According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57 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, 54 percent of voters with an income of 100,000 U.S. dollars or more reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, 46 percent of voters with a 2023 household income of 30,000 U.S. dollars or less reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, 51 percent of voters with a total family income of 100,000 to 199,999 U.S. dollars reported voting for Kamala Harris.

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.

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.

This data collection is comprised of responses from two sets of survey questionnaires, the basic Current Population Survey (CPS) and a survey on the topic of voting and registration in the United States, which was administered as a supplement to the November 2012 CPS questionnaire. The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment. Data from the CPS are provided for the week prior to the survey. The voting and registration supplement data are collected every two years to monitor trends in the voting and nonvoting behavior of United States citizens in terms of their different demographic and economic characteristics. The supplement was designed to be a proxy response supplement, meaning a single respondent could provide answers for all eligible household members. The supplement questions were asked of all persons who were both United States citizens and 18 years of age or older. The CPS instrument determined who was eligible for the voting and registration supplement through the use of check items that referred to basic CPS items, including age and citizenship. Respondents were queried on whether they were registered to vote in the November 6, 2012 election, main reasons for not being registered to vote, main reasons for not voting, whether they voted in person or by mail, and method used to register to vote. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, disability status, educational attainment, occupation, and income.

Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats. In this paper, I show detailed evidence for this decades-in-the-making trend and argue that it has important consequences for the U.S. politics of economic inequality and redistribution. Beginning in the 1990s, the Democratic Party has won increasing shares of rich, upper-middle income, high-income occupation, and stock-owning voters. This appears true across voters of all races and ethnicities, is concentrated among (but not exclusive to) college-educated voters, and is only true among voters living in larger metropolitan areas. In the 2010s, Democratic candidates' electoral appeal among affluent voters reached above-majority levels. I echo other scholars in maintaining that this trend is partially driven by increasingly “culturally liberal” views of educated voters and party elite polarization on those issues, but I additionally argue that the evolution and stasis of the parties' respective economic policy agendas has also been a necessary condition for the changing behavior of affluent voters. This reversal of an American politics truism means that the Democratic Party's attempts to cohere around an economically redistributive policy agenda in an era of rising inequality face real barriers.

This study is part of the American National Election Studies (ANES), a time series collection of national surveys fielded since 1948. The American National Election Studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. The files included in this study are restricted-use due to the income data contained in them for the year listed in the title.

According to exit polls for the 2024 New Hampshire Republican primary, former President Donald Trump led the way among the majority of voters in the U.S. However, Trump only received 47 percent of votes from voters who reported a household income of at least 100,000 U.S. dollars, with their candidate of choice being South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who received 50 percent of their votes. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis remained on the ballot despite dropping out of the race just days prior to the New Hampshire primaries.

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.

Why does the relationship between income and partisanship vary across U.S. regions? Some answers have focused on economic context (in poorer environments, economics is more salient), while others have focused on racial context (in racially diverse areas, richer voters oppose the party favoring redistribution). Using 73 million geocoded registration records and 185,000 geocoded precinct returns, we examine income-based voting across local areas. We show that the political geography of income-based voting is inextricably tied to racial context, and only marginally explained by economic context. Within homogeneously non-black localities, contextual income has minimal bearing on the income-party relationship. The correlation between income and partisanship is strong in heavily black areas of the Old South and other areas with a history of racialized poverty, but weaker elsewhere, including in urbanized areas of the South. The results demonstrate that the geography of income-based voting is inseparable from racial context.

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.

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.

According to an September 2024 survey of adults in the United States, 87 percent of those with a household income of over 50,000 U.S. dollars said that they were definitely voting in the 2024 presidential election. In comparison, 72 percent of those making less than 50,000 U.S. dollars were definitely planning to vote in November.

In the aftermath of the 2022 Italian legislative elections, but also during the entire electoral campaign, several claims were made that much of the electoral support for the Five Star Movement had been triggered by the “Reddito di cittadinanza” – the welfare policy introduced in 2019 by the yellow-green government. This research note first distinguishes between distributive politics and policy voting, and then explores the empirical relationship between the geographical provision at the municipal level of the citizenship income and the vote for the party led by Giuseppe Conte. While traditional multivariate analyses fail to reveal any spurious relationship, matching techniques help highlight the absence of any causal relationship between the two variables.

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.

Build targeted segments for political campaigns with multiple points of contact. Target voters by geographic boundaries, demographic profile, income, family size, and more. Phone number data, email address data, and mailing address info give you multiple ways to execute political campaigns.

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...

This study contains selected demographic, social, economic, public policy, and political comparative data for Switzerland, Canada, France, and Mexico for the decades of 1900-1960. Each dataset presents comparable data at the province or district level for each decade in the period. Various derived measures, such as percentages, ratios, and indices, constitute the bulk of these datasets. Data for Switzerland contain information for all cantons for each decennial year from 1900 to 1960. Variables describe population characteristics, such as the age of men and women, county and commune of origin, ratio of foreigners to Swiss, percentage of the population from other countries such as Germany, Austria and Lichtenstein, Italy, and France, the percentage of the population that were Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, births, deaths, infant mortality rates, persons per household, population density, the percentage of urban and agricultural population, marital status, marriages, divorces, professions, factory workers, and primary, secondary, and university students. Economic variables provide information on the number of corporations, factory workers, economic status, cultivated land, taxation and tax revenues, canton revenues and expenditures, federal subsidies, bankruptcies, bank account deposits, and taxable assets. Additional variables provide political information, such as national referenda returns, party votes cast in National Council elections, and seats in the cantonal legislature held by political groups such as the Peasants, Socialists, Democrats, Catholics, Radicals, and others. Data for Canada provide information for all provinces for the decades 1900-1960 on population characteristics, such as national origin, the net internal migration per 1,000 of native population, population density per square mile, the percentage of owner-occupied dwellings, the percentage of urban population, the percentage of change in population from preceding censuses, the percentage of illiterate population aged 5 years and older, and the median years of schooling. Economic variables provide information on per capita personal income, total provincial revenue and expenditure per capita, the percentage of the labor force employed in manufacturing and in agriculture, the average number of employees per manufacturing establishment, assessed value of real property per capita, the average number of acres per farm, highway and rural road mileage, transportation and communication, the number of telephones per 100 population, and the number of motor vehicles registered per 1,000 population. Additional variables on elections and votes are supplied as well. Data for France provide information for all departements for all legislative elections since 1936, the two presidential elections of 1965 and 1969, and several referenda held in the period since 1958. Social and economic data are provided for the years 1946, 1954, and 1962, while various policy data are presented for the period 1959-1962. Variables provide information on population characteristics, such as the percentages of population by age group, foreign-born, bachelors aged 20 to 59, divorced men aged 25 and older, elementary school students in private schools, elementary school students per million population from 1966 to 1967, the number of persons in household in 1962, infant mortality rates per million births, and the number of priests per 10,000 population in 1946. Economic variables focus on the Gross National Product (GNP), the revenue per capita per household, personal income per capita, income tax, the percentage of active population in industry, construction and public works, transportation, hotels, public administration, and other jobs, the percentage of skilled and unskilled industrial workers, the number of doctors per 10,000 population, the number of agricultural cooperatives in 1946, the average hectares per farm, the percentage of farms cultivated by the owner, tenants, and sharecroppers, the number of workhorses, cows, and oxen per 100 hectares of farmland in 1946, and the percentages of automobiles per 1,000 population, radios per 100 homes, and cinema seats per 1,000 population. Data are also provided on the percentage of Communists (PCF), Socialists, Radical Socialists, Conservatives, Gaullists, Moderates, Poujadists, Independents, Turnouts, and other political groups and p

This statistic shows the share of votes by income and party in the 2018 midterm elections in the United States on November 6, 2018. According to the exit polls, about 51 percent of people with an income of 100,000 to 199,999 U.S. dollars voted for Republican candidates.

Abstract (en): This study consists of four surveys conducted in 16 of the 21 states that held primary elections on Super Tuesday, March 8, 1988. Parts 1-3 are telephone surveys conducted from late January through early March. In Parts 1 and 2, respondents were asked if they were registered to vote, their party designation, if they intended to vote in the Democratic or Republican presidential primary, for whom they would vote if the primary were held that day, toward which candidate they were leaning, the strength of their support, and any candidates they definitely would not vote for. Additional questions sought the respondent's opinions on which party had a better chance of winning in November, the Reagan presidency, and the two most important issues in the presidential campaign. In Part 3, a sample of respondents from Parts 1 and 2 were recontacted by phone and asked for whom they would vote if the primary were being held that day, toward whom they were leaning, and the strength of their support. In Part 4, voters were asked to fill out questionnaires as they exited the polling places. They were asked whether they voted in the Democratic or Republican primary, and for whom they voted. Voters given the long form of the questionnaire were queried on additional topics including the Reagan presidency and items important in making their choice that day. Background information on all respondents in this collection includes education, age, religion, race, sex, income, voting history, and political orientation. The adult population, aged 18 and over, of 16 states holding primary elections on Super Tuesday, March 8, 1988. Part 3: Respondents from Parts 1 and 2. Part 4: Voters from 16 states participating in the March 8, 1988 primary elections. Parts 1-3: Households were selected by random digit dialing. Part 4: Polling places were chosen by random selection. 2006-01-18 File CB8995.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. Parts 1-3 contain weight variables that must be used in analysis. The data contain blanks and dashes (-).