There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, of which ** are allocated to the state of California. Seats in the House are allocated based on the population of each state. To ensure proportional and dynamic representation, congressional apportionment is reevaluated every 10 years based on census population data. After the 2020 census, six states gained a seat - Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon. The states of California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia lost a seat.

Every 10 years, the number of seats a state has in the U.S. House of Representatives, and therefore the Electoral College, changes based on population. While many states experienced no change in representation due to the 2020 Census, a few states gained or lost seats. Texas notably gained *** seats due to an increase in population, while New York, Michigan, California, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois all lost *** seat.

This change will stay in place until 2030, when the next Census is conducted in the United States.

The downloadable ZIP file contains Esri shapefiles and PDF maps. Contains the information used to determine the location of the new legislative and congressional district boundaries for the state of Idaho as adopted by Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting on March 9, 2002. Contains viewable and printable legislative and congressional district maps, viewable and printable reports, and importable geographic data files.These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2001. CD/DVD -ROM availability: https://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/m1uotc/CP71156191150001451These files were created by a six-person, by-partisan commission, consisting of six commission members, three democrats and three republicans. This commission was given 90 days to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries for the state of Idaho. Due to lawsuits, the process was extended. This legislative plan was approved by the commission on March 9th, 2002 and was previously called L97. All digital data originates from TIGER/Line files and 2000 U.S. Census data.Frequently asked questions:How often are Idaho's legislative and congressional districts redrawn? Once every ten years after each census, as required by law, or when directed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The most recent redistricting followed the 2000 census. Redistricting is not expected to occur again in Idaho until after the 2010 census. Who redrew Idaho's legislative and congressional districts? In 2001, for the first time, Idaho used a citizens' commission to redraw its legislative and congressional district boundaries. Before Idaho voters amended the state Constitution in 1994 to create a Redistricting Commission, redistricting was done by a committee of the Idaho Legislature. The committee's new district plans then had to pass the Legislature before becoming law. Who was on the Redistricting Commission? Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting was composed of Co-Chairmen Kristi Sellers of Chubbuck and Tom Stuart of Boise and Stanley. The other four members were Raymond Givens of Coeur d'Alene, Dean Haagenson of Hayden Lake, Karl Shurtliff of Boise, John Hepworth of Buhl (who resigned effective December 4, 2001), and Derlin Taylor of Burley (who was appointed to replace Mr. Hepworth). What are the requirements for being a Redistricting Commissioner? According to Idaho Law, no person may serve on the commission who: 1. Is not a registered voter of the state at the time of selection; or 2. Is or has been within one (1) year a registered lobbyist; or 3. Is or has been within two (2) years prior to selection an elected official or elected legislative district, county or state party officer. (This requirement does not apply to precinct committeepersons.) The individual appointing authorities may consider additional criteria beyond these statutory requirements. Idaho law also prohibits a person who has served on the Redistricting Commission from serving in either house of the legislature for five years following their service on the commission. When did Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting meet? Idaho law allows the Commission only 90 days to conduct its business. The Redistricting Commission was formed on June 5, 2001. Its 90-day time period would expire on September 3, 2001. After holding hearings around the state in June and July, a majority of the Commission voted to adopt new legislative and congressional districts on August 22, 2001. On November 29th, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the Commission's legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional and directed them to reconvene and adopt an alternative plan. The Commission did so, adopting a new plan on January 8, 2000. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Commission's second legislative map unconstitutional on March 1, 2002 and ordered the Commission to try again. The Commission adopted a third plan on March 9, 2002. The Supreme Court denied numerous challenges to this third map. It then became the basis for the 2002 primary and General elections and is expected to be used until the 2012 elections. What is the basic timetable for Idaho to redraw its legislative and congressional districts?Typically, and according to Idaho law, the Redistricting Commission cannot be formally convened until after Idaho has received the official census counts and not before June 1 of a year ending in one. Idaho's first Commission on redistricting was officially created on June 5, 2001. By law, a Commission then has 90 days (or until September 3, 2001 in the case of Idaho's first Commission) to approve new legislative and congressional district boundaries based on the most recent census figures. If at least four of the six commissioners fail to approve new legislative and congressional district plans before that 90-day time period expires, the Commission will cease to exist. The law is silent as to what happens next. Could you summarize the important dates for Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting one more time please? After January 1, 2001 but before April 1, 2001: As required by federal law, the Census Bureau must deliver to the states the small area population counts upon which redistricting is based. The Census Bureau determines the exact date within this window when Idaho will get its population figures. Idaho's were delivered on March 23, 2001. Why conduct a census anyway? The original and still primary reason for conducting a national census every ten years is to determine how the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives are to be apportioned among the 50 states. Each state receives its share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House based on the proportion of its population to that of the total U.S. population. For example, the population shifts during the 1990's resulted in the Northeastern states losing population and therefore seats in Congress to the Southern and the Western states. What is reapportionment? Reapportionment is a federal issue that applies only to Congress. It is the process of dividing up the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on each state's proportion of the total U.S. population as determined by the most recent census. Apportionment determines the each state's power, as expressed by the size of their congressional delegation, in Congress and, through the electoral college, directly affects the selection of the president (each state's number of votes in the electoral college equals the number of its representatives and senators in Congress). Like all states, Idaho has two U.S. senators. Based on our 1990 population of 1,006,000 people and our 2000 population of 1,293,953, and relative to the populations of the other 49 states, Idaho will have two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even with the state's 28.5% population increase from 1990 to 2000, Idaho will not be getting a third seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Assuming Idaho keeps growing at the same rate it did through the decade of the 1990's, it will likely be 30 or 40 years (after 3 or 4 more censuses) before Idaho gets a third congressional seat. What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts within each state to achieve population equality among all congressional districts and among all legislative districts. The U.S. Constitution requires this be done for all congressional districts after each decennial census. The Idaho Constitution also requires that this be done for all legislative districts after each census. The democratic principle behind redistricting is "one person, one vote." Requiring that districts be of equal population ensures that every elected state legislator or U.S. congressman represents very close to the same number of people in that state, therefore, each citizen's vote will carry the same weight. How are reapportionment and redistricting related to the census? The original and still primary reason for conducting a census every ten years is to apportion the (now) 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the several states. The census records population changes and is the legally recognized basis for redrawing electoral districts of equal population. Why is redistricting so important? In a democracy, it is important for all citizens to have equal representation. The political parties also see redistricting as an opportunity to draw districts that favor electing their members and, conversely, that are unfavorable for electing their political opposition. (It's for this reason that redistricting has been described as "the purest form of political bloodsport.") What is PL 94-171? Public Law (PL) 94-171 (Title 13, United States Code) was enacted by Congress in 1975. It was intended to provide state legislatures with small-area census population totals for use in redistricting. The law's origins lie with the "one person, one vote" court decisions in the 1960's. State legislatures needed to reconcile Census Bureau's small geographic area boundaries with voting tabulation districts (precincts) boundaries to create legislative districts with balanced populations. The Census Bureau worked with state legislatures and others to meet this need beginning with the 1980 census. The resulting Public Law 94-171 allows states to work voluntarily with the Census Bureau to match voting district boundaries with small-area census boundaries. With this done, the Bureau can report to those participating states the census population totals broken down by major race group and Hispanic origin for the total population and for persons aged 18 years and older for each census subdivision. Idaho participated in the Bureau's Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program and, where counties used visible features to delineate precinct boundaries, matched those boundaries with census reporting areas. In those instances where counties did not use visible features to

Though the issue of adding the citizenship question to the census largely has been thought of as a partisan one, a deeper investigation reveals there may be consequences for both parties. The map uses data from the Census Bureau’s new Response Outreach Area Mapper and shows predicted mail non-response rates.The darker blue areas depict low mail-in response areas. While these areas tend to be most concentrated in immigrant-dense areas along the West Coast, battleground states like Colorado and Florida as well as states like Mississippi and the Carolinas with difficult-to-reach populations could also be adversely affected.  Undercounts in those areas may lead to loss of congressional seats in states that might otherwise expect to gain seats after 2020 Census. Undercounts also would lead to a loss of funding for states, since many federal programs base funding on population counts.Source: CityLab - Mapping the Threat of a Census Disaster in 2020 - https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/mapping-the-threat-of-a-census-disaster/556814/

In the latest round of House apportionment following the 2020 Census, the state of New York lost a seat by an extremely small margin: if a mere 89 people were added to the state’s 20 million population, it would have kept the seat. Political observers pointed to the Census’s tendency to undercount minority and immigrant populations as the primary culprit. However, New York’s seat loss is as much as an issue of apportionment as it is of counting: the current apportionment method used by the federal government, Huntington-Hill’s method, is biased against the more populous states such as New York. If an alternative apportionment method were used, such as Webster’s method, New York would also have kept the seat. This article discusses four historical apportionment methods – Hamilton’s method, Huntington-Hill’s method, Jefferson’s method, and Webster’s method. These methods are then evaluated against three criteria of within-quota, consistency, and unbiasedness. The article proceeds to show that Huntington-Hill’s method has produced biased apportionment results in eight out of nine apportionments since its official adoption in 1941. It concludes with the recommendation of replacing the current apportionment method with the only unbiased divisor method: Webster’s method.

California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

We derive a unified statistical method with which one can produce substantially improved definitions and estimates of almost any feature of two-party electoral systems that can be defined based on district vote shares. Our single method enables one to calculate more efficient estimates, with more trustworthy assessments of their uncertainty, than each of the separate multifarious existing measures of partisan bias, electoral responsiveness, seats-votes curves, expected or predicted vote in each district in a legislature, the probability that a given party will win the seat in each district, the proportion of incumbents or others who will lose their seats, the proportion of women or minority candidates to be elected, the incumbency advantage and other causal effects, the likely ef fects on the electoral system and district votes of proposed electoral reforms, such as term limitations, campaign spending limits, and drawing majority-minority districts, and numerous others. To illustrate, we estimate the partisan bias and electoral responsiveness of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1900 and evaluate the fairness of competing redistricting plans for the 1992 Ohio state legislature. See also: Legislative Redistricting

More than half of the current members of the U.S. Congress served in their state legislature prior to holding federal office. We quantify the relationship between state legislative service and career progression to Congress. Using close elections for exogenous assignment of political experience across otherwise similar candidates, we show that serving in the state legislature more than doubles an individual's probability of eventually contesting a Congressional seat relative to a similar candidate who lost in a comparable election; it also doubles the individual politician's probability of eventually winning a Congressional seat. State legislatures thus create national politicians out of otherwise marginal political entrants. We then show that the effect of state legislative service on career progression is larger in more professionalized legislatures, highlighting the role of institutions in facilitating political career progression. Our results hold important implications for representation and accountability, and confirm that prevailing institutions can affect political selection via career progression.

The legislative districts contain the geographically defined territories used for representation in the California State Assembly, California State Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives from California. These three boundary layers were approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2021 following the completion of the 2020 United States Census.

Coconino County GIS gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. This disclaimer applies both to the direct use of the data and any derivative products produced with the data. Any type of boundary, linear or point locations contained within this data or displayed within this product are approximate, and should not be used for authoritative or legal location purposes. Users should independently research, investigate, and verify all information to determine if the quality is appropriate for their intended purpose. If legally-defensible boundaries or locations are required, they should first be established by an appropriate state-registered professional. Per A.R.S. 37-178: A public agency that shares geospatial data of which it is the custodian is not liable for errors, inaccuracies or omissions and shall be held harmless from and against all damage, loss or liability arising from any use of geospatial data that is shared. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent with the intent stated in the metadata.

As of 2024, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh had the highest number of seats allocated in the Lok Sabha. Of these, ** seats were won by the NDA and ** by the INDIA party. Maharashtra had the second-highest number of seats in the general elections. Out of a total of *** seats in the lower House of the Parliament, the NDA secured ***, and the Congress-led opposition alliance, known as the INDIA, won *** seats in 2024. With this general election, NDA lost the majority it had held for a decade.

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.

The USDA Forest Service Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) program produces geospatial and related data representing post-fire vegetation condition by means of standardized change detection methods based on Landsat or similar multispectral satellite imagery. RAVG data products characterize the impact of disturbance (fire) on vegetation within a fire perimeter, and include estimates of percent change in live basal area (BA), percent change in canopy cover (CC), and the standardized composite burn index (CBI). Standard thematic products include 7-class percent change in basal area (BA-7), 5-class percent change in canopy cover (CC-5), and 4-class CBI (CBI-4). Contingent upon the availability of suitable imagery, RAVG products are prepared for all wildland fires reported within the conterminous United States (CONUS) that include at least 1000 acres of forested National Forest System (NFS) land (500 acres for Regions 8 and 9 as of 2016). Data for individual fires are typically made available within 45 days after fire containment ("initial assessments"). Late-season fires, however, may be deferred until the following spring or summer ("extended assessments"). Annual national mosaics of each thematic product are prepared at the end of the fire season and updated, as needed, when additional fires from the given year are processed. The annual mosaics are available via the Raster Data Warehouse (RDW, see https://apps.fs.usda.gov/arcx/rest/services/RDW_Wildfire). A combined perimeter dataset, including the burn boundaries for all published Forest Service RAVG fires from 2012 to the present, is likewise updated as needed (at least annually). This current dataset is derived from the combined perimeter dataset and adds spatial information about land ownership (National Forest) and wilderness status, as well as the areal extent of forested land (pre-fire) that experience a modeled BA loss above 50 and 75 percent.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService OGC WMS CSV Shapefile GeoJSON KML For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

Every ten years, states set about redrawing the lines of their Congressional districts. Scholars in political science have long been interested in the strategic behavior and representational outcomes of this process. While majority-minority districts are intended to provide a constraint on strategic party behavior in order to ensure substantive representation of minority interests, researchers have noted a perverse effect that results in potentially less-representative political outcomes. In 2003, Kenneth Shotts, David Lublin, and D. Stephen Voss debated the veracity of the perverse effects claim, but Shotts' critique was missing a key interaction between partisanship and the liberalizing effect of majority-minority districts. In the course of performing this necessary extension on Shotts' work, we found that our results have an unexpected, and important, methodological implication for Congress scholars. Specifically, we were unable to replicate Shotts (2003) precisely due to sublte changes in DW-NOMINATE estimates that result from periodic updating of the database. Furthermore, after substantially expanding the dataset, we continue to find the same null results and the evidence supporting the interaction is statistically ambiguous. Though these null results do not prove or disprove the perverse-effects hypothesis, they do undermine Shotts' evidence of a liberalizing effect of majority-minority districting. While we lack sufficient precision to estimate whether majority-minority districting has a positive, negative, or truly no effect on minority representation (and the conditional effect of party control), it is more concerning that small changes to DW-NOMINATE would prevent the replication of these past results, given the abundance of studies that use it to measure legislator ideology.

In the 2024 general elections in India, the National Democratic Party (NDA) in India won the majority of Lok Sabha seats standing at 292, a fall from 343 seats in 2019. Majority of seats in the alliance were won by BJP with 240 seats. The NDA is led by the ruling BJP, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. INDI Alliance is a political alliance of more than 25 political parties in India, which was founded in July 2023 in an unprecedented attempt to be strong opposition to the NDA. The INDI Alliance garnered major gains in 2024 but lost to the incumbent BJP. Congress, the major opposition party won 99 seats.

As of May 2023, India had six national political parties, in addition to over ** state parties and over ************ unrecognized parties. The criteria for defining national and state-level political parties are set by the Election Commission of India. Criteria for national players A registered party is considered a national party if it fulfills one of the three criteria, namely, securing two percent of Lok Sabha seats from at least three states; six percent of votes in four states and four Lok Sabha seats, or if the party is recognized as a state party in four or more states of the country. It is, therefore, determined after Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly elections, if political parties gain a national status or lose it. Aam Admi Party (AAP) was the latest addition to the list of national parties. On the other hand, in April 2023, the Election Commission revoked the national party status of three former national parties- the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and the Communist Party of India (CPI). A different set of criteria are applicable for state-level parties. What are the registered unrecognized parties (RUPPs)?   To form a political party, an association has to get registered with the Election Commission and could fall under either recognized or unrecognized categories. Recognition comes with benefits such as reserving a party symbol or free broadcast rights over government media such as Doordarshan, more allowances for campaign expenditure, etc. However, all registered parties whether recognized or unrecognized are entitled to collect donations which are exempt from taxes. However, a majority of unrecognized parties are under ECI’s scanner for flouting rules. A number of them did not contest elections or file annual statements and some were found to be involved in financial impropriety. Some were even delisted for being non-existent. In 2022, the income tax authorities conducted raids over tax evasion by these parties.

In response to leaked documents from May 3, 2022 which indicated the United States Supreme Court's intention to overturn Roe v. Wade, U.S. adults were asked what impact this will have on the upcoming midterm elections. 43 percent of surveyed adults felt that the overturning of Roe would help the Democratic Party in some way, while 19 percent felt that it would help the Republican Party.

Roe v. Wade The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade established the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Court issued a 7-2 majority ruling based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment and that a fundamental right to privacy protects individuals from government interference when seeking abortion services. Roe is often associated with another Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 ruling that upheld Roe, and introduced fetal viability to the law, which forbade states from regulating abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy. Despite declining rates of abortion, in the United States and broad support for legal abortion access, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2022 with the ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a decision seen as being widely unpopular.

2022 midterm election

In November 2022, Americans will head to the polls for the congressional midterm elections. Support for abortion rights tends to fall along party lines with Democrats being in favor and Republicans being opposed. With 26 states either criminalizing or poised to criminalize abortion, 36 million women will lose their access to safe abortion services. While the party in power has historically lost seats in midterm elections, the wide popularity of abortion rights could prove advantageous to Democrats. Women voters in particular could play a key role in the upcoming congressional elections given a 2018 poll that found 68 percent of women were in favor of the protections granted by Roe. In addition to the 43 percent of surveyed Americans who said that they thought the overturning of Roe would help Democrats, 36 percent indicated that it would make them more likely to vote in this year's midterm elections.

After 100 percent of ballots have been counted in the Russian parliamentary election that took place in September 2021, five political parties had a chance to occupy 225 seats in the State Duma via party lists (with a threshold of five percent). These were United Russia with 49.82 percent of the votes, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF, with 18.93 percent), the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR, with 7.55 percent), A Just Russia - For Truth (7.46 percent), and New People (5.32 percent). Furthermore, 198 seats in the lower house of the Russian parliament would be taken by United Russia candidates that were elected in single-mandate constituencies, as well as nine from KPRF, eight from A Just Russia - For Truth, five self-nominated candidates, two from the LDPR, and one each from Civic Platform, Rodina, and Party of Growth. More facts about the event can be found on our dedicated page on the parliamentary election in Russia 2021.