ArticleScientific data2022
American election results at the precinct level.
Article in Scientific data, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A dataset of tabulated results from American ranked-choice voting elections.Scientific data · 2026Article
- The Malaysian Election Corpus (MECo): Federal and State-Level Election Results from 1955 to 2025.Scientific data · 2025Article
- The effect of mass shootings on voter turnout in the United States.Science advances · 2025Article
- The Latin American Legislators Dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- MapAgora, civic opportunity datasets for the study of American local politics and public policy.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A dataset of US precinct votes allocated to Census geographies with precision.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Electoral precinct-level database for Mexican municipal elections.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Privacy violations in election results.Science advances · 2025Article
- Cast vote records: A database of ballots from the 2020 U.S. Election.Scientific data · 2024Article
- American local government elections database.Scientific data · 2023Article
- LocalView, a database of public meetings for the study of local politics and policy-making in the United States.Scientific data · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We describe the creation and quality assurance of a dataset containing nearly all available precinct-level election results from the 2016, 2018, and 2020 American elections. Precincts are the smallest level of election administration, and election results at this granularity are needed to address many important questions. However, election results are individually reported by each state with little standardization or data quality assurance. We have collected, cleaned, and standardized precinct-level election results from every available race above the very local level in almost every state across the last three national election years. Our data include nearly every candidate for president, US Congress, governor, or state legislator, and hundreds of thousands of precinct-level results for judicial races, other statewide races, and even local races and ballot initiatives. In this article we describe the process of finding this information and standardizing it. Then we aggregate the precinct-level results up to geographies that have official totals, and show that our totals never differ from the official nationwide data by more than 0.457%.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.