This graph shows the percentage of votes of the 2016 presidential elections in the United States on November 9, 2016, by income. According to the exit polls, about 53 percent of voters with an income of under 30,000 U.S. dollars voted for Hillary Clinton.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, ** percent of voters with a 2023 household income of ****** U.S. dollars or less reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, ** percent of voters with a total family income of 100,000 to ******* U.S. dollars reported voting for Kamala Harris.

In many democracies, unemployed and low-income citizens are less willing to vote. Can social policies weaken the link between income and turnout? We study policy feedback leveraging a unique experiment in Finland, which randomly assigned a sizable group of unemployed to receiving an unconditional basic income for two years (2017-19). Combining individual-level registry and survey data, we show that the intervention has large positive effects on voter turnout. Unconditional basic income increases turnout in municipal elections by about 3 p.p., on average, an effect that is concentrated among marginal voters (+ 6-8 p.p.) and persists in national elections after the end of the experiment. Exploring possible mechanisms, our analysis highlights the role of the interpretive effects that follow from unconditionality in the bureaucratic process, including higher levels of political trust and efficacy. We discuss implications for theories of voter turnout and policy feedback, and the design of basic income policies.

In many democracies, voter turnout is higher among the rich than the poor. But do changes in income lead to changes in electoral participation? We address this question with unique administrative data matching a decade of individual tax records with voter rolls in a large municipality in northern Italy. We document several important findings. First, levels of income and turnout both dropped disproportionately among relatively poor citizens following the Great Recession. Second, we show that within-individual changes in income have an effect on participation, which is modest on average due to diminishing returns, but can be consequential among the poor. Third, we find that declining turnout of voters facing economic insecurity has exacerbated the income skew in participation, suggesting that income inequality and turnout inequality may reinforce each other. We discuss the theoretical implications of these results, set in a context with strong civic traditions and low barriers to voting.

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.

These datasets form the basis of an empirical inquiry into whether income inequality belongs in a macro model of voter turnout. Time series modeling suggests that the Gini coefficient enters nonlinearly in Canada and this finding is confirmed in a panel data model of Indian states.

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, ** percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S. dollars reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, ** percent of voters with an income of 100,000 U.S. dollars or more reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

Does a universal basic income affect voter turnout? This article argues that the introduction of an unconditional cash payment - where citizens receive money independent of employment status, age or indigence – can have a turnout enhancing effect. I evaluate the argument using the introduction of the Permanent Fund Dividend in Alaska. Differences-in-differences estimates covering November general elections from 1978-2000 provide compelling evidence that the Alaskan UBI has a significant positive effect on turnout. The results further suggest that the turnout increase was not a one-off effect but persists over a period of almost 20 years. Thus, a UBI has the potential to positively affect turnout among an entire electorate, adding to the discussion around potential welfare reforms in western democracies.

This graph shows the percentage of votes of the 2012 presidential elections in the United States on November 6, 2012, by income. According to the exit polls, about 63 percent of voters with an annual income of less than 30,000 U.S. dollars nationwide have voted for Barack Obama.

The Voting Habits dataset is a collection of data that provides insights into the voting behaviors of people based on their gender, race, education, and income. The dataset offers a valuable resource for researchers, social scientists, and policymakers who want to understand the factors that influence voting habits and preferences.

The dataset contains information collected from surveys and polls conducted in different countries. It includes data on the demographics of voters, such as their age, gender, race, education, and income, as well as their voting patterns in past elections.

The dataset is particularly useful for understanding the impact of social and economic factors on voting behavior. For example, researchers can use the dataset to explore how income and education levels influence political preferences, or how gender and race affect voting behavior.

Moreover, policymakers can use the insights gained from the dataset to develop strategies to encourage more people to participate in elections, improve voter turnout, and ensure that voting is more inclusive and representative.

Overall, the Voting Habits dataset is an essential resource for anyone interested in understanding the complex dynamics of voting behavior and developing effective policies to enhance democratic participation.

What difference does it make if the state makes people vote? The question is central to normative debates about the rights and duties of citizens in a democracy, and to contemporary policy debates in a number of Latin American countries over what actions states should take to encourage electoral participation. Focusing on a rare case of abolishing compulsory voting in Venezuela, this article shows that not forcing people to vote yielded a more unequal distribution of income. The evidence supports Arend Lijphart’s claim, advanced in his 1996 presidential address to the American Political Science Association, that compulsory voting can offset class bias in turnout and, in turn, contribute to the equality of influence.

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

Citizens unequally participate in referendums and this may systematically bias policy in favor of those who vote. Some view compulsory voting as an important tool to alleviate this problem while others worry about its detrimental effects on the legitimacy and quality of democratic decision-making. So far, however, we lack systematic knowledge about the causal effect of compulsory voting on public policy. We argue that sanctioned compulsory voting mobilizes citizens at the bottom of the income distribution and that this translates into an increase in support for leftist policies. We empirically explore the effects of a sanctioned compulsory voting law on direct-democratic decision-making in Switzerland. We find that compulsory voting significantly increases electoral support for leftist policy positions in referendums by up to 20 percentage points. We discuss the implications of these results for our understanding of the policy consequences of electoral institutions.

Previous research on the effects of employment on voter turnout yields mixed results. Combining data from the largest workfare program in the world with data from over 50,000 Indian polling stations we show that increased employment substantially increases female turnout. Mechanism tests suggest the results are driven by employment rather than income and program satisfaction. In particular, we find increases in the number of friends, discussions of politics with more people, and increased knowledge of politics. We also find effects on non-electoral political participation and we argue that the effects we identify are driven by autonomous political participation.

Abstract (en): This data collection supplies standard monthly labor force data for the week prior to the survey. Comprehensive information is given on the employment status, occupation, and industry of persons 14 years old and older. Additional data are available concerning weeks worked and hours per week worked, reason not working full-time, total income and income components, and residence. Besides the CPS core questions, this survey gathered additional data on citizenship, voter registration, and voter participation in the 1982 congressional elections. Information on demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, marital status, veteran status, household relationship, educational background, Hispanic origin, and number and ages of children in household, is available for each person in the household enumerated. All persons in the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States living in households. A national probability sample was used in selecting housing units. Approximately 71,000 households were selected for the sample.

The aim of the study is to learn more about the motives, but also about the structures and preferences of non-voters. A distinction is to be made between permanent and sporadic non-voters. Furthermore, proposals and argumentation patterns that are intended to increase voter turnout are to be tested for their resonance and success potential in the target group. Topics: 1. Socio-economic factors and personal living conditions: life satisfaction; assessment of the general economic situation in the country and the own economic situation; responsibility of the policy of the last Federal Government for the current economic situation in the country and the own economic situation; subjective class affiliation; religiosity; social involvement: memberships (political party, sports or leisure club or group with cultural interests, other group/other club); affiliation with trade unions; statements on the general situation in Germany (Germany is a prosperous country, where most people are doing well, a feeling of social dependency, comprehensive and solidary concern of the welfare state for the weaker, concerns about the reception of many refugees, competitive thinking in society, it is fair in Germany, fear of terrorist attacks, feeling of insecurity in the evening on foot or in public transport, increasingly aggressive tone in the media and on the Internet, social inequality in Germany is now too great). 2. Political attitudes and political behaviour: political interest; frequency of use of selected media for political information; interest in the election campaign for the federal elections; frequency of political activities (e.g. petition supported, participation in a demonstration, etc.).); satisfaction with democracy; democracy as a good form of government; satisfaction with the work of the Federal Government; opinion on the need for reform in Germany; statements on politics in Germany (politics too complicated, too few possibilities for political influence, lack of political ability to solve problems, too little disclosure of political decision-making processes, powerless politics, determining economy, too great expectations of the citizens on politics, politics cares about really important problems, necessity of political compromises for reconciliation of interests); attitudes towards politicians and parties (parties only care about power, party promises are not kept, new parties necessary because old ones do not offer a solution, no party with a convincing offer, popular parties CDU and SPD no longer differ from each other, politicians are presented worse in the media than they actually are, politicians´ language is foreign and incomprehensible, politicians take care of the concerns of ordinary people); opinion on representative democracy; party identification; change voter; reasons for non-election in the last federal elections (open); general motives for non-election; opinion on selected proposals to increase voter turnout (e.g. reduction of the voting age to 16 years, etc.); opinion on a general duty to vote in Germany. Demography: sex; age; household size; education; employment; professional status; federal state; size of community; net household income (grouped). Additionally coded was: ID; eligibility to vote in the 2017 federal elections; type and frequency of voter participation; weighting factor. Ziel der Studie ist es, mehr über die Motive, aber auch über Strukturen und Präferenzen von Nichtwählern zu erfahren. Dabei soll zwischen permanenten und sporadischen Nichtwählern differenziert werden. Ferner sollen Vorschläge und Argumentationsmuster, die eine Steigerung der Wahlbeteiligung bewirken sollen, auf ihre Resonanz und ihr Erfolgspotenzial in der Zielgruppe getestet werden. Themen: 1. Sozioökonomische Faktoren und persönliche Lebensumstände: Lebenszufriedenheit; Beurteilung der allgemeinen wirtschaftlichen Lage im Land und der eigenen wirtschaftlichen Lage; Verantwortung der Politik der letzten Bundesregierung für die derzeitige wirtschaftliche Lage im Land und die eigene wirtschaftliche Lage; subjektive Schichtzugehörigkeit; Religiosität; gesellschaftliche Involvierung: derzeitige bzw. frühere Mitgliedschaften (politische Partei, Sport- oder Freizeitverein oder Gruppe mit kulturellen Interessen, andere Gruppe/ anderer Verein); Verbundenheit mit Gewerkschaften; Aussagen zur allgemeinen Lage in Deutschland (Deutschland ist wohlhabendes Land, wo es den meisten gut geht, Gefühl, gesellschaftlich abgehängt zu sein, umfassende und solidarische Sorge des Sozialstaates um die Schwächeren, Sorgen wegen der Aufnahme der vielen Flüchtlinge, Konkurrenzdenken in der Gesellschaft, es geht gerecht zu in Deutschland, Furcht vor Terroranschlägen, Unsicherheitsgefühl am Abend zu Fuß oder in öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln, zunehmend aggressiver Umgangston in den Medien und im Internet, soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland mittlerweile zu groß). 2. Politische Einstellungen und politisches Verhalten: Politikinteresse; Nutzungshäufigkeit ausgewählter Medien für politische Informationen; Interesse am Wahlkampf zur Bundestagswahl; Häufigkeit politischer Aktivitäten (z.B. Petition unterstützt, Teilnahme an einer Demonstration, etc.); Demokratiezufriedenheit; Demokratie als gute Regierungsform; Zufriedenheit mit der Arbeit der Bundesregierung; Meinung zum Reformbedarf in Deutschland; Aussagen zur Politik in Deutschland (Politik zu kompliziert, zu wenige Möglichkeiten politischer Einflussnahme, fehlende Problemlösungsfähigkeit der Politik, zu geringe Offenlegung politischer Entscheidungsprozesse, machtlose Politik, bestimmende Wirtschaft, zu große Erwartungen der Bürger an die Politik, Politik kümmert sich um wirklich wichtige Probleme, politische Kompromisse für Interessenausgleich notwendig); Einstellungen zu Politikern und Parteien (Parteien geht es nur um Macht, nicht eingehaltene Wahlversprechen, neue Parteien nötig, weil alte keine Problemlösung anbieten, keine Partei mit überzeugendem Angebot, Volksparteien CDU und SPD unterscheiden sich nicht mehr voneinander, Politiker werden in den Medien schlechter dargestellt, als sie tatsächlich sind, Sprache der Politiker fremd und unverständlich, Politiker kümmern sich um die Sorgen der einfachen Leute); Meinung zur repräsentativen Demokratie; Parteiidentifikation; Wechselwähler; Gründe für Nichtwahl bei der letzten Bundestagswahl (offen); allgemeine Motive für Nichtwahl; Meinung zu ausgewählten Vorschlägen zur Steigerung der Wahlbeteiligung (z.B. Absenkung des Wahlalters auf 16 Jahre, etc.); Meinung zu einer allgemeinen Wahlpflicht für Deutschland. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; Haushaltsgröße; Bildung; Erwerbstätigkeit; berufliche Stellung; Bundesland; Ortsgröße; Haushaltsnettoeinkommen (gruppiert). Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: lfd. Nummer; Wahlberechtigung bei der Bundestagswahl 2017; Art und Häufigkeit der Wahlteilnahme; Gewichtungsfaktor.

Scholars have long attributed the income-participation gap-- which is the observation that the rich participate in politics more than the poor-- to income-based differences in the resources, recruitment, mobilization, and psychology underpinning political behavior. I argue that these explanations require a longer time horizon than the empirical evidence permits. Education, for example, typically ends in young adulthood and so cannot logically mediate the effect of income on participation in late adulthood. To resolve this temporal problem, I propose that there are two income-participation gaps: one based on current economic status and another on childhood economic history. I situate this argument in a developmental framework and present evidence for it using six studies. The results, while mixed at times, indicate that there are two gaps, that the size of each gap changes over the life course, and that their joint effect creates a larger income-participation gap than estimated by prior research.

Abstract (en): Election data for 50 states and the District of Columbia were collected through interviews conducted with voters as they left their polling places on election day, November 4, 2008. Part 1, National Data, contains data collected from a national sample. National sample respondents were asked a series of questions about their electoral choices, the issues surrounding the elections, and the factors that influenced their decisions. Questions focused on the direction of the country, national security, terrorism, the war in Iraq, the state and future of the nation's economy, gay marriage, and the George W. Bush presidency. Demographic variables of national respondents cover age, race, gender, Hispanic descent, sexual orientation, age of children in household, marital status, political party, political orientation, employment status, education, religion, sexual orientation, and family income. Parts 2-52 contain data collected from each state and District of Columbia surveys. Respondents were asked for their opinions of Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain, Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, and the United States Congress, as well as for their vote choices in the relevant gubernatorial, senatorial, and congressional elections. Those queried were also asked their opinions of the candidates' spouses, Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Demographic variables of individual state respondents cover age, race, gender, education, voter participation history, political party, political orientation, sexual orientation, and family income. Telephone interviews were the only type of interview conducted in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. Telephone interviews were also used to poll absentee voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. National: A sample of exit poll precincts was drawn from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A subsample of these precincts was selected to form the national sample. The national survey was administered in a total of 300 sample exit poll precincts. Respondents in the national precincts were given one of four versions of the national questionnaire. The four versions were interleaved on pads that were handed out to respondents. Responses to the four versions are combined into one dataset. All versions have questions in common as well as questions unique to each version. State Data: As mentioned above, a sample of exit poll precincts was drawn in each state. A subsample of these precincts was selected to form the national sample. The remaining precincts in each state made up the state sample and were given questionnaires specific to that state. Because the national questionnaire has several items in common with the state questionnaire, national respondents are included in the state exit poll dataset for these common questions. To determine which questions are on the national questionnaire, simply crosstab each question by QTYPE (found in column 13 of the ascii dataset), indicating whether the respondent completed the state or national survey. If the corresponding item did not appear on that respondent's version of the questionnaire, it was coded as system missing in the SPSS file and will appear as a blank in the ascii dataset. Remember, as noted above, some questions on the national survey appear on multiple versions of the national and some do not. Note that in 2008 all respondents in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York answered one version of the national questionnaires. The exit poll results are weighted to reflect the complexity of the sampling design. That is, the weighting takes into account the different probabilities of selecting a precinct and of selecting a voter within each precinct. For example, minority precincts that were selected at a higher rate receive a smaller weight than other precincts of the same size. An adjustment is made for voters who were missed or refused to be interviewed, which is based on their observed age, race, and gender. Respondents are also weighted based upon the size and distribution of the final tabulated vote within geographic regions of the state or of the nation. Voters casting a ballot in the 2008 United States general election. The samples were selected in two stages. First, a probability sample of voting precincts within each state was selected that represents the di...

Variables identifying studies and respondents: country; election year; election type: general election or presidential election; pre-election study/post-election study; first or second round presidential election; weights; election study ID (original and TEV); respondent ID. 2. General background variables: Gender of respondent; age; age of respondent at time of election; age groups; marital status; urbanization; region; ethnicity; education; religious denomination; churchgoing frequency; religiosity; 3. Occupation and class: respondent is head of household; Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero class schema occupational classification; employment in public or private sector of economy; subjective social class membership; income; union membership of respondent or family member; union; home ownership. 4. Political interest and involvement: interest in politics; interest in voting; frequency of media use (e.g., television news, daily newspapers) in general or during election campaign; timing of voting decision; political efficacy; legitimacy beliefs: Satisfaction with democracy; trust in institutions; objective and subjective political knowledge. 5. Party attachment: party membership; party identification. 6. Sympathy towards parties and their leaders: sympathy for political parties, leaders of political parties, and presidential candidates. 7. Left-right positions: Left-right self-placement; left-right placement of political parties. 8. Economic and non-economic evaluations. 9. Value dimensions: role of Christian values in society; attitudes toward the position of the family, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality; the role of religious education in schools; traditional vs. modern values in society; State: attitudes toward the state in terms of: Regulation of the market economy, size of the welfare state/public sector, privatization (privatization of health care, etc.), socialization of private enterprises, regulation of private property, level of public social insurance and benefits (replacement rates), income equality vs. the need for incentives, tax level/tax progression, and economic democracy (influence of employees/workers in companies. Authoritarian/liberal values: emphasis on law and order, strict measures against crime and criminals, size of defense forces; attitudes toward greater political and social participation and involvement in decision making versus need for efficient decision making without much involvement; attitudes toward respect for authorities. Economic growth: attitudes toward environmental protection in general; environmental protection versus economic growth; attitudes toward economic growth/high productivity; attitudes toward nuclear power; attitudes toward private motoring; speed of development of energy sources (hydroelectric, oil, etc.). Materialism/ post-materialism. Ethnicity and immigration: attitudes toward immigrants; attitudes toward foreigners; attitudes toward foreign customs practiced in own neighborhood; attitudes toward foreign religions; attitudes toward races other (than own). European integration and European Union: attitudes toward European integration in general; attitudes toward the European Union; attitudes toward EU membership; attitudes toward EU enlargement. 10. Valence issues and competence measures: indicators of two concepts of the valence question in voting: 1. importance respondents attach to the country´s problems and 2. competence attributed to political actors to solve these problems; ratings of government´s past performance on issues/policies. 11. Voting behavior: Voter turnout and voting decisions in the current election and the last election. 12. Generic and synthetic variables.

Topics covered in the questionnaire are: democracy and governance issues, municipal performance, Identity documents, voter registration, voting history, most recent voting experience, voting irregularities, general perceptions on voting, electronic voting, perceptions on voting in terms of special groups, media and information issues with regard to the profile of the electoral commission, voter education, interest in social/cultural/religious organisations, political participation, respondent characteristics, household characteristics, personal and household income. Following the data curation process the resulting data set has 3214 cases and 504 variables. Of the targeted population of 3500, 3214 responses (91.8%) was realized