerns, improve user experience, and enhance accessibility for diverse voter populations. This includes features like blockchain technology for enhanced transparency and security, user-friendly interfaces accessible across various devices, and multilingual support to cater to a wider range of voters. Growth is expected to be particularly strong in regions with high internet penetration and progressive electoral systems, although adoption in developing nations will depend heavily on infrastructure development and digital literacy initiatives. While concerns about security and accessibility remain, the ongoing technological advancements and increased governmental investments suggest a continued upward trend in market growth in the coming years.

Already in an early study about the connection between school education and voting behavior in Prussia during the German Empire (see the study of Monika Wölk: “Der preußische Volksschulabsolvent als Reichstagswähler 1871 – 1912“, GESIS Archiv-Nr.: ZA8482) the author of the present study used school generation specific voting behavior as a methodological construct to determine the impact of school education on the voter´s decisions at the Reich elections. The investigation, sponsored by the German research community (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)), about the voter’s generations in Prussia between the German Empire and the Republic is based on this previous work. School generations, defined as graduates of the elementary school in a specific area shaped by specific school-political principles in Prussia, build voting groups within the Prussian voting population. The author inspects their voting motivation concerning continuity or discontinuity in the transition from the authoritarian German Empire to the democratic Republic of Germany and investigates it with her special research question and methodological approach. In the first part of the study the author combines the social-historical quantitative preparation of the material of the age statistics of the population in the chosen research areas with the systematic qualitative analysis of historical educational prerequisites of those parts of population. The school generations (after years of birth) are classified after collective school periods of the elementary school graduates (Volksschulabsolventen (SchVA)): SchVA 1816-1840: “Time of reform“, SchVA 1840 – 1847: “before march“ SchVA 1847 – 1854: „Revolution 1848“, SchVA 1854 – 1872: „Regulative“, SchVA 1872 - 1879: „Falk“, SchVA 1879 – 1892: „Puttkammer“, SchVA 1892 – 1899: „Bosse“, SchVA 1899 – 1918: „1900“, SchVA 1918 – 1927: „Weimar“. In the second part of the study the author continues with considerations and models for the interpretation of the structural changes in the system of political parties from the authoritarian society of the German Empire to the pluralistic, parliamentary presidential governed democracy of the Weimar Republic. In the presentation of the competing models of historical and political-sociological research the author constructs a basis for rating the question on which grid of political directions the voting behavior at the Reich elections before and after the First World War could be based. The comparative trend analysis of school time-stamped generation groups and their voting decisions presented in the third part of the study verifies the work of the second part about the developed models of party systems and its consistency for the generation specific development of the voting population. The voting behavior is broken down into two major alternative parties: The “Reich faithful’s” and the “enemies of the Reich” in the German Empire and the left-right dichotomy as a reverse equivalent of opposition and governmentalism in the Weimar Republic.

Data Tables in HISTAT A. Tables from the text part (Average values of chosen administrative districts, for each administrative district see the tables of the appendix under part B) A.01a Proportion of school generations of the population over 25 or 20 years (1871-1933) A.01b Proportion of generation groups in the voting population over 25 or 20 years (1871-1933) A.02a Voting behavior after discontinuity models of the German party system – model A (1871-1933) A.02b Voting behavior after discontinuity models of the German party system – model B (1871-1933) A.03 Voting behavior in the left-right continuum of the Protestant party system (1871-1933) A.04 Voting behavior in the polarity of governmentalism and opposition (1871-1933) A.05 Youth generations and voting behavior (1919-1933) A.06 Left parties of the Weimar Republic and the generation group “reaction” (1919 – 1933) A.07a Administrative district of Gumbinen: Votes by left-right polarity and generation groups (1871-1933) A.07b Administrative district of Allenstein: Votes by left-right polarity and generation groups (1919-1933) A.07c Berlin: Votes by left-right polarity and generation groups (1871-1933) A.08 School generations and left-liberal voting potential, Berlin and administrative district Liegnitz (1871-1933)

B. Tables from the data appendix B.I. Proportion of school generations of the population over 25 years or 20 years in selected Prussian administrative districts B.II. El...

The global election management software market is projected to reach USD 147.1 million by 2033, expanding at a CAGR of 6.0% from 2025 to 2033. The increasing adoption of technology in election processes and the growing need for efficient and transparent election systems are driving the market growth. Election management software solutions offer numerous advantages, such as automating voter registration, managing polling station operations, and providing real-time election results, which is fueling their adoption. The increasing awareness of the importance of electoral integrity and the rising demand for secure and reliable voting systems further contribute to market expansion. The market is segmented based on application (online and offline) and deployment type (cloud-based and web-based). Online election management software allows voters to cast their votes remotely, while offline software is used for in-person voting. Cloud-based solutions offer scalability, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility, leading to their wider adoption. Key market players include eBallot, Simply Voting, AssociationVoting, and AVANTE Election Management System (EMS), among others. Regional analysis reveals that North America and Europe are the dominant markets, driven by advanced technological infrastructure and established democratic systems. Asia Pacific is expected to witness significant growth due to the increasing adoption of technology in electoral processes and the presence of a large population.

This statistic shows the voter turnout in general elections held in the United Kingdom (UK) from 1918 to 2015. Along with the population growth, the voter turnout has been increasing during that time, with a net growth of roughly 20 million voters. The peak was recorded at general elections in 1992, with 33.61 million registered voters. In the two most recent general elections, voter turnout had been around 30 million. For information on voter turnout by political party, click here.