Scantegrity Logo
Claim Democracy 2007 Survey

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 SelectionRank 1 TotalsRank 2 TotalsRank 3 Totals
National12 (13.2%) 24 (26.4%) 41 (45.1%)
State37 (40.7%) 37 (40.7%) 2 (2.2%)
Local28 (30.8%) 15 (16.5%) 33 (36.3%)

Where on this spectrum should the election reform community allocate its efforts?

Name of SelectionTotals
1 - Change the rules37 (40.7%)
219 (20.9%)
3 - Equal21 (23.1%)
45 (5.5%)
5 - Engage people under the current rules2 (2.2%)

Please rank the following issues in order of priority --- even though you may feel they are all important.

Name of SelectionRank 1 TotalsRank 2 TotalsRank 3 TotalsRank 4 TotalsRank 5 TotalsRank 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 SelectionTotals
Every 6 months15 (16.5%)
Once a year41 (45.1%)
Every 18 months9 (9.9%)
Every second year 23 (25.3%)
Every third year2 (2.2%)
Every fourth year0 (0.0%)

Venue function and quality

Name of SelectionTotals
1 - High15 (16.5%)
230 (33.0%)
3 - acceptable29 (31.9%)
48 (8.8%)
5 - low3 (3.3%)

Conference preparation by the conference organizers

Name of SelectionTotals
1- Excellent30 (33.0%)
233 (36.3%)
3 - adequate24 (26.4%)
43 (3.3%)
5 - poor0 (0.0%)

Speaker and panels

Name of SelectionTotals
1 - Too many 17 (18.7%)
224 (26.4%)
3 - just right 43 (47.3%)
43 (3.3%)
5 - too few1 (1.1%)

Ranking of the plenaries you attended in term of quality

Name of SelectionRank 1 TotalsRank 2 TotalsRank 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 Challenges27 (29.7%) 20 (22.0%) 16 (17.6%)