This paper outlines a new method for surveys to study elections and voter attitudes. Pre-election surveys often suffer from an inability to identify and survey the likely electorate for the upcoming election. We propose a new and inexpensive method to conduct representative surveys of the electorate. We demonstrate the performance of our method in producing a representative sample of the future electorate that can be used to study campaign dynamics and many other issues. We compare pre-election outcome forecasts to election outcomes in seven primary and general election surveys conducted prior to the 2008 and 2010 primary and general elections in three states. The results indicate the methodology produces representative samples, including in low-turnout elections such as primaries where traditional methods have difficulty consistently sampling the electorate. This new methodology combines Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling, mailed invitation letters, and online administration of the questionnaire. The PPS sample is drawn based on a model employing variables from the publicly available voter file to produce a probability of voting score for each individual voter. The proposed method provides researchers a valuable tool to study the attitudes of the voting public.

During elections, political polls provide critical data for the support each candidate receives. For that reason, the measurement of questions asking about candidate support has been receiving some research attention. As the online survey is increasingly becoming a widely used tool for public opinion and election polls, evaluation of the measurement error associated with this survey mode is of importance. This study examines whether a candidate name order effect exists in presidential primary election surveys in the US. The findings show that contrary to previous studies the order of names does not have a significant impact on the support candidates received.

Contains Gallup data from countries that are home to more than 98% of the world's population through a state-of-the-art Web-based portal. Gallup Analytics puts Gallup's best global intelligence in users' hands to help them better understand the strengths and challenges of the world's countries and regions. Users can access Gallup's U.S. Daily tracking and World Poll data to compare residents' responses region by region and nation by nation to questions on topics such as economic conditions, government and business, health and wellbeing, infrastructure, and education.

The Gallup Analytics Database is accessed through the Cornell University Libraries here. In addition, a CUL subscription also allows access to the Gallup Respondent Level Data. For access please refer to the documentation below and then request the variables you need here.

Before requesting data from the World Poll, please see the Getting Started guide and the Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook (You will need to request access). The Codebook will give you information about all available variables in the datasets. There are other guides available as well in the google folder. You can also access information about questions asked and variables using the Gallup World Poll Reference Tool. You will need to create your user account to access the tool. This will only give you access to information about the questions asked and variables. It will not give you access to the data.

For further documentation and information see this site from New York University Libraries. The Gallup documentation for the World Poll methodology is also available under the Data and Documentation tab.

In addition to the World Poll and Daily Tracking Poll, also available are the Gallup Covid-19 Survey, Gallup Poll Social Series Surveys, Race Relations Survey, Confidence in Institutions Survey, Honesty and Ethics in Professions Survey, and Religion Battery.

The process for getting access to respondent-level data from the Gallup U.S. Daily Tracking is similar to the World Poll Survey. There is no comparable discovery tool for U.S. Daily Tracking poll questions, however. Users need to consult the codebooks and available variables across years.

The COVID-19 web survey began on March 13, 2020 with daily random samples of U.S. adults, aged 18 and older who are members of the Gallup Panel. Before requesting data, please see the Gallup Panel COVID-19 Survey Methodology and Codebook.

The Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) dataset is a set of public opinion surveys designed to monitor U.S. adults’ views on numerous social, economic, and political topics. More information is available on the Gallup website: https://www.gallup.com/175307/gallup-poll-social-series-methodology.aspx As each month has a unique codebook, contact CCSS-ResearchSupport@cornell.edu to discuss your interests and start the data request process.

Starting in 1973, Gallup started measuring the confidence level in several US institutions like Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court, Police, etc. The included dataset includes data beginning in 1973 and data is collected once per year. Users should consult the list of available variables.

The Race Relations Poll includes topics that were previously represented in the GPSS Minority Relations Survey that ran through 2016. The Race Relations Survey was conducted November 2018. Users should consult the codebook for this poll before making their request.

The Honesty and Ethics in Professions Survey – Starting in 1976, Gallup started measuring US perceptions of the honesty and ethics of a list of professions. The included dataset was added to the collection in March 2023 and includes data ranging from 1976-2022. Documentation for this collection is located here and will require you to request access.

Religion Battery: Consolidated list of items focused on religion in the US from 1999-2022. Documentation for this collection is located here and will require you to request access.

Spatially or temporally dense polling remains both difficult and expensive using existing survey methods. In response, there have been increasing efforts to approximate various survey measures using social media, but most of these approaches remain methodologically flawed. To remedy these flaws, this paper combines 1200 state-level polls during the 2012 presidential campaign with over 100 million state-located political Tweets; models the polls as a function of the Twitter text using a new linear regularization feature-selection method; and shows via out-of-sample testing that when properly modeled, the Twitter-based measures track and to some degree predict opinion polls, and can be extended to unpolled states and potentially sub-state regions and sub-day timescales. An examination of the most predictive textual features reveals the topics and events associated with opinion shifts, sheds light on more general theories of partisan difference in attention and information processing, and may be of use for real-time campaign strategy.

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.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The NOP National Political Surveys were designed principally to ascertain public opinion on political parties, leaders and government, and to record voting intention. In addition, the majority of the surveys included data of topical interest and of social importance. Main Topics:The surveys vary, but topics covered over time include: voting intention; satisfaction with: the Government, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the political system and institutions; opinions on problems facing Government; the political parties; voting and electoral behaviour; foreign affairs and defence; economic and industrial affairs; social issues (e.g. welfare, education, health, housing, environment); law, crime and justice; religious beliefs; role of women; race relations; attitudes to pornography, birth control, family planning, marriage, abortion, drugs, gambling, leisure; special issues and events. Please note that not every topic is covered in all surveys. Classification details include: constituency, age and sex, terminal education age, marital status, social class, trade union membership and employment status. Two-stage stratified, area cluster sample. For details see the National Opinion Polls publication Political, social and economic review, 30, April 1981.

The New York City Health Opinion Poll (HOP) is a periodic rapid online poll conducted by New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The goals of the poll are to measure adult New Yorkers’ awareness, acceptance and use — or barriers to use — of our programs; knowledge, opinions and attitudes about health care and practices; and opinions about public events that are related to health. The data collected through public health polling are rapidly analyzed and disseminated. This real-time community input informs programming and policy development at the Health Department to better meet the needs of New Yorkers.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. These data comprise a collection of information on standard questions asked in all surveys dated 18th October 1963 to 9th December 1966. Main Topics: Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions Voting intention, voting inclination. Background Variables Sex, age, social class, trade union membership, age completed full-time education, borough-county code, standard region, constituency. Face-to-face interview

Southerners tend to slip through the cracks between state surveys, which are unreliable for generalizing to the region, on the one hand, and national sample surveys, which usually contain too few Southerners to allow detailed examination, on the other. Moreover, few surveys routinely include questions specifically about the South.

To remedy this situation, the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science and the Center for the Study of the American South sponsor a Southern regional survey, called the Southern Focus Poll. Respondents in both the South and Non-South are asked questions about economic conditions in their communities; cultural issues, (such as Southern accent and the Confederate flag), race relations, religious involvement, and characteristics of Southerners and Northerners. This file is an oversample for African Americans in the South.

All of the data sets from the Southern Focus Polls archived here are generously made available by the "https://odum.unc.edu/" Target="_blank">Odum Institute for Research in Social Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (IRSS).

The Electoral Integrity Project at Harvard University and the University of Sydney (www.electoralintegrityproject.com) developed the AVE data, release 1.0. The dataset contains information from a three-wave panel survey designed to gather the views of a representative sample of ordinary Australians just before and after the 2nd July 2016 Australian federal elections. The survey monitored Australian voters’ experience at the polls, perceptions of the integrity and convenience of the registration and voting process, patterns of civic engagement, public confidence in electoral administration, and attitudes towards reforms, such as civic education campaigns and convenience voting facilities. Respondents were initially contacted in the week before the election between 28 June and 1 July and completed an online questionnaire lasting approximately 15 minutes. This forms the pre-election base line survey (wave 1). The same individuals were contacted again after the election to complete a longer survey, an average of 25 minutes in length. Respondents in wave 2 were contacted between 4 July and 19 July, with two thirds completing the survey after the first week. About six weeks later, the same respondents were interviewed again (wave 3) beginning on 23 August and ending on 13 September. The initial sample contains 2,139 valid responses for the first wave of questionnaires, 1,838 for the second wave (an 86 percent retention rate), and 1,543 for the third wave (84 percent retention rate). Overall, 72 percent of the respondents were carried over from the pre-election wave to the final wave. The following files can be accessed: a) dataset in Stata and SPSS formats; b) codebook; c) questionnaire. The EIP acknowledges support from the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate from the Australian Research Council (ARC ref: FL110100093). **** EIP further publications: BOOKS • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4: Elections and Voting in a Changing World. London: Sage Publications. • Nai, Alessandro and Walter, Annemarie. Eds. 2015 New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Why Attack Politics Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. Eds. 2015. Contentious Elections: From Ballots to the Barricades. New York: Routledge. • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Norris, Pippa and Andrea Abel van Es. Eds. 2016. Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press. ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS • W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124-135.• Lago, Ignacio and Martínez i Coma, Ferran. 2016. ‘Challenge or Consent? Understanding Losers’ Reactions in Mass Elections’. Government and Opposition doi:10.1071/gov.3015.31 • Martínez i Coma, Ferran and Lago, Ignacio. 2016. 'Gerrymandering in Comparative Perspective’ Party Politics DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642806 • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.’ Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4):576-588. • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies. 32(4): 563-575.57 • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. London: Sage. • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. ‘Measuring electoral integrity: A new dataset.’ PS: Political Science & Politics. 47(4): 789-798. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral integrity in East Asia.’ Routledge Handbook on Democratization in East Asia. Tun-jen Cheng and Yun-han Chu. Eds. Routledge: New York. • Norris, Pippa. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Electoral transitions: Stumbling out of the gate.’ In Rebooting Transitology – Democratization in the 21st Century. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou and Timothy D. Sisk. Eds. • Pietsch, Juliet; Michael Miller and Jeffrey Karp. 2015. ‘Public support for democracy in transitional regimes.’ Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2014. • Smith, Rodney. 2016 (forthcoming). ‘Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia.’ Australian Journal of Political Science. ID: 1093091 DOI: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1093091 dx.doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099097 • Van Ham, Carolien and Staffan Lindberg. 2015. ‘From sticks to carrots: Electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986-2012’, Gover... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A9efcfe40123531a7f785369bae96a30beb0f41c1ce7334bc7c398a54be5e69f5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

Analysis of ‘US non-voters poll data’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/us-non-voters-poll-datae on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

This dataset contains the data behind Why Many Americans Don't Vote.

Data presented here comes from polling done by Ipsos for FiveThirtyEight, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a probability-based online panel that is recruited to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted from Sept. 15 to Sept. 25 among a sample of U.S. citizens that oversampled young, Black and Hispanic respondents, with 8,327 respondents, and was weighted according to general population benchmarks for U.S. citizens from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey March 2019 Supplement. The voter file company Aristotle then matched respondents to a voter file to more accurately understand their voting history using the panelist’s first name, last name, zip code, and eight characters of their address, using the National Change of Address program if applicable. Sixty-four percent of the sample (5,355 respondents) matched, although we also included respondents who did not match the voter file but described themselves as voting “rarely” or “never” in our survey, so as to avoid underrepresenting nonvoters, who are less likely to be included in the voter file to begin with. We dropped respondents who were only eligible to vote in three elections or fewer. We defined those who almost always vote as those who voted in all (or all but one) of the national elections (presidential and midterm) they were eligible to vote in since 2000; those who vote sometimes as those who voted in at least two elections, but fewer than all the elections they were eligible to vote in (or all but one); and those who rarely or never vote as those who voted in no elections, or just one.

The data included here is the final sample we used: 5,239 respondents who matched to the voter file and whose verified vote history we have, and 597 respondents who did not match to the voter file and described themselves as voting "rarely" or "never," all of whom have been eligible for at least 4 elections.

If you find this information useful, please let us know.

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Source: https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/tree/master/non-voters

This dataset was created by data.world's Admin and contains around 6000 samples along with Race, Q27 6, technical information and other features such as: - Q4 6 - Q8 3 - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Q10 3 in relation to Q8 6
• Study the influence of Q6 on Q10 4
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit data.world's Admin

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Abstract

The Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) is a set of public opinion surveys designed to monitor U.S. adults' views on numerous social, economic, and political topics. The topics are arranged thematically across 12 surveys. Gallup administers these surveys during the same month every year and includes the survey's core trend questions in the same order each administration. Using this consistent standard allows for unprecedented analysis of changes in trend data that are not susceptible to question order bias and seasonal effects.

Introduced in 2001, the GPSS is the primary method Gallup uses to update several hundred long-term Gallup trend questions, some dating back to the 1930s. The series also includes many newer questions added to address contemporary issues as they emerge.

The dataset currently includes responses from up to and including 2025.

Methodology

Gallup conducts one GPSS survey per month, with each devoted to a different topic, as follows:

January: Mood of the Nation

February: World Affairs

March: Environment

April: Economy and Finance

May: Values and Beliefs

June: Minority Rights and Relations (discontinued after 2016)

July: Consumption Habits

August: Work and Education

September: Governance

October: Crime

November: Health

December: Lifestyle (conducted 2001-2008)

The core questions of the surveys differ each month, but several questions assessing the state of the nation are standard on all 12: presidential job approval, congressional job approval, satisfaction with the direction of the U.S., assessment of the U.S. job market, and an open-ended measurement of the nation's "most important problem." Additionally, Gallup includes extensive demographic questions on each survey, allowing for in-depth analysis of trends.

Interviews are conducted with U.S. adults aged 18 and older living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia using a dual-frame design, which includes both landline and cellphone numbers. Gallup samples landline and cellphone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. Gallup purchases samples for this study from Survey Sampling International (SSI). Gallup chooses landline respondents at random within each household based on which member had the next birthday. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Gallup conducts interviews in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.

Gallup interviews a minimum of 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older for each GPSS survey. Samples for the June Minority Rights and Relations survey are significantly larger because Gallup includes oversamples of Blacks and Hispanics to allow for reliable estimates among these key subgroups.

Gallup weights samples to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cellphone users in the two sampling frames. Gallup also weights its final samples to match the U.S. population according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly).

Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. Census.

Usage

The year appended to each table name represents when the data was last updated. For example, January: Mood of the Nation - 2025** **has survey data collected up to and including 2025.

For more information about what survey questions were asked over time, see the Supporting Files.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

This dataset contains data about domestic absentee voting, provisional balloting, poll books, polling place, precincts, poll workers, and voting technology used in the 2020 election cycle. The corresponding comprehensive report addresses voter registration, uniformed and overseas citizen voting, domestic absentee voting, provisional balloting, poll books, polling place, precincts, poll workers, and voting technology used in the 2020 election. The Election Administration and Voting Survey report is part of EAC's Election Administration and Voting Survey biennial project.

Abstract

Gallup Worldwide Research continually surveys residents in more than 150 countries, representing more than 98% of the world's adult population, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. Gallup typically surveys 1,000 individuals in each country, using a standard set of core questions that has been translated into the major languages of the respective country. In some regions, supplemental questions are asked in addition to core questions. Face-to-face interviews are approximately 1 hour, while telephone interviews are about 30 minutes. In many countries, the survey is conducted once per year, and fieldwork is generally completed in two to four weeks. The Country Dataset Details spreadsheet displays each country's sample size, month/year of the data collection, mode of interviewing, languages employed, design effect, margin of error, and details about sample coverage.

Gallup is entirely responsible for the management, design, and control of Gallup Worldwide Research. For the past 70 years, Gallup has been committed to the principle that accurately collecting and disseminating the opinions and aspirations of people around the globe is vital to understanding our world. Gallup's mission is to provide information in an objective, reliable, and scientifically grounded manner. Gallup is not associated with any political orientation, party, or advocacy group and does not accept partisan entities as clients. Any individual, institution, or governmental agency may access the Gallup Worldwide Research regardless of nationality. The identities of clients and all surveyed respondents will remain confidential.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY With some exceptions, all samples are probability based and nationally representative of the resident population aged 15 and older. The coverage area is the entire country including rural areas, and the sampling frame represents the entire civilian, non-institutionalized, aged 15 and older population of the entire country. Exceptions include areas where the safety of interviewing staff is threatened, scarcely populated islands in some countries, and areas that interviewers can reach only by foot, animal, or small boat.

Telephone surveys are used in countries where telephone coverage represents at least 80% of the population or is the customary survey methodology (see the Country Dataset Details for detailed information for each country). In Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in the developing world, including much of Latin America, the former Soviet Union countries, nearly all of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, an area frame design is used for face-to-face interviewing.

The typical Gallup Worldwide Research survey includes at least 1,000 surveys of individuals. In some countries, oversamples are collected in major cities or areas of special interest. Additionally, in some large countries, such as China and Russia, sample sizes of at least 2,000 are collected. Although rare, in some instances the sample size is between 500 and 1,000. See the Country Dataset Details for detailed information for each country.

FACE-TO-FACE SURVEY DESIGN

FIRST STAGE In countries where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of 100 to 135 ultimate clusters (Sampling Units), consisting of clusters of households. Sampling units are stratified by population size and or geography and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size, otherwise simple random sampling is used. Samples are drawn independent of any samples drawn for surveys conducted in previous years.

There are two methods for sample stratification:

METHOD 1: The sample is stratified into 100 to 125 ultimate clusters drawn proportional to the national population, using the following strata: 1) Areas with population of at least 1 million 2) Areas 500,000-999,999 3) Areas 100,000-499,999 4) Areas 50,000-99,999 5) Areas 10,000-49,999 6) Areas with less than 10,000

The strata could include additional stratum to reflect populations that exceed 1 million as well as areas with populations less than 10,000. Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook Copyright © 2008-2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 8

METHOD 2:

A multi-stage design is used. The country is first stratified by large geographic units, and then by smaller units within geography. A minimum of 33 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs), which are first stage sampling units, are selected. The sample design results in 100 to 125 ultimate clusters.

SECOND STAGE

Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day, and where possible, on different days. If an interviewer cannot obtain an interview at the initial sampled household, he or she uses a simple substitution method. Refer to Appendix C for a more in-depth description of random route procedures.

THIRD STAGE

Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households. Interviewers list all eligible household members and their ages or birthdays. The respondent is selected by means of the Kish grid (refer to Appendix C) in countries where face-to-face interviewing is used. The interview does not inform the person who answers the door of the selection criteria until after the respondent has been identified. In a few Middle East and Asian countries where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected using the Kish grid from among all eligible adults of the matching gender.

TELEPHONE SURVEY DESIGN

In countries where telephone interviewing is employed, random-digit-dial (RDD) or a nationally representative list of phone numbers is used. In select countries where cell phone penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used. Random respondent selection is achieved by using either the latest birthday or Kish grid method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each household, spread over different days and times of day. Appointments for callbacks that fall within the survey data collection period are made.

PANEL SURVEY DESIGN

Prior to 2009, United States data were collected using The Gallup Panel. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based, nationally representative panel, for which all members are recruited via random-digit-dial methodology and is only used in the United States. Participants who elect to join the panel are committing to the completion of two to three surveys per month, with the typical survey lasting 10 to 15 minutes. The Gallup Worldwide Research panel survey is conducted over the telephone and takes approximately 30 minutes. No incentives are given to panel participants. Worldwide Research Methodology and Codebook Copyright © 2008-2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 9

Research instrument

QUESTION DESIGN

Many of the Worldwide Research questions are items that Gallup has used for years. When developing additional questions, Gallup employed its worldwide network of research and political scientists1 to better understand key issues with regard to question development and construction and data gathering. Hundreds of items were developed, tested, piloted, and finalized. The best questions were retained for the core questionnaire and organized into indexes. Most items have a simple dichotomous ("yes or no") response set to minimize contamination of data because of cultural differences in response styles and to facilitate cross-cultural comparisons.

The Gallup Worldwide Research measures key indicators such as Law and Order, Food and Shelter, Job Creation, Migration, Financial Wellbeing, Personal Health, Civic Engagement, and Evaluative Wellbeing and demonstrates their correlations with world development indicators such as GDP and Brain Gain. These indicators assist leaders in understanding the broad context of national interests and establishing organization-specific correlations between leading indexes and lagging economic outcomes.

Gallup organizes its core group of indicators into the Gallup World Path. The Path is an organizational conceptualization of the seven indexes and is not to be construed as a causal model. The individual indexes have many properties of a strong theoretical framework. A more in-depth description of the questions and Gallup indexes is included in the indexes section of this document. In addition to World Path indexes, Gallup Worldwide Research questions also measure opinions about national institutions, corruption, youth development, community basics, diversity, optimism, communications, religiosity, and numerous other topics. For many regions of the world, additional questions that are specific to that region or country are included in surveys. Region-specific questions have been developed for predominantly Muslim nations, former Soviet Union countries, the Balkans, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, China and India, South Asia, and Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

The questionnaire is translated into the major conversational languages of each country. The translation process starts with an English, French, or Spanish version, depending on the region. One of two translation methods may be used.

METHOD 1: Two independent translations are completed. An independent third party, with some knowledge of survey research methods, adjudicates the differences. A professional translator translates the final version back into the source language.

METHOD 2: A translator

Abstract

Gallup’s World Poll continually surveys residents in more than 150 countries and areas, representing more than 98% of the world’s adult population, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. Gallup typically surveys 1,000 individuals in each country or area, using a standard set of core questions that has been translated into the major languages of the respective country. In some regions, supplemental questions are asked in addition to core questions. Face-to-face interviews are approximately 1 hour, while telephone interviews are about 30 minutes. In many countries, the survey is conducted once per year, and fieldwork is generally completed in two to four weeks. The Country Dataset Details document displays each country’s sample size, month/year of the data collection, mode of interviewing, languages employed, design effect, margin of error and details about sample coverage.

The data was last updated March 2025.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

This data collection consists of two election surveys. Part 1, Pre-Congressional Poll, contains a nationwide telephone survey conducted in late September 1978, focusing on the respondents' voting intentions for the 1978 United States Congressional elections. A total of 1,451 randomly selected adults were surveyed. Respondents were asked whether they intended to vote and what issues would influence their vote, their reactions to President Carter's policies, and their preferences for presidential candidates in 1980. Demographic information including age, race, religion, income, political orientation, and education is available for each respondent. Part 2, Nationwide Election Day Poll, contains a nationwide "exit" survey conducted at the polls on election day, November 7, 1978. A total of 8,808 randomly selected voters were asked to fill out a questionnaire asking which party they voted for in the Congressional election and their opinion on a number of current political issues. Demographic information for respondents in Part 2 includes age, race, religion, income, and labor union affiliation. These datasets were made available to the ICPSR by the Election and Survey Unit of CBS News. The Pre-Congressional Poll was conducted solely by CBS News.

Analysis of ‘Biden Approval Polling’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/kaggleqrdl/biden-approval-polling on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

There is a contract on Predictit.org tracking Biden's approval rating that I've followed out of fun (no profit). I often used this data to help predict where it will go next. For example, Rasmussen is a very fresh pollster (daily), while the others are somewhat lagging. You can even subscribe to Rasmussen's service and get updates before most people, though this particular exploit is well known.

Content

The data is fairly straightforward and I include a brief description of each of the columns.

Something to be aware: a few pollsters, such as Ipsos, will report wildly different results within days because they are sometimes polling for specific organizations, such as the Economist and sometimes just for themselves. In these different surveys, there are different questions used, and thus different 'house effects' (ie: political bias). For example, some surveys start with the question "Do you approve of the direction of the country?", while others will start with "Do you approve of Joe Biden?"

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Nate Silver and the whole 538 crew for aggregating this data. Very interesting and informative - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Please note I have removed all 538 model specific information such as weights, grades, etc.

Inspiration

I think it'd be very cool to see how far ahead we could predict changes in Biden's approval ratings, possibly using other sources such as twitter and news organizations, plus maybe other datasets on Kaggle itself.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Each of the monthly Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) micro-datasets has traditionally come with its own "codebook" (although it's really just a listing of variables, codes are not explained), in Microsoft Excel format. This combined variable listing, provided by Gallup Inc. on July 3, 2024, combines them into one file, potentially making it easier to discover what survey questions were asked in which month.

Southerners tend to slip through the cracks between state surveys, which are unreliable for generalizing to the region, on the one hand, and national sample surveys, which usually contain too few Southerners to allow detailed examination, on the other. Moreover, few surveys routinely include questions specifically about the South.

To remedy this situation, the Institute for Research in Social Science and the Center for the Study of the American South sponsor a Southern regional survey, called the Southern Focus Poll. Respondents in both the South and Non-South are asked questions about the then-current presidential election, Southern women, food, government's use of taxes, and pornography.

All of the data sets from the Southern Focus Polls archived here are generously made available by the "https://odum.unc.edu/" Target="_blank">Odum Institute for Research in Social Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (IRSS).

The Lowy Institute Poll reports the results of the Institute's annual nationally representative telephone opinion survey, conducted in 2015 by market research company I-view, with supplementary polling commissioned by the Lowy Institute and conducted by Newspoll. Supplementary Newspoll collections are not provided in the dataset. For the annual survey, I-view surveyed 1200 Australian adults between 20 February and 8 March 2015. Four supplementary polls were conducted by Newspoll on 13-15 February (1211 adults), 10-12 April (1215 adults), 1-3 May (1213 adults) and 22-24 May (1210 adults), the findings from these are in the reports but not in the data. A number of the questions in the Poll were first asked in previous Lowy Institute Polls, or have been adapted from questions asked in those years. Repeating questions in successive years allows the comparison of public opinion on a single issue over time, building trend data on important international policy issues. Some of the questions this year are identical to questions asked previously by other survey organisations, which allows for the comparison of public opinion internationally. Several of the questions in this year’s Poll were modeled on those asked by other polling organisations, including the Council on Foreign Relations, Transatlantic Trends and Pew Research Center. Other questions this year drew from work of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and polling on energy sources by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute.The order of questions in the questionnaires was different from the order presented in the report supplied in documentation.