The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity questionnaire
This is the list of 49 core items in expert surveys used by the Electoral Integrity Project when measuring Perceptions of Electoral Integrity. The list of items is designed to contain both positive and negative statements and responses use 5-point Lickert type agree/disagree options. The survey also includes additional measures of the social and political characteristics of experts, such as their age, sex, location, and familiarity with the election. Other batteries of items are added and monitored annually on a rotating basis.
The survey is conducted online using Qualtrics. The datasets and codebooks are deposited within three months after each study is completed and made available via EIP Dataverse for secondary analysis.
Preamble:
"This study is an international survey covering recent national elections held worldwide. It is conducted by an independent team of scholars based in Australia, Europe and the United States.
People have different opinions about the quality of elections and in this survey we are interested in learning your views about how an election was conducted in practice. The survey usually takes around 10 minutes to complete. Your answers are anonymous and all replies will be treated with the strictest confidence.
In the ....< election> elections on ...<date>"...
Sections
1. Electoral laws
(e.g. When thinking about the electoral laws used in the last national election in this country... Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree, don't know, not applicable...
1-1 Electoral laws were unfair to smaller parties
1-2 Electoral laws favored the governing party or parties
1-3 Election laws restricted citizens’ rights
2. Electoral procedures
2-1 Elections were well managed
2-2 Information about voting procedures was widely available
2-3 Election officials were fair
2-4 Elections were conducted in accordance with the law
3. Boundaries
3-1 Boundaries discriminated against some parties
3-2 Boundaries favored incumbents
3-3 Boundaries were impartial
4. Voter registration
4-1 Some citizens were not listed in the register
4-2 The electoral register was inaccurate
4-3 Some ineligible electors were registered
5. Party registration
5-1 Some opposition candidates were prevented from running
5-2 Women had equal opportunities to run for office
5-3 Ethnic and national minorities had equal opportunities to run for office
5-4 Only top party leaders selected candidates
5-5 Some parties/candidates were restricted from holding campaign rallies
6. Campaign media
6-1 Newspapers provided balanced election news
6-2 TV news favored the governing party
6-3 Parties/candidates had fair access to political broadcasts and advertising
6-4 Journalists provided fair coverage of the elections
6-5 Social media were used to expose electoral fraud
7. Campaign finance
7-1 Parties/candidates had equitable access to public subsidies
7-2 Parties/candidates had equitable access to political donations
7-3 Parties/candidates publish transparent financial accounts
7.4 Rich people buy elections
7-5 Some states resources were improperly used for campaigning
8. Voting process
8-1 Some voters were threatened with violence at the polls
8-2 Some fraudulent votes were cast
8-3 The process of voting was easy
8-4 Voters were offered a genuine choice at the ballot box
8-5 Postal ballots were available
8-6 Special voting facilities were available for the disabled
8-7National citizens living abroad could vote
8-8Some form of internet voting was available
9. Vote count
9-1 Ballot boxes were secure
9-2 The results were announced without undue delay
9-3 Votes were counted fairly
9-4 International election monitors were restricted
9-5 Domestic election monitors were restricted
10.Post-election
10-1 Parties/candidates challenged the results
10-2 The election led to peaceful protests
10-3 The election triggered violent protests
10-4 Any disputes were resolved through legal channels
11. Electoral authorities
11-1 The election authorities were impartial
11-2 The authorities distributed information to citizens
11-3 The authorities allowed public scrutiny of their performance
11-4 The election authorities performed well