CBS News and The New York Times were partners in a series of election surveys covering the 1976 United States presidential election campaign. The surveys were intended to provide another dimension to the political reporting of the two organizations. The surveys, using extensive coverage early in the primary campaign, were designed to monitor the public's changing perception of the candidates, the issues, and the candidates' positions vis-a-vis the issues. Parts 1-9 contain separate nationwide surveys conducted by telephone, with approximately 1,500 randomly selected adults. Five surveys were conducted monthly from February through June, and four more between early September and the general election -- one in September and one following each presidential debate. A final survey was conducted two days after the general election. Respondents were asked for their preferred presidential candidate, their ratings of the candidates' qualifications and positions, and their opinions on a variety of political issues. Part 10, the Election Day Survey, contains a national sample of voters who were interviewed at the polls. Respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire that asked the name of the presidential candidate for whom they had just voted, and other questions about their political preferences. Part 11 contains data for respondents who were first interviewed in Part 9, Debate Three Survey, and recontacted and reinterviewed for the Post-Election Survey. Data include respondents' voting history, their evaluation of the nominees' positions on various political issues, and their opinions on current political and social issues. Parts 12-26 contain surveys conducted in 12 states on the day of the primary at the polling place, among a random sample of people who had just voted in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primary election. These surveys were conducted in the following primary states: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. There are separate files for the Democratic and Republican primaries in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and California, making a total of fifteen primary day "exit" surveys. Respondents were asked whom they voted for and why, the issues that were important in making their choice, and their voting history. Demographic information on respondents in all surveys may include sex, race, age, religion, education, occupation, and labor union affiliation. These files were processed by the Roper Center under a cooperative arrangement with ICPSR. Most of these data were collected by CBS News and The New York Times. The Election Day Survey was conducted solely by CBS News. Parts 1-11 were made available to the ICPSR by CBS News.

The Expert Survey Election Campaigns in Indonesia is a dataset consisting of assessments of characteristics of election campaigns in 38 districts across Indonesia, given by 509 local observers (academics, journalists, campaign organizers, NGO activists). The aim of the expert survey is to study regional variation in the character of politics with a particular focus on assessing the character and pervasiveness of clientelistic electoral strategies. The survey contains questions on clientelistic practices (such as vote buying, as well the degree to which the distribution of various state resources – public services, welfare, contracts, jobs, licenses, social assistance - are perceived to be contingent on electoral support) as well as campaign organization (role of political parties, perceived influence of types of organizations and leaders, role of bureaucrats) and voter behavior (effectiveness of programmatic and clientelistic vote mobilization, ethnicity). The questions in the survey concern election campaigns for district head elections, governor, local parliaments as well presidential elections. This expert survey was executed among 509 academics, journalists, NGO activists and campaign organisers from 38 districts in 16 provinces across Indonesia between April and July 2014. The survey material was used in Aspinall and Berenschot, Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism and the State in Indonesia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2018).

This is a detailed campaign survey of the news covering in press, radio, and television during the last four weeks before the election day. Surveys similar to this have been conducted in connection with each parliamentary elections since 1979, and at the referendum on nuclear power in 1980. See Media election survey 1979 for more information about the research project.

Purpose:

To describe, identify and analyse media's reporting of the election campaign 1994.

The Swiss Election Study (Selects) 2019 consists of four complementary components: The Post-Election Survey (PES), the Panel Survey, the Candidate Survey, and the (Social) Media Analysis. The main difference compared to previous studies relates to the mode of data collection; the main emphasis was moved towards web questionnaires. The mode for the Post-Election Survey 2019 was web/paper whereas in 2015, it was web/telephone. As in previous election studies, novel thematic modules of particular salience to researchers were included in the different surveys, while keeping the necessary continuity in the core questionnaire of the Post-Election Survey for comparison with previous waves.

Post-Election Survey (PES): The Post-Election Survey consists of 6664 respondents. The survey was conducted in a sequential mixed mode with web offered as the first option: 82% responded in this way, while 18% responded by returning the paper questionnaire that was sent out later to those not having completed the web questionnaire. The sampling was based on a representative sample of around 2’600 Swiss citizens, with an oversampling of small cantons to have at least 50 respondents in every canton. An additional oversampling was done in the cantons of Zurich, Geneva, and Ticino thanks to additional funding from these cantons.

Panel Survey: The Panel Survey studies the evolution of opinion and vote intention/choice during the different phases of the election cycle. In 2019, three waves were conducted: the first before the main campaign period (Mai/June), the second during the election campaign (September/October), and the third after the elections (October-December). 7939 individuals responded to the first wave, 5577 to the second wave, and 5125 to the third wave. 4654 individuals responded to all three waves. This three-wave panel will be continued with annual follow-up waves until the 2023 elections. At the end of wave 3, 3'030 respondents gave consent to be contacted for the yearly waves. Wave 4 took place between September 28 and November 2nd, 2020 with 2'499 respondents. Wave 5 took place between September 27 and November 1st, 2021 with 2’323 respondents. Wave 6 took place between September 26 and November 6, 2022 with 2’178 respondents. The final wave 7 took place between October 23 and December 11, 2023 with 2'470 respondents.

Candidate Survey: The Candidate Survey was carried out among all candidates for the National Council and the Council of States in the framework of the international Comparative Candidate Survey (CCS) project, based on the Round III questionnaire. The survey collects data on the biography, campaign activities, and policy position of the candidates. Among others, the information gathered makes possible the study of underlying factors of candidates’ electoral success, as well as of issues of representation and linkage between voters and elites. In 2019, 2158 out of 4736 candidates participated in the Candidate Survey. This survey was conducted by Politools.net on behalf of Selects.

(Social) Media Analysis: On behalf of Selects, the Digital Democracy Lab of the University of Zurich conducted a Media Analysis. The Media Analysis is a supplement to the Panel Survey and makes it possible to analyse the election campaign in the media and its influence on the formation of voters' opinions. In addition to the content analysis of the coverage of traditional media (print and online), which has been carried out in the context of Selects since 2003, the Media Analysis 2019 also includes, for the first time, the election campaign communication of parties and candidates on social media. For this Social Media Analysis, the Twitter accounts of 1284 candidates, parties, and organizations were taken into account, as well as the Facebook pages of 261 candidates.

This data collection contains the results of a survey of the candidates who ran for United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives in 1976. By surveying such candidates, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was attempting to collect systematically the views of those directly affected and regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) as it was amended in 1974 and 1976. Those amendments called for significant changes in the rules for campaign contributions and expenditures, restrictions on independent expenditures and in-kind contributions, and public disclosure of all federal campaign activity. The survey was conducted by Decision Making Information of Santa Ana, California, and Hart Research Commission in the first two months of 1976. In all, 850 respondents (candidates, campaign managers, and other campaign representatives) were interviewed by mail or in person. The survey questions focused on seven major topics: (1) actual characteristics of the campaigns and the candidates covered by the survey, (2) experiences during the 1976 election, (3) finances in 1976, (4) impact of the FECA on campaign organization, (5) the role played by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an information source for, and regulator of, campaigns, (6) which items dealt with by the FECA were favored or opposed by candidates and campaign managers who participated in the 1976 election, and (7) the respondent's overall feelings about what should be done in the future.

Heading into a presidential election year, a December 2023 survey found that a considerable share of U.S. citizens did not place a lot of trust in political campaigns to accurately report election information. About one-third of respondents reported that they did not trust campaigns at all in their reporting, compared to seven percent that placed a great deal of trust in political campaign reporting.

This study is an in-campaign survey of the 29th Alberta General Election. An online survey tool as well as RDD computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to examine voter attitudes and preferences during the campaign, April 27-29, 2015; election day itself occurred on May 5, 2015. Respondents provide information regarding government and party leader preferences, voting intentions, and election predictions. Respondents were also queried on issues that had an impact on their vote and which the new government should address, the effectiveness of Jim Prentice as Premier of Alberta, and whether a majority or minority government would best serve the interests of Alberta. This study has a sample of 761 respondents: 460 through the online survey tool and 301 by telephone.

Abstract copyright data collection owner.

This data collection consists of a survey of elections agents from the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru (PC) and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) conducted immediately after the British general election of 2015. The survey covers details of the preparations for the campaign, organisation and strategy, and campaign and polling day activities. In addition, it covers an evaluation of the administration of the campaign. Surveys were sent to all agents and the dataset comprises responses from 244 Conservative Agents; 336 Labour Agents; 332 Liberal Democrat Agents; 31 SNP Agents; 21 Plaid Cymru Agents; and 204 UKIP Agents.

Project description:

Constituency level campaigning has become crucial to the electoral strategies of all the major parties in Britain, and a significant academic literature - initially regarded as 'revisionist' - has emerged. This work - now regarded as mainstream - has revealed many things including how campaigns have changed over time; how parties have responded to wider changes in society, the electorate, and within their own parties; and the degree to which parties are able to harness their resources effectively to fight elections. They have also informed discussions about power within parties - how far central party organisations are able to coordinate constituency party campaigns and how much is left to the grass-roots. And finally, they have furthered our understanding of how voters respond to cues from the parties, and the extent to which voters can be mobilized.

This study will examine constituency campaigning at the 2015 British General Election and will provide not only a continuation of a unique and valuable time series that began in 1992, but also a programme of innovation that furthers our understanding of the impact, role, and nature of campaigns in the modern political arena. The study will seek to address four underlying research questions: 1) What is the electoral impact of constituency campaigns?; 2) How have campaign techniques evolved?; 3) How are party campaign organisations evolving?; 4) What is the impact of constituency campaigns on different groups of electors?

Postal Survey with online options (standardized questionnaire)

The German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) is the central infrastructure project in Germany for the continuous collection and provision of high-quality data for national and international election research. The methodologically diverse surveys of the GLES enable the research of political attitudes and behavior of voters and candidates. Since its foundation, the GLES has been conducted in close cooperation between the German Society for Electoral Research (DGfW) and GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Sample A of the GLES Panel consists of quota-based selections of eligible German voters from several non-probability online panels, divided into five subsamples. Participants in the 2017 election campaign surveys were drawn from the main sample A1 (2016), the recontact sample A2 (2013), and the refreshment sample A3 (2017) of the GLES Short-term Campaign Panel 2017. Sample A was further supplemented by refreshment samples A4 for the 2021 election campaign (2020) and A5 for the 2025 election campaign (2024). For the early federal election in 2025, active participants were surveyed up to five times throughout the election campaign and after the federal election. The GLES Panel surveys continue to enable diverse and in-depth analyses of the impact of political events and election campaigns on changes in political attitudes and decision-making processes.

The objective of this data collection was to study communication and influence in an election campaign, with special emphasis on social networks and social contexts as they relate to political behavior. The first wave (Part 1) of this three-wave panel survey provided baseline measures on respondents prior to the 1984 general election campaign. Topics covered general political participation history, primary election participation, general policy opinions, opinions regarding important national problems, and intended vote. Additionally, the instrument included a complete battery of demographic questions for the respondent and the respondent's spouse, as well as standard measures of political loyalties and preferences, such as political party identification and liberal-conservative identification. The second pre-election wave (Parts 2 and 3) was designed to locate respondents sociologically. The instrument included five batteries of questions regarding respondents' neighborhoods, work places, organizational involvements, recreational pursuits, and families. Questions regarding the political salience of each domain were asked, as well as a battery of questions concerning political discussion and the respondent's reliance upon informal, socially-derived information regarding politics. In addition to questions about the respondent's social environments, the instrument also included questions on candidate preference and perceptions of candidates, expectations regarding the economy and foreign affairs, and various policy concerns. The third wave (Parts 4 and 5) of the survey, conducted after the 1984 election, contained sections on media use, political party contacted by the respondent during the campaign, participation in the campaign, voting behavior in the election, and opinions regarding campaign issues. The standard post-election questions were supplemented by questions regarding local politics and local political figures, group attitudes, and respondents' social networks. The discussant survey interviews (Part 6) elicited information from respondents' discussion partners on campaign-related political involvement and behaviors, political opinions, basic demographic characteristics, and network questions. The network questions were included primarily to investigate reciprocity in network links for the main respondents. Demographic data collected on participants include information on marital status, educational level, employment status, income level, age, sex, religion, ethnic background, nationality, and ideological stance.

The New York Times and CBS News were equal partners in a series of election surveys covering the 1980 election year. The content of this data collection generally concerns the presidential preference of respondents, their reasons for choosing a particular candidate, and their reactions to political and social issues of the campaign. There are 28 datasets in the collection, which fall into three categories: national monthly surveys, primary day surveys, and the election day survey. Parts 1-12 contain national monthly surveys that were conducted by telephone, with approximately 1,500 randomly selected adults in each. Surveys were conducted in January, February, March, April, June, August, September, and October. Two telephone surveys were conducted in September, a pre-debate survey and a post-debate survey. Also, two surveys were conducted in October. A post-election survey was conducted in the days following the election. For the post-election survey, the respondents in Part 11, October Pre-Election National Interviews, were reinterviewed. The post-election survey is released as a panel file and incorporates Part 11 responses as well. Parts 13-27 contain primary day surveys that were conducted in 11 states on the day of the primary at the polling place among a random sample of people who had just voted in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primaries. The questionnaires were self-administered. Surveys were conducted in the following states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, and Ohio. There are separate data files for the Democratic and Republican primaries in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Demographic information including age, sex, income, race, ethnicity, and occupation is provided for all respondents in Parts 1-27. Part 28 contains a survey conducted on the day of the presidential election. A national sample of voters was administered a questionnaire similar to those given on primary day. Selected voters were asked for whom they had voted and why. Information on time of voting and respondent's sex and race was filled out by the interviewer.

The data comprises all the surveys published during the US2020 presidential campaign used in the article "Analyzing the polls of the US 2020 Presidential Election Campaign: A New Perspective".

The Local Parliament Project 2015 Canadian election survey is a novel dataset from the 2015 Canadian federal election. It is much larger than typical election studies, including 37,380 respondents in the campaign period survey—on average 692 respondents per day—and 11,699 respondents in the post-election survey. The survey includes variables related to voting, party identification and membership, political preferences and evaluations, leader evaluations, economic evaluations, respondent predictions of election results, as well as information on debate viewership and a range of demographic variables. Sampling occurred from August 26 to October 18, 2015. The survey instrument was presented on the Qualtrics online platform. The post-election survey was conducted between November 4 and November 23, 2015.

Multistage random sampling with a dual selection frame based on the ADM-design (Gabler-Haeder-model for telephone samples). The pre-election wave is a Rolling Cross-Section (RCS) survey aiming to realize 120 interviews per day. These daily interviews were conducted in such a way that not only the entire sample, but also the interviews collected on each day constitute random samples from the population. Furthermore, the sample is regionally stratified. For landline users the selection of the target person in each household was selected via the last-birthday-method; for mobile phone users the person who answered the call was interviewed.

The British Election Study Nine-Wave Panel Survey, 2005-2010 contains panel data from nine surveys conducted between the 2005 and 2010 general elections.

The nine waves were collected as follows: three waves in 2005, conducted before the election campaign, during the campaign and post-election; one wave conducted in 2006, one in 2008 and one in 2009; and three waves conducted in 2010, before the election campaign, during the campaign and post-election.

Further information is available from the BES Panel 2005-2010 webpage and the ESRC Performance Politics: The Dynamics of Political Support in Britain award webpage.

For the second edition (August 2014) data from waves 7-9 were added to the study and the documentation updated accordingly.

In a survey of U.S. adults conducted shortly after the election, almost 80 percent of Americans over the age of 65 paid a lot of attention to the 2024 presidential election, compared to 57 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29. Among respondents between 30 and 44 years old, eight percent reported having paid only minimal attention to the 2024 presidential campaigns.

The Campaign 2000 Typology Survey investigated Americans' opinions on a variety of topics, including the 2000 Presidential election and candidates, the major political parties, and various social groups. The survey also included a rich set of questions on religion and politics, covering topics such as whether churches and clergy should express political views and whether religious groups should receive government funding to provide social services. The data set features a 10-group Political Typology (variable 160) which sorts respondents into homogeneous groups based on their values, political beliefs, and party affiliation.

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections. The majority of respondents correctly predicted the election winner in 193 (89%) of 217 surveys conducted from 1932 to 2012. Across the last 100 days prior to the seven elections from 1988 to 2012, vote expectation surveys provided more accurate forecasts of election winners and vote shares than four established methods (vote intention polls, prediction markets, econometric models, and expert judgment). Gains in accuracy were particularly large compared to polls. On average, the error of expectation-based vote-share forecasts was 51% lower than the error of polls published the same day. Compared to prediction markets, vote expectation forecasts reduced the error on average by 6%. Vote expectation surveys are inexpensive, easy to conduct, and the results are easy to understand. They provide accurate and stable forecasts and thus make it difficult to frame elections as horse races. Vote expectation surveys should be more strongly utilized in the coverage of election campaigns.

According to a survey conducted in January 2022 in France, the majority of young people had some interest in the presidential election campaign happening at that time. Indeed, ** percent of those surveyed declared themselves highly interested in the process and ** percent were interested enough. On the other hand, ** percent of French youth did not feel that much interest, and finally ** percent of the respondents were not interested at all by the political campaign.