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.

This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2022. It also contains measures of each county's Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2022.

This data collection contains voter registration and turnout surveys. The files contain summaries at state, town, and county levels. Each level of data include: total population, total voting-age population, total voter registration (excluding ND, WI), total ballots cast, total votes cast for president, and voter registration by party. Note: see the documentation for information on missing data.

Dave Leip's website

The Dave Leip website here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php lists the available data. Files are occasionally updated by Dave Leip, and new versions are made available, but CCSS is not notified. If you suspect the file you want may be updated, please get in touch with CCSS. These files were last updated on 9 JUL 2024.

Note that file version numbers are those assigned to them by Dave Leip's Election Atlas. Please refer to the Data and Reproduction Archive Version number in your citations for the full dataset.

For additional information on file layout, etc. see https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/DOWNLOAD/spread_turnout.html.

Similar data may be available at https://www.electproject.org/election-data/voter-turnout-data dating back to 1787.

Provides demographic information on persons who did and did not register to vote. Also measures number of persons who voted and reasons for not registering.

This study contains selected electoral and aggregate economic, ecological, and demographic data at the congressional district level for districts of the 87th and 88th Congresses in the period 1961-1965. Data are provided for the number of votes cast for the Democratic and the Republican parties, and the percentage of votes cast for the majority party in the biennial elections for United States Representatives in the period 1952-1962, as well as the total votes cast for the office of president, and the number of votes cast for each party's presidential candidate in the 1952, 1956, and 1960 election. Data are also provided for population and housing characteristics, including total population by household, group quarters, institutions, age group, gender, marital status, race, nationality, and urban and rural residency. Additional demographic variables describe the congressional districts in terms of education, income, employment status and occupation, veteran status, births, deaths, and marriages.

These data are derived from CANDIDATE NAME AND CONSTITUENCY TOTALS, 1788-1990 (ICPSR 0002). They consist of returns for two-thirds of all elections from 1788 to 1823 to the offices of president, governor, and United States representative, and over 90 percent of all elections to those offices since 1824. They also include information on United States Senate elections since 1912. Returns for one additional statewide office are included beginning with the 1968 election. This file provides a set of derived measures describing the vote totals for candidates and the pattern of contest in each constituency. These measures include the total number of votes cast for all candidates in the election, each candidate's percentage of the vote received, and several measures of the relative performance of each candidate. They are appended to the individual candidate records and permit extensive analysis of electoral contests over time. This dataset contains returns for all parties and candidates (as well as scattering vote) for general elections and special elections, including information on elections for which returns were available only at the constituency level. Included in this edition are data from the District of Columbia election for United States senator and United States representative. The offices of two senators and one representative were created by the "District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative," which was approved by District voters in 1980. Elections for these offices were postponed until the 1990 general election. The three offices are currently local District positions, which will turn into federal offices if the District becomes a state.

National and state turnout rates for the voting-eligible population in US election

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

This table contains data on the percent of adults (18 years or older) who are registered voters and the percent of adults who voted in general elections, for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the Statewide Database, University of California Berkeley Law, and the California Secretary of State, Elections Division. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Political participation can be associated with the health of a community through two possible mechanisms: through the implementation of social policies or as an indirect measure of social capital. Disparities in political participation across socioeconomic groups can influence political outcomes and the resulting policies could have an impact on the opportunities available to the poor to live a healthy life. Lower representation of poorer voters could result in reductions of social programs aimed toward supporting disadvantaged groups. Although there is no direct evidentiary connection between voter registration or participation and health, there is evidence that populations with higher levels of political participation also have greater social capital. Social capital is defined as resources accessed by individuals or groups through social networks that provide a mutual benefit. Several studies have shown a positive association between social capital and lower mortality rates, and higher self- assessed health ratings. There is also evidence of a cycle where lower levels of political participation are associated with poor self-reported health, and poor self-reported health hinders political participation. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

AP VoteCast combines interviews with a random sample of registered voters drawn from state voter files with self-identified registered voters selected using nonprobability approaches. In general elections, it also includes interviews with self-identified registered voters conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak® panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

Interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents may receive a small monetary incentive for completing the survey. Participants selected as part of the random sample can be contacted by phone and mail and can take the survey by phone or online. Participants selected as part of the nonprobability sample complete the survey online.

In the 2020 general election, the survey of 133,103 interviews with registered voters was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 3, concluding as polls closed on Election Day. AP VoteCast delivered data about the presidential election in all 50 states as well as all Senate and governors’ races in 2020.

Using this Data - IMPORTANT

This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

National Survey

The national AP VoteCast survey of voters and nonvoters in 2020 is based on the results of the 50 state-based surveys and a nationally representative survey of 4,141 registered voters conducted between Nov. 1 and Nov. 3 on the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. It included 41,776 probability interviews completed online and via telephone, and 87,186 nonprobability interviews completed online. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points for voters and 0.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

State Surveys

In 20 states in 2020, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 1,000 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 3,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for voters and 5.5 percentage points for nonvoters.

In an additional 20 states, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 500 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 2,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for voters and 6.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

In the remaining 10 states, AP VoteCast is based on about 1,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for voters and 11.0 percentage points for nonvoters.

Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the poll estimates, as well as the variability associated with the survey weights as a result of calibration. After calibration, the nonprobability sample yields approximately unbiased estimates.

As with all surveys, AP VoteCast is subject to multiple sources of error, including from sampling, question wording and order, and nonresponse.

Sampling Details

Probability-based Registered Voter Sample

In each of the 40 states in which AP VoteCast included a probability-based sample, NORC obtained a sample of registered voters from Catalist LLC’s registered voter database. This database includes demographic information, as well as addresses and phone numbers for registered voters, allowing potential respondents to be contacted via mail and telephone. The sample is stratified by state, partisanship, and a modeled likelihood to respond to the postcard based on factors such as age, race, gender, voting history, and census block group education. In addition, NORC attempted to match sampled records to a registered voter database maintained by L2, which provided additional phone numbers and demographic information.

Prior to dialing, all probability sample records were mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Postcards were addressed by name to the sampled registered voter if that individual was under age 35; postcards were addressed to “registered voter” in all other cases. Telephone interviews were conducted with the adult that answered the phone following confirmation of registered voter status in the state.

Nonprobability Sample

Nonprobability participants include panelists from Dynata or Lucid, including members of its third-party panels. In addition, some registered voters were selected from the voter file, matched to email addresses by V12, and recruited via an email invitation to the survey. Digital fingerprint software and panel-level ID validation is used to prevent respondents from completing the AP VoteCast survey multiple times.

AmeriSpeak Sample

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by mail, email, telephone and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box-only addresses, some addresses not listed in the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and some newly constructed dwellings. Registered voter status was confirmed in field for all sampled panelists.

Weighting Details

AP VoteCast employs a four-step weighting approach that combines the probability sample with the nonprobability sample and refines estimates at a subregional level within each state. In a general election, the 50 state surveys and the AmeriSpeak survey are weighted separately and then combined into a survey representative of voters in all 50 states.

State Surveys

First, weights are constructed separately for the probability sample (when available) and the nonprobability sample for each state survey. These weights are adjusted to population totals to correct for demographic imbalances in age, gender, education and race/ethnicity of the responding sample compared to the population of registered voters in each state. In 2020, the adjustment targets are derived from a combination of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, Catalist’s voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. Prior to adjusting to population totals, the probability-based registered voter list sample weights are adjusted for differential non-response related to factors such as availability of phone numbers, age, race and partisanship.

Second, all respondents receive a calibration weight. The calibration weight is designed to ensure the nonprobability sample is similar to the probability sample in regard to variables that are predictive of vote choice, such as partisanship or direction of the country, which cannot be fully captured through the prior demographic adjustments. The calibration benchmarks are based on regional level estimates from regression models that incorporate all probability and nonprobability cases nationwide.

Third, all respondents in each state are weighted to improve estimates for substate geographic regions. This weight combines the weighted probability (if available) and nonprobability samples, and then uses a small area model to improve the estimate within subregions of a state.

Fourth, the survey results are weighted to the actual vote count following the completion of the election. This weighting is done in 10–30 subregions within each state.

National Survey

In a general election, the national survey is weighted to combine the 50 state surveys with the nationwide AmeriSpeak survey. Each of the state surveys is weighted as described. The AmeriSpeak survey receives a nonresponse-adjusted weight that is then adjusted to national totals for registered voters that in 2020 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, the Catalist voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. The state surveys are further adjusted to represent their appropriate proportion of the registered voter population for the country and combined with the AmeriSpeak survey. After all votes are counted, the national data file is adjusted to match the national popular vote for president.

Every four years in the United States, the electoral college system is used to determine the winner of the presidential election. In this system, each state has a fixed number of electors based on their population size, and (generally speaking) these electors then vote for their candidate with the most popular votes within their state or district. Since 1964, there have been 538 electoral votes available for presidential candidates, who need a minimum of 270 votes to win the election. Because of this system, candidates do not have to win over fifty percent of the popular votes across the country, but just win in enough states to receive a total of 270 electoral college votes. Popular results From 1789 until 1820, there was no popular vote, and the President was then chosen only by the electors from each state. George Washington was unanimously voted for by the electorate, receiving one hundred percent of the votes in both elections. From 1824, a popular vote has been conducted among American citizens (with varying levels of access for women, Blacks, and poor voters), to help electors in each state decide who to vote for (although the 1824 winner was chosen by the House of Representatives, as no candidate received over fifty percent of electoral votes). Since 1924, the difference in the share of both votes has varied, with several candidates receiving over 90 percent of the electoral votes while only receiving between fifty and sixty percent of the popular vote. The highest difference was for Ronald Reagan in 1980, where he received just 50.4 percent of the popular vote, but 90.9 percent of the electoral votes. Unpopular winners Since 1824, there have been 51 elections, and in 19 of these the winner did not receive over fifty percent of the popular vote. In the majority of these cases, the winner did receive a plurality of the votes, however there have been five instances where the winner of the electoral college vote lost the popular vote to another candidate. The most recent examples of this were in 2000, when George W. Bush received roughly half a million fewer votes than Al Gore, and in 2016, where Hillary Clinton won approximately three million more votes than Donald Trump.

Description to be added

The US presidential election of 1932 was contested between incumbent President Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic Party. The election took place during the Great Depression, and although Hoover's administration presided over the outbreak of the depression, he received little competition for his party's nomination. Roosevelt was the overwhelming favorite to receive the Democratic nomination, however was not officially nominated until the fourth ballot of the convention. Republican decline The Republican Party had won 14 out of 18 elections since Lincoln's victory in 1860, and they oversaw a decade of significant prosperity in the 1920s, however the effects of the Wall Street Crash in October 1929 led to economic downturn and the breakdown of Republican leadership. Much of Roosevelt's campaign was based on highlighting the failures of Hoover's administration in the wake of the depression, as well as promising to repeal Prohibition, which was becoming increasingly unpopular (Democrats also argued that the taxation of alcohol sales would aid in economic recovery). Many prominent Republicans were openly critical of Hoover's leadership, with some going as far as supporting the opposite party, while the Democrats were more united and organized than they had been in decades. Results Following one of the most decisive victories in US presidential election history in 1928, Hoover was then on the receiving end of the largest swings in US history, losing 34 of the forty states he won in his previous election. Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking over 57 percent of the popular vote, and almost 89 percent of the electoral vote. Hoover's share of the popular vote was just forty percent, which gave him just 11 percent of the electoral vote, and this was eighteen percent fewer popular votes and 73 percent fewer electoral votes than in 1928. The third party candidate with the most votes was Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party, who received 2.2 percent of the popular vote. Roosevelt was inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States in March 1933, and would win the next three elections, making him the only US president to spend more than two terms in the white house.

Data Source: CA Secretary of State

This data biography shares the how, who, what, where, when, and why about this dataset. We, the epidemiology team at Napa County Health and Human Services Agency, Public Health Division, created it to help you understand where the data we analyze and share comes from. If you have any further questions, we can be reached at epidemiology@countyofnapa.org.

Data dashboard featuring this data: Demographics https://data.countyofnapa.org/stories/s/bu3n-fytj

How was the data collected? The California Secretary of State's Elections Division is responsible for maintaining a database of all registered voters as well as coordinating the counting of votes after elections. Voter participation is defined here as the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted.

Who was included and excluded from the data? The term "eligible voters" refers to the population of US citizens aged 18 years or older who currently reside in the voting jurisdiction and who are not in prison or on parole for a felony and who have not been declared mentally incompetent.

Where was the data collected?  Voter registration data and election results are collected throughout California. This subset of data includes Napa County and California.

How often is the data collected? Statewide General Elections are held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November on even years.

Where can I learn more about this data? https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and county starting with January 2000. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. Libertarians were reported separately March 2017 through January 2019, and beginning again in January 2023. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

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

In this paper, we revisit the effect of ballot access laws on voter confidence in the outcome of elections. We argue that voter confidence is conditioned by partisanship. Democrats and Republicans view election laws through a partisan lens, which is especially triggered when coalitions lose. We used The Integrity of Voting data set, along with other data sets, to test our hypotheses. The sample frame for the Integrity of Voting Survey was eligible persons who voted in the 2020 Presidential elections with accessible internet email addresses. Our sample consisted of two samples from two different vendors. Surveys were conducted with 17,526 voters drawing on two independent samples of registered voters who reported voting in the 2020 Presidential election. Email addresses for registered voters in each state were purchased from L2, a commercial vendor specializing in obtaining email addresses for registered voters. Interviews were solicited from one million voters in all 50 states, with 10,770 completed interviews for a response rate of .011%. A second sample of internet interviews were solicited and completed with 6,756 2020 voters using Dynata’s proprietary select-in survey of voters in selected states with smaller populations of registered voters. A minimum of roughly 100 2020 election voters were interviewed in each state. Our state samples were weighted using a raking technique on age, race, gender, education, and vote mode demographics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2020 supplement to the Current Population survey (2021), as well as party identification totals from post-election exit polls conducted by the Associated Press (2020). Surveys were conducted between the first week in December, 2020 and the first week in February 2021.

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.

Throughout United States history, voter turnout among the voting eligible population has varied, ranging from below twelve percent in uncontested elections, to 83 percent in the 1876 election. In early years, turnout in presidential elections was relatively low, as the popular vote was not used in every state to decide who electors would vote for. When this was changed in the 1824 election, turnout increased dramatically, and generally fluctuated between seventy and eighty percent during the second half of the nineteenth century. Until the 1840 and 1842 elections, midterm elections also had a higher turnout rate than their corresponding presidential elections, although this trend has been reversed since these years.

Declining turnout in the twentieth century An increase in voting rights, particularly for black males in 1870 and for women in 1920, has meant that the share of the total population who are legally eligible to vote has increased significantly; yet, as the number of people eligible to vote increased, the turnout rate generally decreased. Following enfranchisement, it would take over fifty years before the female voter turnout would reach the same level as males, and over 150 years before black voters would have a similar turnout rate to whites. A large part of this was simply the lack of a voting tradition among these voter bases; however, the Supreme Court and lawmakers across several states (especially in the south) created obstacles for black voters and actively enforced policies and practices that disenfranchised black voter participation. These practices were in place from the end of the Reconstruction era (1876) until the the Voting Rights Act of 1965 legally removed and prohibited many of these obstacles; nonetheless, people of color continue to be disproportionally affected by voting restrictions to this day.

Recent decades In 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the minimum voting age in most states from 21 to 18 years old, which greatly contributed to the six and eight percent reductions in voter turnout in the 1972 and 1974 elections respectively, highlighting a distinct correlation between age and voter participation. Overall turnout remained below sixty percent from the 1970s until the 2004 election, and around forty percent in the corresponding midterms. In recent elections, increased political involvement among younger voters and those from ethnic minority backgrounds has seen these numbers rise, with turnout in the 2018 midterms reaching fifty percent. This was the highest midterm turnout in over one hundred years, leading many at the time to predict that the 2020 election would see one of the largest and most diverse voter turnouts in the past century, although these predictions then reversed with the arival of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, 2020 did prove to have the highest turnout in any presidential election since 1900; largely as a result of mail-in voting, improved access to early voting, and increased activism among grassroots organizations promoting voter registration.

The 36th presidential election in the United States took place in 1928, and was contested by Herbert Hoover of the Republican Party, and Al Smith of the Democratic Party. Prior to the national conventions it was generally accepted that Hoover and Smith would lead their parties' tickets, and both men were widely respected and admired in the political sphere. Despite this, they both faced significant opposition from within their parties, however neither set of opponents could rally behind a candidate, and both Hoover and Smith won convincing nominations at their respective national conventions. Results Herbert Hoover won in the third Republican landslide in a row, making him the 31st President of the United States, and the first to be born west of the Mississippi River. Hoover received 58 percent of the popular vote, taking almost every state outside of the south, as well as several southern states which had been regarded as Democrat strongholds. Smith took just 16 percent of the electoral vote, and much of his failure has been attributed to the US' strong economy under Republican leadership, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment among the US population, and his anti-Prohibition stance. No third party candidate managed to receive more than one percent of the popular vote.