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

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.

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 practices "data suppression", filtering some block groups from demographic publication because they do not meet a population threshold. This practice...

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

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

Voting is a fundamental human right. Yet, individuals that are younger than 18 do typically not have this right since they are considered politically uninformed. However, recent evidence tentatively suggests that political knowledge of youths is endogenous to the voting age. I test the hypothesis that having the right to vote can stimulate the acquirement of political knowledge. Utilizing voting age discontinuities I employ a regression discontinuity strategy on Swedish register data to estimate the effect of early age voting right on political knowledge. The results do not support positive effects of early age voting right on political knowledge. Thus, we should not expect that 16-year-olds respond by acquiring more political knowledge if they are given the right to vote.

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset.

CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module.

Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA:

Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors;election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election

Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; current employment status; main occupation; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; occupation of chief wage earner and of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence

Survey variables: respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; last election was conducted fairly; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; political parties care what people think; political parties are necessary; recall of candidates from the last election (name, gender and party); number of candidates correctly named; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of the state of the economy in the country; assessment of economic development in the country; degree of improvement or deterioration of economy; politicians know what people think; contact with a member of parliament or congress during the past twelve months; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; people express their political opinion; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political information items

DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA:

number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district

MACRO-LEVEL DATA:

founding year of parties; ideological families of parties; international organization the parties belong to; left-right position of parties assigned by experts; election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; most salient factors in the election; head of state (regime type); if multiple rounds: selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; procedure for candidate selection at final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election of head of state; head of government (president or prime minister); selection of prime minister; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; electoral formula; party threshold; parties can run joint lists; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; ally party support; constitu...

Analysis of ‘🗳 VEP Turnout’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/vep-turnoute on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

Files:

National level

• U.S. VEP Turnout 1789-Present-Statistics - The complete time series of national presidential and midterm general election turnout rates from 1787-present.

National and state level

• 1980-2014 November General Election - Turnout Rates
• 2016 November General Election - Turnout Rates
• 2018 November General Election - Turnout Rates
• 2020 November General Election - Turnout Rates

Turnout rates by demographic breakdown, 1986-2018, from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, November Voting and Registration Supplement (or CPS for short). These tables are corrected for vote overreporting bias. For uncorrected weights see the source link.

• Turnout Rate 1986-2018 by Age
• Turnout Rate 1986-2018 by Education
• Turnout Rate 1986-2018 by Race and Ethnicity

For more information on these files see the source link below.

Source: Data prepared and maintained by Dr. Michael P. McDonald at the University of Florida, at electproject.org

Updated: synced from source weekly

License: CC-BY

This dataset was created by Government and contains around 100 samples along with Unnamed: 7, Denominators, technical information and other features such as: - Unnamed: 4 - Unnamed: 5 - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Unnamed: 16 in relation to Unnamed: 14
• Study the influence of Unnamed: 12 on Unnamed: 9
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit Government

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Electoral participation in last provincial election, by sex and age group, Canada and provinces, 2013.

The purpose of the study: to identify Lithuania's citizens' political priorities and electoral attitudes when voting in 2004 Parliamentary elections. Major investigated questions: it was investigated respondents' voting for a concrete person in the first and second round of presidential election in 2004 and voting for a concrete party in European Parliament elections, June 13, 2004; clarified motives voting for the concrete party; intentions to vote in oncoming legislative election in autumn. Respondents were asked about self-determination motives to vote or not to vote in election (sense of responsibility, election campaign, attractiveness of politicians, weather on Election Day, or other); main sources of information: radio, TV, press, internet, and friends. Respondents were also asked whether concrete politician's opinion is important when they voting; what is the most important point determining respondent's voting for some party (general opinion about party, party's political attitudes, other) and the most important point determining respondent's voting for a candidate-member of parliament (candidate's fame, election campaign or other); do respondents are going to vote in this year legislative election for the present parliament member elected in one's electoral district. It was tested respondents' opinion on the proposal to repeal voting for lists of parties, all parliament members should be elected in single-mandate districts, i.e. it should be voted only for individual politicians; willingness to vote for people new in politics; attitude to representatives of unwanted parties (Union of Peasants and New Democratic Parties, Liberal and Centre Union, Union of Russians of Lithuania, etc.) in the parliament. Probed were respondents' views on who are the most attractive politician; what are expectations related to new elected politicians: reinforcement of security in Lithuania, fight against corruption, price reduction, creation of working places, stimulation of fertility, etc.; which parties have the best abilities improving the situation in Lithuania and do respondents intend to vote for politicians who are going to make radical changes in present policy. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, education, occupation, nationality, monthly income per family member, place of residence, region.

This dataset covers ballots 255-60, and 262-63, spanning January, March, May, July, September-October, and December 1957. The dataset contains the data resulting from these polls in ASCII. The ballots are as follows: 255 - January This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canadians mainly on current events and news issues. Some of this poll's question were also intended to ascertain respondents' political opinions. Respondents were asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic, demographic and social variables as well. Topics of interest include: alcohol consumption; beer sales in grocery stores; beverage consumption; Canadian Arts Council; car ownership; federal election; government funding for art; immigration policy; interesting things done by people; New Years resolutions; the most important world event; preferred political parties; predictions for 1957; prohibition of alcohol; railway workers strike; public utilities strike; television ownership; temperament; union membership; voting behaviour; and winter vacations. Basic demographics variables are also included. 256 - March This Gallup poll seeks to obtain the views of Canadians on current issues of national importance. Included are questions on labour unions, religion, and activities people do and feel should be allowed on Sundays. Respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic, demographic, and social variables. Topics of interest include: belief in the New Testament; car ownership; the federal election; the ideal number of children; labour union criticisms; whether newspapers should be allowed on Sunday; old age pension amounts; whether organized sports should be allowed on Sunday; preferred political parties; physical exam requirements to be able to drive a vehicle; religious influence; Sunday activities; whether theatres should be allowed to be open on Sunday; union membership; the influence of the United Nations, and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included. 257 - May This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canadians on issues of importance to the government and to the country. Included are questions regarding voting patterns and elections, America's influence over Canada, and travelling habits of Canadians. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic, demographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: the 35 hour work week; America's influence over Canada; the church's refusal to wed divorcees; the cost of taking a trip; the federal election; foreign policy; preferred political parties; the purpose of taking a trip; tax cuts; union membership; transportation used to take a trip; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included. 258 - May This Gallup poll aims to collect the opinions of Canadians on issues of importance to the country and to the government. This survey focuses on mostly political topics, such as elections and voting, and the influence of the United States over Canada. Respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic, demographic, and social variables. Topics of interest include: American investment in Canada, the American lifestyle; Canada's dependence on the United States, the federal election; financial dependence on the United States; government policy; how hard people work; religious services; Sunday school; union membership; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included. 259 - July This Gallup poll seeks to collect the opinions of Canadians. The majority of questions either deal directly with politics or the Federal election that was held in the month before this poll. Questions also inquire about voting patterns and issues that affect how respondents vote. Respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic, demographic, and social variables. Topics of interest include: whether respondents have been in a small boat recently; car ownership; Dr. Salk's polio vaccination; government priorities; John Diefenbaker; Louis St. Laurent; preferred political party; predictions and opinions for the next federal election; Progressive Conservative party; the Queen's visit to Ottawa; reactions to the federal election results; smoking habits and quitting; swimming ability; union membership; voting behaviour; and why the Conservatives won the federal election. Basic demographics variables are also included. 260 - September: first sample with 1223 respondents This Gallup poll is interested in collecting Canadians' opinions. The predominant subject of the survey questions is politics, including everything from the Queen to nuclear weapons testing and fallout. There were also questions asked to help group the respondents according to geographic, demographic, and social variables. Topics of interest include: A-bomb testing; American television programs; awareness of cabinet ministers; the British Commonwealth as a trading partner; Canadian television programmes; car ownership; federal elections; Governor General preference; H-bomb testing; inflation and high prices; job-type preference; John Diefenbaker's performance as Prime Minister; Louis St. Laurent's successor; nuclear weapons and fallout; performance of the advisors to the Queen; Russia's foreign policy objectives; speeches given by the Queen; television ownership; union membership; the United States as a trading partner; and voting behaviours. Basic demographics variables are also included. 260-c2 - September: same as above; second sample with 952 respondents 262 - October This Gallup poll seeks to collect the opinions of Canadians on important political issues, both in Canada and abroad. The major political issues discussed within Canada include prices, defence and unemployment, although lighter issues such as advertising and how spare time is spent are also discussed. Respondents were also asked questions so that they could be classified according to geographic, demographic and social variables. Basic demographics variables are also included. 263 - December This Gallup poll seeks to collect the opinions of Canadians on important political issues, both in Canada and abroad. The major political issues discussed within Canada include prices, defence and unemployment, although lighter issues such as advertising and how spare time is spent are also discussed. Respondents were also asked questions so that they could be classified according to geographic, demographic and social variables. The topics of interest include: whether advertisements are believable or not; the Arab Israeli conflict in Palestine; car ownership; the Conservative party; defense policy; the federal election; government control of schools; how spare time is spent; John Diefenbaker's performance as Prime Minister; the number of jobs held by respondents; preferred political parties; price trends; Unemployment rates; union membership; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included. The codebook for this dataset is available through the UBC Library catalogue, with call number HN110.Z9 P84.

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors; election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post-election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election; language of questionnaire. Demography: year and month of birth; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; business association membership, farmers´ association membership; professional association membership; current employment status; main occupation; socio economic status; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; current employment status, occupation, socio economic status, employment type - public or private, and industrial sector of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; number of children in household under the age of 6; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; region of residence; race; ethnicity; rural or urban residence; primary electoral district; country of birth; year arrived in current country. Survey variables: perception of public expenditure on health, education, unemployment benefits, defense, old-age pensions, business and industry, police and law enforcement, welfare benefits; perception of improving individual standard of living, state of economy, government's action on income inequality; respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; vote choice (presidential, lower house and upper house elections) at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the current and the previous election; difference who is in power and who people vote for; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of parties on the left-right-scale and/or an alternative scale; self-assessment on a left-right-scale and an optional scale; satisfaction with democracy; party identification; intensity of party identification, institutional and personal contact in the electoral campaigning, in person, by mail, phone, text message, email or social networks, institutional contact by whom; political information questions; expected development of household income in the next twelve month; ownership of residence, business or property or farm or livestock, stocks or bonds, savings; likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month; spouse likelihood to find another job within the next twelve month. DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district. MACRO-LEVEL DATA: election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; party of the president and the prime minister before and after the election; number of portfolios held by each party in cabinet, prior to and after the most recent election; size of the cabinet after the most recent election; number of parties participating in election; ideological families of parties; left-right position of parties assigned by experts and alternative dimensions; most salient factors in the election; fairness of the election; formal complaints against national level results; election irregularities reported; scheduled and held date of election; irregularities of election date; extent of election violence and post-election violence; geographic concentration of violence; post-election protest; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement and types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; votes cast; voting procedure; voting rounds; party lists close, open, or flexible; transferable votes; cumulated votes if more than one can be cast; compulsory voting; party threshold; unit for the threshold; freedom house rating; democracy-autocracy polity IV rating; age of the current regime; regime: type of executive; number of months since last lower house and last presidential election; electoral formula for presidential elections; electoral formula in all electoral tiers (majoritarian, proportional or mixed); for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; linked electoral segments; dependent formulae in mixed systems; subtypes of mixed electoral systems; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; fused vote; size of the lower house; GDP growth (annual percent); GDP per capita; inflation, GDP Deflator (annual percent); Human development index; total population; total unemployment; TI corruption perception index; international migrant stock and net migration rate; general government final consumption expenditure; public spending on education; health expenditure; military expenditure; central government debt; Gini index; internet users per 100 inhabitants; mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants; fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants; daily newspapers; constitutional federal structure; number of legislative chambers; electoral results data available; effective number of electoral and parliamentary parties.

The study charted the respondents' political attitudes, voting behaviour and views on the 2023 parliamentary elections. The dataset includes data from six rounds of polling with the same respondents. The data were collected as part of the Citizens' Opinion panel, which is part of The Finnish Research Infrastructure for Public Opinion (FIRIPO). First, the respondent's voting behaviour was surveyed by asking, for example, whether they planned to vote in the 2023 parliamentary elections, and if so, which party they planned to vote for. Those who indicated that they would not be voting were asking about their reasons for doing so (e.g. haven't found a suitable party or candidate, have inadequate information to make a voting decision). Political participation was examined with questions about interest in politics, forms of political participation engaged in (e.g. donating money to a candidate, participating in a peaceful demonstration, participating in a political party's campaign activities), and participation in citizens' initiatives. Next, political attitudes were investigated with a series of statements (e.g. Finnish Members of Parliament are competent at their jobs, I trust my own abilities to take part in politics, by voting ordinary people can have an impact on political decision-making). The respondents' views on current political issues charted with a series of statements (e.g. immigration is mostly a good thing for Finland, Finland should be much more active in the fight against climate change, Russia is a security threat to Finland, public services must be cut to balance the Finnish economy), and they were asked to assess how important various topics in politics (e.g. taxation, minority rights, social and health care, national security and defence) were for them. The respondents were also asked whether they would for or against Finland's NATO membership if they had the chance. Voting choice was surveyed by asking the respondents which factors (e.g. the party's values, the party's activities during the previous parliamentary term) had impacted their choice of political party in the 2023 parliamentary elections. The factors which impacted the respondents' choice of candidate in parliamentary elections (e.g. candidate's trustworthiness, candidate's previous political experience) were also examined. Additionally, the respondents were asked which political parties they would like to see in government after the 2023 parliamentary elections and which political parties they hoped would not be part of the government. Opinions were investigated on each political party in the Finnish parliament and the chairpersons of those parties. The respondents were also asked how they would feel about having a close friend or a colleague that supported each of the political parties in the Finnish parliament, and how they would react if their son or daughter married a supporter of each of the parties in the Finnish parliament. General attitudes towards the supporters of each political party in the Finnish parliaments were charted. Trust in various institutions (e.g. the European Union, the Finnish President, political parties) was measured and satisfaction in democracy in Finland and in the EU was investigated. Satisfaction with the Cabinet led by Prime Minister Sanna Marin, the activities of opposition parties after the 2019 parliamentary elections, the government's approach to the war in Ukraine, and the government's approach to the COVID-19 pandemic were surveyed. The respondents were asked whether various areas (e.g. defence, care of the elderly, employment, taxation, minority rights) had improved or worsened since the 2019 parliamentary elections and whether they believed that the changes in those areas were due to the government's actions or caused by other reasons. The respondents were asked how suitable they felt that different political systems (e.g. a democratic political system, a strong leader who does not have to care about the parliament or elections) were as a form of government in Finland. Views on democracy were studied by asking how essential certain factors (e.g. women have the same rights as men, the people elect their leaders in free elections, the media are free to criticise the government) were for democracy. Additionally, the respondents were asked for their opinions on various proposals concerning the future direction of Finland (e.g. Finland should accept fewer refugees, Finland should have a smaller public sector, Finland should have lower taxation even if it weakens public services). Background variables included the respondent's age, gender, highest level of education, economic activity and occupational status, mother tongue, electoral area, and municipality type.

This dataset contains a spreadsheet with the participant's alias together with some political and socio-demographic data and the anonymised pre-election transcripts. There are twenty-four transcripts in the dataset, one set are in Word and the other in OpenDocument Text. Files are named according to who participated in the focus group or interview. Each transcript contains a table with some basic sociodemographic and political data on the participants.

Participants participated in an icebreaker and were asked their opinions on the snap election, the party leaders, what considerations were going into their vote choice, and impressions of the campaign. If there was time or it was not discussed, they were asked which campaign messages stood out to them and their views on tactical voting.

All participants’ names were changed to a permanent alias that allows them to be tracked across elections and any direct or indirect identifiers removed to protect their anonymity.  The transcripts were then formatted to create two levels of headings: topics and aliases. This is designed to help researchers more easily find the information they need. Please be aware that while topic headings have been added to the transcripts, participants sometimes provide information that anticipates later questions or provide additional information to a prior question later in the in discussion. If you are interested in a particular topic, we encourage to review the entire transcript to capture all the relevant data.

The post-election dataset and leader’s evaluation answers data will be released in 2025.

The Qualitative Election Study of Britain (QESB) is a longitudinal qualitative dataset documenting the real-world discourse of ordinary people, with rich data on their politics, over multiple elections and referendums. The QESB dataset consists of a series of longitudinal transcripts (in Word and Open Office Documents) covering multiple elections and referendums, with over 1.1 million words from 252 and participants to date. The data, structured by election year and pre and post election topics (e.g., impressions of the campaign, impressions of the party leaders, stories of their vote choice and election day), includes comprehensive socio demographic information (e.g. age, gender, regional location) and political indicators (e.g party affiliation, vote choice, including whether and how they voted in the EU referendum).

QESB has a core set of questions that have been asked at each election since 2010, including the pre-election topics such as perceptions of the campaigns, perceptions of the party leaders, most important issues, and the post-election topics of voluntary self-reported vote choice, recounting the story of their election day, and perceptions of the new government to allow researchers to identify topics of interest across time.

In June and July 2024, seventy-six eligible voters took part in pre-election online and in-person focus groups for the 2024 UK General Election. The Qualitative Election Study of Britain seeks to capture the complexities of why people vote the way they do by recording people talk about politics in their own words. Founded in 2010, it is the world’s longest running qualitative election study, providing researchers with a unique data resource for thematic, content, narrative and discourse analysis.

This dataset contains a spreadsheet with the participant's alias together with some political and socio-demographic data and the anonymised pre-election transcripts. There are twenty-four transcripts in the dataset. Files are named according to who participated in the focus group or interview. Participants were asked their opinions on the snap election, the party leaders, what considerations were going into their vote choice, and impressions of the campaign. The post-election dataset and leader’s evaluation answers data will be released in 2025.

The Politbarometer has been conducted since 1977 on an almost monthly basis by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen on behalf of the Second German Television (ZDF). Since 1990, this database has also been available for the new German states. The survey focuses on the opinions and attitudes of the voting-age population in the Federal Republic on current political issues, parties, politicians, and voting behavior. From 1990 to 1995 and from 1999 onward, the Politbarometer surveys were conducted separately both in the newly formed eastern and in the western German states (Politbarometer East and Politbarometer West). The separate monthly surveys of a year are integrated into a cumulative data set that includes all surveys of a year and all variables of the respective year. Starting in 2003, the Politbarometer short surveys, collected with varying frequency throughout the year, are integrated into the annual cumulation.
Most important political problems in Germany; intention to vote in the next Bundestag election; party preference (Sunday question and ranking); electoral behaviour in the last Bundestag election; coalition preference; attitude towards a grand coalition; attitude towards a coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP, CDU/CSU and Grünen, SPD and Grünen, a coalition of SPD, Die Linke and Grünen as well as a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD; assessment of the options of the Grünen after the next Bundestag election; sympathy scale for the parties CDU, CSU, SPD, FDP, Grüne, Linke and AfD; satisfaction scale for the federal government from CDU/CSU and SPD as well as for the respective governing parties and the opposition parties Linke and Grüne; most important politicians in Germany; sympathy scale for selected top politicians (Sigmar Gabriel, Gregor Gysi, Hannelore Kraft, Ursula von der Leyen, Thomas de Maizière, Angela Merkel, Andrea Nahles, Wolfgang Schäuble, Horst Seehofer, Peer Steinbrück, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Guido Westerwelle and Joachim Gauck); satisfaction with democracy; political interest; disagreement between SPD, CDU, CSU, Grünen, AfD, Linke and Union on important political issues; satisfaction with the social market economy in Germany; assessment of the current economic situation in the country; most suitable party to solve the economic problems in the country; assessment of the current personal economic situation and expected economic situation in the coming year; expected upward trend in Germany (economic expectations); most competent party to create jobs, in the areas of social policy and social justice; attitude to impunity for tax offences through voluntary disclosure; expectation of Uli Hoeneß´s resignation after his tax offences, as well as assessment of the punishment; advantageousness of the country´s EU membership; assessment of the introduction of the euro; advantageousness of the euro as a common currency; interest in European policy; self-assessment of information about Europe; attitude to freedom of movement in Europe; opinion on Swiss referendum on immigration and effects on the cooperation of the EU with Switzerland; interest in the European elections; intended participation in the European elections; intended participation in the elections as a postal vote; party preference in European elections; reason for a possible voting decision for the AfD; preference for Jean-Claude Juncker or Martin Schulz for president of the European Commission; forecasted impact of a removal of the 5% hurdle on the election decision; assessment of the work of EU Commission President Juncker; expected long-term success of the AfD; voting for the AfD because of political content or dissatisfaction with other parties; expectation of the CDU/CSU to open up to the AfD; left-right continuum for the AfD; assessment of the demarcation of the AfD against right-wing extremists; expectation of treating the AfD as a normal party; is the FDP still needed as a party?; expected entry of the FDP into the Bundestag; awareness of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP; expected pre and post-trade disadvantages of TTIP; expectation of compliance with the debt limit in the EU; assessment of the importance of Britain´s membership in the EU; satisfaction with EU policy; assessment of the introduction of the euro; expectation of the benefits of the European single currency; expected long-term success of the euro; expected rapid resolution of the euro crisis; feared danger for the euro from the Greek crisis; assessment of the work of Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel; assessment of Angela Merkel´s leadership; assessment of the start of the new federal government; assessment of the relationship between the governing parties; assessment of who is to blame for the bad relationship in the federal government; expectation of perspective cooperation in the new federal government; predicted ability of the CDU, CSU and SPD to assert themselves in the federal government; presumption of the most...

The Politbarometer has been conducted since 1977 on an almost monthly basis by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen on behalf of the Second German Television (ZDF). Since 1990, this database has also been available for the new German states. The survey focuses on the opinions and attitudes of the voting-age population in the Federal Republic on current political issues, parties, politicians, and voting behavior. From 1990 to 1995 and from 1999 onward, the Politbarometer surveys were conducted separately both in the newly formed eastern and in the western German states (Politbarometer East and Politbarometer West). The separate monthly surveys of a year are integrated into a cumulative data set that includes all surveys of a year and all variables of the respective year. Starting in 2003, the Politbarometer short surveys, collected with varying frequency throughout the year, are integrated into the annual cumulation.
1. The following topics were repeated identically at each survey period: most important political problems in Germany; voting intention at the next parliamentary elections (opinion poll, ranking) ; party preference; voting behaviour at the last parliamentary elections; coalition preference; sympathy-scale for SPD, CDU, CSU, FDP, die Grünen and PDS; rank of the parties (split); sympathy-scale for selected leading politicians (Joschka Fischer, Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schröder, Edmund Stoiber, Guido Westerwelle and Christian Wulff); judgement of the present economic situation in Germany; the most competent party to resolve the present economic problems; judgement of respondent`s economic situation in present and in future; judgement of an upward trend in German economy (economic situation expectation); the most competent party for the creation of jobs; self-assessment on a left-right continuum.

1. At least in one or in additional months was asked: postal vote; first and second vote; eligible parties and non eligible parties; certainty of one`s own voting decision; judgement of the so called grand coalition of CDU/CSU and SPD as well as different coalitions from the parties in the Bundestag; attitude towards an one party government of the CDU/CSU; attitude towards a SPD government with PDS as party for obtaining the majority; voting for a different party, in case the election results would have been known before; satisfaction with the result of the parliamentary elections; attitude to a participation of FDP and PDS in government; the most competent government coalition to resolve the problems in Germany; accessibility of a majority of SPD and die Grünen; preference for SPD in the government or in the opposition; Federal Chancellor preference for Angela Merkel or Gerhard Schröder in general as well as with one grand coalition; additionally preference for a Federal Chancellor; clarification of the chancellor question or the government programme in first place during the negotiations between CDU/CSU and SPD; attitude towards a minority government; preferred minority government; judgement of the election results with regard to the approach to resolve the most important problems in Germany; expectation of a grand coalition by CDU/CSU and SPD; perceived euphoric mood in Germany after the formation of the new government; important contribution of the grand coalition to resolve the problems in Germany, in fighting of unemployment, in resolving the pension problem, the finance problem, the problems in health service, in stimulating the economy as well as supporting families; attitude towards an election of Angela Merkel as a Federal Chancellor; preference for Gerhard Schröder as a Federal Chancellor in a grand coalition; expected authority of Angela Merkel in important political questions; judgement of the competence of Angela Merkel in representing Germany abroad; satisfaction with the new government team; expected support of Merkel by the CDU/CSU parliamentary group as well as the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag; expected continuance of the grand coalition over the whole legislative period; attitude towards East Germans as party leaders (of CDU and SPD); attitude towards a woman as chancellor; woman as reason for the eligibility of the CDU/CSU; satisfaction with the performances of the Federal Government as well as with the individual parties SPD, die Grünen, CDU/CSU, FDP as well as the Linkspartei.PDS (scale); currently most important politician or politicians in Germany; sympathy scale for selected leading politicians (in addition to those mentioned above: Wolfgang Clement, Hans Eichel, Gregor Gysi, Roland Koch, Horst Köhler, Oskar Lafontaine, Friedrich Merz, Franz Müntefering, Matthias Platzeck, Otto Schily, Ulla Schmidt, Horst Seehofer, Peer Steinbrück and George W. Bush); disunity of SPD, CDU, CSU, die Grünen, FDP and PDS as well as of CDU and CSU with each other; judgement of the relations between the ruling parties SPD and die Grünen and the relations of CDU to CSU; candidate for...

Context

The data represent the polling station presence during election day in Romania.

Content

The data is collected continuously from polling stations. In Romania, the vote presence is registered instantly in the polling station, at the entrance to the polling station every citizen presenting his ID card. His data is collected (mainly to prevent multiple votes), all data being centralized to a server. The data is updated every hour, so we will see data for each hour from 7 am to 21 pm.

Acknowledgements

The data is collected by the Central Electoral College of Romania. The data can be downloaded from their site, here.

Inspiration

You can follow patterns of voters presence to the polling station. What counties votes earlier? Which polling station has the maximum number of votes? Are there polling stations with more voters than registered voters? Are cities or large towns voting earlier or later than small villages? Are older people voting earlier or later? Who is voting more, the males or females? Do we see variations according to age, sex, town vs. village?

Electoral participation in last municipal election, by sex and age group, Canada and provinces, 2013.

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview:July 2020 municipal wards were collected by LTSB through the WISE-Decade system. Current statutes require each county clerk, or board of election commissioners, no later than January 15 and July 15 of each year, to transmit to the LTSB, in an electronic format (approved by LTSB), a report confirming the boundaries of each municipality, ward and supervisory district within the county as of the preceding “snapshot” date of January 1 or July 1 respectively. Population totals for 2011 wards are carried over to the 2018 dataset for existing wards. New wards created since 2011 due to annexations, detachments, and incorporation are allocated population from Census 2010 collection blocks. LTSB has topologically integrated the data, but there may still be errors.Election Data Overview:The 1990-2000 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. Disaggregation of Election Data:Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward. The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population. When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the WEC at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file. Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note…We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2020) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if Cityville has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward 5 was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards 1 and 4 according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election ResultsThe process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2018: Wards 2018Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (occurred with spring 2020) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2018Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2020 (then MCD 2020, and County 2020) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2020 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though MCD and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same, so data should total within a county the same between wards 2011 and wards 2020.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2020. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2020, and annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.*WEC replaced the previous Government Accountability Board (GAB) in 2016, which replaced the previous State Elections Board in 2008.

Percentage of people who voted in the last federal, provincial and municipal elections, by groups designated as visible minorities and selected sociodemographic characteristics (age group, gender, immigrant status, generation status, first official language spoken and highest certificate, diploma or degree).