Search
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Election Material
Civic Education Material
Making Every Vote Count
“Making Every Vote Count” is the final report by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform which outlines the case for electoral reform in British Columbia, Canada. The document, published in 2004, makes the recommendation for a new voting system, called BC-STV, to be used in electing member of the Legislative Assembly. The report gives its reasons for the recommendation and explains the new voting system.
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVIII (October 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 22 September and 29 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys –Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave III/IV: 26 January –6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave V/VIII: 15 February –10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% marginof error at 95% confidence level –Wave XI/XII: 20 April -8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIII: 14 –9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIV: 17 –26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XV: 7 –14 July 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVI: 7 –14 August 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVII: 2 –9 September 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV,Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, Wave XVI, and Wave XVII is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVIII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVIII survey.
September 30, 2004
Publication
Survey
Citizens' Awareness and Participation in Armenia (2004)
The 2004 IFES Citizens’ Awareness and Participation in Armenia (CAPA) survey was conducted between 4 August and 19 August 2004. Section I introduces the survey, while Section II summarizes its main findings. Section III presents respondents’ opinions on the sociopolitical situation in the country. Section IV examines Armenians’ political interests and levels of knowledge about national and local political issues. Section V evaluates Armenians’ attitudes about elections and democracy, including their assessment of the fairness of elections. Section VI uncovers Armenians’ attitudes towards political participation, including those actions taken by citizens to address important issues or influence decision-making. This section also provides information about attitudes toward NGOs in Armenia. Section VII describes opinions about the judicial system and the state of corruption in the country. Section VIII gauges perceptions of women and their role in public life while Section IX focuses on opinions of Armenia’s youth on topics ranging from gender roles, elections, civic participation and others. Section X provides the conclusion of the survey findings while relating them to major trends and issues seen over the years in IFES’ surveys.
September 30, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVII (September 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 2 September and 9 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 2000 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Interviews for this survey were completed before news of the bomb in front of the Australian Embassy on 9 September would have reached any but a very small proportion of respondents. This survey therefore does not take into account any impact the bombing may have had on opinions. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.2% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April - 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XV: 7 – 14 July 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XVI: 7 – 14 August 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, and Wave XVI is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVII survey.
August 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVI (August 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 7 August and 14 August 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April to 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XV: 7 – 14 July 2004; 1250 respondents ; +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV and Wave XV, is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVI survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVI survey.
July 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XIII (June 23, 2004)
Methodology • Waves I, II, IX, and X surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in the other 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The Wave XIII survey was conducted in 31 provinces with 1250 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted fromthe Wave XII and Wave XIII surveys due to security problems. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI and XII combined, and Wave XIII reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, X, and XIII is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for each of the combined Waves III & IV, and Wave XI & XII data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. For Wave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. For Wave XIII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 4 and 9. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Wave XI and XII combined is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XIII survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XIII survey.
June 22, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XI through XII (June 2004)
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in the other 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave IX survey was conducted nationally with 1250 respondents. The Wave X survey was also conducted nationally with 1250 respondents. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted from the Wave XII survey due to security problems. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, and Waves XI and XII combined, reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, and X is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves XI and XII data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. ForWave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, and Wave X is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave XI and XII surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave XI and XII surveys.
May 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XIV (June 2004)
Methodology • Waves I, II, IX, and X surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in theother 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The Wave XIII survey was conducted in 31 provinces with 1250 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted from the Wave XII and Wave XIII surveys due to security problems. The Wave XIV survey was conducted in 32 provinces with 2000 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IVcombined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI and XII combined, Wave XIII, and Wave XIV reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, X, and XIII is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for each ofthe combined Waves III/IV, Wave XI/XII, and Wave XIV data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. For Wave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. For Wave XIII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 4 and 9. For Wave XIV, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 17 and 26. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, and Wave XIII is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data pointsare from Wave XIV survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data fromthe Wave XIV survey.
May 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Continuous Registration: Experiences in Trinidad, Tobago, Jamaica and Guyana
In October 23-24, 2003 IFES supported GECOM in conducting a workshop to study the issue of voter registration in Guyana. The goal of this workshop was for GECOM staff to analyze and discuss the pros and cons of the current system in place in Guyana and receive first-hand reports of the benefits of the continuous registration system from international experts, and discuss whether such a system should be implemented in Guyana. With the results of the discussions, a team of GECOM staff will further analyze the legal, administrative and financial issues to take into account for such a system to be implemented in Guyana. We are grateful to Mr. Cayenne from Trinidad and Mr. Walker from Jamaica for their attendance and participation in this workshop. We would also like the thank Mr. Goocol Boodoo, Ms. Octive-Hamilton and Mr. Benn from the Guyana Elections Commission for their input and focus on specific issues pertaining to continuous registration.
May 04, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Report of an Electoral Assessment and Planning Mission to Liberia: April 4-25, 2004
With the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Accra in August 2003, Liberians committed themselves to political, versus military, competition for the control of Liberia’s reconstruction. This commitment places added importance on the electoral process as the means through which the political competition will be carried out. The signatories to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement agreed to reform Liberia’s electoral system prior to the conduct of the 2005 elections. A major challenge, however, is how this electoral system can serve as a framework for political competition beyond 2005. In April 2004, IFES fielded a technical planning mission to examine the electoral environment and suggest a strategy for international support for the electoral process. Among the key findings were: 1. Liberians must be involved in all aspects of the process for the CPA-mandated October 2005 elections to leverage the maximum opportunity to bring the nation to a state of peaceful transition; 2. The electoral framework – detailing the legal provisions, the type of electoral system, the nature of the elections to be held, and other aspects of the electoral process – must be agreed upon no later than October 2004 to allow sufficient time for election preparations. Such a framework should be endorsed by Liberia’s stakeholders; 3. Timely, coordinated and robust international assistance at all stages and levels of the electoral process is necessary to create an environment for a successful outcome and to ensure that the best practices of transitional political processes are put into place; and 4. The international community will have to cover the majority of the cost of the elections, as well as provide considerable assistance to the resulting elected and appointed institutions responsible for Liberia’s reconstruction. This report contains recommendations for both the National Elections Commission (NEC) and its partners in the international community. Some of the key recommendations include: • To ensure that Liberian stakeholders are supportive of the electoral framework, that it meets Liberia’s needs and that it conforms to international standards, the process that leads to the establishment of the electoral framework must be perceived as inclusive and legitimate, while drawing on international best practices and principles. As such, it is recommended that fora be provided for NEC and Liberian political and civic actors to consider the various major issues. The international community should support the electoral reform process and provide technical assistance to facilitate the drafting of the resultant electoral framework. • International assistance will need to be provided to build the capacity of the National Elections Commission to organize and conduct the elections and to ensure the credibility of the electoral process. • The international community and the National Transitional Government of Liberia will need to provide timely and complete support to the elections budget. Any delays in the provision of financing and material will negatively impact the elections timeline. Once the electoral framework is finalized, the full costs for the elections will be known. However, priority at this point should be given to financing the NEC’s current personnel and operational costs, including the re-establishment of its presence in the counties, and voter education. • International assistance should support: o The administration of the elections: To support the conduct of a credible and efficient process through the provision of: i. A Chief Electoral Advisor and/or international members on the National Elections Commission to support the development of policy and procedures and the overall management of the electoral process; ii. Technical advisors to assist NEC headquarters and county offices in implementing the electoral framework; iii. Financial, material and logistical support. o The resolution of electoral disputes during all phases of the electoral process: To enable the timely arbitration and resolution of electoral disputes through the establishment of an Election Dispute Tribunal; and o Electoral participation: To promote a level political playing field and informed participation in the electoral process by Liberia’s citizens. International assistance should be well-timed and initiatives effectively coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to maximize impact.
April 03, 2004