Claim Democracy 2007 Survey
View the Results
The ballot lookup tool is available.
Independent Verification
If you are interested in participating in auditing these results, please view the
audit procedures page.
What Is This Page?
At the 2007 Claim Democracy Conference a survey was passed out to conference participants. This survey used the Scantegrity software that was developed by the Punchscan team. Voters were encouraged to take home the ballot serial numbers and write down letters that appeared next to the answers to questions on each ballot. This website will let each voter check that we correctly interpreted the scanned results of the ballots by verifying that the correct letters are posted on the website.
Additionally, using these letters, we have calculated the results of the election and posted data that allows you to check that calculation while preventing you from determining the vote of any ballot based on the serial number of that ballot. Anyone can check out and audit the calculation, and we encourage you to do so.
Results
Where should the electoral reform community focus its efforts?
| Name of Selection | Rank 1 Totals | Rank 2 Totals | Rank 3
Totals |
| National | 12 (13.2%) | 24 (26.4%) | 41 (45.1%)
|
| State | 37 (40.7%) | 37 (40.7%) | 2 (2.2%)
|
| Local | 28 (30.8%) | 15 (16.5%) | 33 (36.3%)
|
Where on this spectrum should the election reform community allocate
its efforts?
| Name of Selection | Totals |
| 1 - Change the rules | 37 (40.7%) |
| 2 | 19 (20.9%) |
| 3 - Equal | 21 (23.1%) |
| 4 | 5 (5.5%) |
| 5 - Engage people under the current rules | 2 (2.2%) |
Please rank the following issues in order of priority --- even though
you may feel they are all important.
| Name of Selection | Rank 1 Totals | Rank 2 Totals | Rank 3
Totals | Rank 4 Totals | Rank 5 Totals | Rank 6 Totals |
| Campaign finance (e.g., public financing, election finance
reform) | 19 (20.9%) | 20 (22.0%) | 6 (6.6%) | 8 (8.8%) | 10
(11.0%) | 12 (13.2%)
|
| Voting methods (e.g., IRV, proportional) | 24 (26.4%)
| 11 (12.1%) | 12 (13.2%) | 8 (8.8%) | 8 (8.8%) | 12 (13.2%)
|
| Registration (e.g., expanding by same day registration or
otherwise) | 7 (7.7%) | 13 (14.3%) | 17 (18.7%) | 15 (16.5%) | 14
(15.4%) | 7 (7.7%)
|
| Suffrage rights (e.g., restoring ex-felon's rights, voter
protection) | 7 (7.7%) | 8 (8.8%) | 10 (11.0%) | 18 (19.8%) | 20
(22.0%) | 12 (13.2%)
|
| Voting equipment security (e.g., eliminating DRE's,
end-to-end systems) | 9 (9.9%) | 10 (11.0%) | 20 (22.0%) | 11
(12.1%) | 11 (12.1%) | 14 (15.4%)
|
| Presidential election reform (e.g., national popular vote,
primary system) | 9 (9.9%) | 12 (13.2%) | 10 (11.0%) | 15 (16.5%)
| 10 (11.0%) | 17 (18.7%)
|
How often do you think gatherings like this should be
scheduled?
| Name of Selection | Totals |
| Every 6 months | 15 (16.5%) |
| Once a year | 41 (45.1%) |
| Every 18 months | 9 (9.9%) |
| Every second year | 23 (25.3%) |
| Every third year | 2 (2.2%) |
| Every fourth year | 0 (0.0%) |
Venue function and quality
| Name of Selection | Totals |
| 1 - High | 15 (16.5%) |
| 2 | 30 (33.0%) |
| 3 - acceptable | 29 (31.9%) |
| 4 | 8 (8.8%) |
| 5 - low | 3 (3.3%) |
Conference preparation by the conference organizers
| Name of Selection | Totals |
| 1- Excellent | 30 (33.0%) |
| 2 | 33 (36.3%) |
| 3 - adequate | 24 (26.4%) |
| 4 | 3 (3.3%) |
| 5 - poor | 0 (0.0%) |
Speaker and panels
| Name of Selection | Totals |
| 1 - Too many | 17 (18.7%) |
| 2 | 24 (26.4%) |
| 3 - just right | 43 (47.3%) |
| 4 | 3 (3.3%) |
| 5 - too few | 1 (1.1%) |
Ranking of the plenaries you attended in term of quality
| Name of Selection | Rank 1 Totals | Rank 2 Totals | Rank 3
Totals |
| Friday evening --- Seeking Common Ground | 15 (16.5%) | 14
(15.4%) | 22 (24.2%)
|
| Saturday morning --- Lessons from our Successes | 21 (23.1%)
| 26 (28.6%) | 14 (15.4%)
|
| Post lunch session --- New Victories and New Challenges | 27
(29.7%) | 20 (22.0%) | 16 (17.6%)
|
