VOTING FROM ABROAD: 

A SURVEY OF UOCAVA VOTERS 

A United States Election Assistance Commission Study
Table of Contents 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction.................................................................................................3 

Executive Summary..................................................................................3 

 Background............................................................................................3 

 Why survey UOCAVA voters?...........................................................................................4 

 

II. Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management................6 

Survey Design.........................................................................................6 

 Sample Selection......................................................................................6 

 Sample Response.....................................................................................8 

 Data Categorization.................................................................................10 

 Sample Demographics..............................................................................10 

III. Discussion and Analysis...............................................................................12 

Overview of discussion......................................................................................................12 

Uniformed Service Members and Their Families Had Higher Voting Rates...............12 

 Electronic Exchange of Voting Materials Assessed............................................17 

Likelihood Would Use Same Transmission System for Next Ballot Return.....................24 

 Conclusion...........................................................................................25

 

Appendix A: Survey Text...................................................................................26 

Appendix B: Invitation to VAOs...............................................................................................41 

Appendix C: Multivariate Analysis......................................................................43 

Appendix D: Respondent’s Reported Voting Success by State or Territory...................48 

Appendix E: Frequencies of all Variables.............................................................53
Introduction 3

I. Introduction 

 

Executive Summary 

This report presents the results of two surveys of voters covered by the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizen Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA), conducted for the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). Both surveys asked respondents to answer an identical broad set of 

questions about their voting experiences during the United States 2006 midterm election. Both 

also included questions about respondent experiences with, and attitudes towards, online, email, 

and fax registration and voting. The Four States Survey (FSS) was designed to reveal how 

UOCAVA voters reacted to the electronic options offered in the four states analyzed in a 

companion case study report. The Supplemental Survey (SS) is a larger sample of overseas 

voters from all fifty states. There is no way of knowing whether this second sample, as 

impressively large as it is, is truly representative of UOCAVA voters, especially since there is no 

definitive information on the size and characteristics of the overseas voter population. 

 In the fall of 2006, Q2

 Data & Research, LLC, with the assistance of the Overseas Vote 

Foundation, designed a 55 question survey that was deployed in a period from December 2006 

through April 2007. The Four States Sample (FSS) consists of 1,603 respondents and the 

Supplemental Sample (SS) of an additional 4,166 respondents for a total of 5,769, of whom 

78.7% were U.S. civilians and 21.3% were U.S. military, including spouses and dependents. The 

data from both samples reveal substantial differences in the voting experiences of military as 

opposed to nonmilitary overseas citizens, and a positive experience with using various means of 

electronic transmission for receiving and casting ballots. Sixty-five percent of the FSS and 83% 

of the SS reported that they would feel comfortable with voting via electronic transmission in 

future elections---by email, fax or online—versus only 15% and 4% respectively who said they 

would not. Respondents were more pleased with their experiences receiving blank ballots via 

fax, email or online than sending in marked ballots via those methods. Respondents had only 

slightly higher privacy and security concerns about electronic transmission than regular mail and 

other means of ballot delivery. These and other results are discussed in the report that follows. 

In general, there appears to be strong support among UOCAVA voters for offering the option of 

electronic transmission of voting materials.

Background 

The survey and this report are part of a study commissioned by the United States Election 

Assistance Commission, to assist it in complying with Section 245 of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15385). This report examines the issues and challenges that 

overseas voters face trying to cast their ballots and assesses the experiences of voters who have 

used electronic technologies recently (e.g. Fax and Internet) to communicate with state and local 

elections officials. 
Introduction 4

The survey report complements the case studies report, “UOCAVA Voters and the 

Electronic Transmission of Voting Materials in Four States,” that examined local election 

jurisdictions in four different states that have developed and implemented systems for 

transmitting and/or receiving absentee ballots from uniformed and overseas voters. The results 

of this survey were presented at the EAC’s “Facilitating UOCAVA Voting” Conference in 

Washington DC on September 23, 2007. The EAC will submit a report on the results of the 

study to Congress, and make the report available online at www.eac.gov. 

In accordance with the information clearance process under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) of 1995, the EAC requested and received approval from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to carry out the survey. A copy of the data collection instrument used in this 

survey of U.S. military and overseas voters is attached as Appendix A. 

Why Survey UOCAVA Voters? 

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) covers two main 

groups: 1) U.S. citizens that reside temporarily or permanently overseas and 2) active-duty 

military both within and outside of the U.S., along with their eligible, accompanying spouse and 

family members. While there are no reliable data available on the number of UOCAVA voters 

dispersed around the globe; some estimates hover around 4 million1. Active-duty military are 

estimated at 1.5 million and family of military another 1.5 million. 

UOCAVA voters register and request absentee ballots in various ways. One method is to 

complete the “Federal Post Card Application” (FPCA) in either hard-copy or on-line form from 

the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). U.S. military often receive registration forms 

directly from their assigned Voting Assistance Officers. U.S. military and civilians may also 

request registration forms from their local registrars of voters, their states’ election authorities, 

consulates, embassies, political party organizations, and other, non-profit organizations. 

UOCAVA voters receive different ballots depending on whether they have moved 

overseas permanently or whether they maintain a residence in a US State. It is their responsibility 

to notify local election officials of their status, by indicating that status on their state’s or the 

FPCA registration form. 

Data collected on the transit time for mail ballots in the General Election of 2000 in five 

jurisdictions showed that it took an average of 22 days for an absentee ballot to travel to its 

intended recipient overseas2

. The return of completed ballots into the United States is similarly 

problematic. For example in July of 2006, California election officials reported that they were 

still receiving hard copy UOCAVA ballots from the special election in November of 20053

. 

 

 

1

 GAO report: GAO-06-521, April 2006 

2

 Voting over the Internet Pilot Project Assessment Report; http://www.fvap.gov/services/voireport.pdf pp. 51, 52 3

 Interviews with Election Administrators as part of field work conducted by researchers of the Election 

Administration Research Center at UC Berkeley. 
Introduction 5

As a response to the uncertainties and delays of getting election materials to and from 

UOCAVA voters in a timely manner, some jurisdictions offer electronic communications options 

to UOCAVA voters. This fact allowed researchers to compare the experience and perceptions of 

those UOCAVA voters who utilized electronic options with those who did not. 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 6

II. Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data 

Management 

Survey Design 

The survey project proposal provided for the development of an instrument with multiple 

response -“paths,” including separate lines of questions for those who used some form of 

electronic transmission of voting materials and those who did not. The survey also distinguished 

military from civilian respondents to facilitate comparison of those groups’ responses. 

A 55 question survey instrument was developed that implemented these objectives. In 

preparation for question design, previous surveys of UOCAVA voters were reviewed4

, and 

preliminary versions of the survey instrument were tested on multiple groups of volunteers with 

survey research and UOCAVA voting issue expertise. Prior to launching the survey, the 

instrument was posted on the EAC website to solicit public comments. 

Sample Selection 

The initial sample (the Four State Sample or FSS) consists of UOCAVA voters from 

selected jurisdictions within four states that offer electronic forms of communication to overseas 

voters: Florida, Illinois, Montana and South Carolina. Subsequently, a second sample of 

UOCAVA voters was collected which included both, states with and without electronic options. 

Each sample is described in detail below. 

The overarching goal of the FSS was to find a representative sample that that would 

allow for the study of “communications and Internet technologies in the Federal, State and local 

electoral process.” Not all states allow for the electronic transmission of voting materials, and of 

those states that do, not all have significant numbers of UOCAVA voters. To find appropriate 

jurisdictions, researchers reviewed the available literature, examined online resources, and 

consulted with state and local election administrators. Once the jurisdictions were chosen, and 

their participation was secured, they were asked to provide UOCAVA voter addresses to which 

survey invitations would be sent. The jurisdictions also agreed to participate in the case study 

research. This two-pronged research design---matching case study states with surveys of 

overseas citizens from those states-- provides a comprehensive assessment of UOCAVA voting 

from both the perspectives of the administrators and the voters themselves. 

The following is an overview of the data and criteria that guided the selection of the 

sample jurisdictions: 

1) Researchers gathered information on the policies of each state with respect to UOCAVA 

voters. This included state requirements for UOCAVA voter identification, notarization on 

 

4

 OVF 2004 Post Election Survey 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 7

registration and ballots, state oath, acceptance of registration forms (the Federal Post Card 

Application (FPCA) or other) by mail, fax, email, or website, sending ballots by mail, fax, email, 

or website, provision of downloadable ballots, acceptance of voted ballots by mail, fax, email or 

website. 

2) Researchers identified variations in requirements for active-duty military versus civilian 

overseas electors, and for emergency voting for each state. Additional state requirements for 

UOCAVA voters, such as previous registration information (name, address, locality), were also 

assessed to develop a comprehensive understanding of each state’s process for UOCAVA 

registration. In addition, statistics on the number of registered UOCAVA voters (both military 

and civilian) per state were collected, and to the extent possible, the number of those who 

successfully voted. These data were gathered to ascertain the relative experience states have 

with processing UOCAVA voters. Once this information was organized into a table for 

comparison, states were categorized based on whether they allow some type of electronic 

transmission and/or receipt of ballots. The states were selected because they had valuable 

variations in policies and procedures and experiences with respect to UOCAVA registration and 

voting. 

3) This information was organized into a table for comparison. For this project, the most 

important states to study were those currently using a variety of electronic transmission methods; 

i.e. those that allow some emailing and some faxing of voting materials. Thus, states were 

categorized from ‘most advanced’ in terms of using electronic transmission (i.e. a ‘most 

advanced’ State allows for the electronic transmission of all voting materials) to the least 

advanced. Two states, Montana and South Carolina, were chosen from the category of allowing 

some emailing of voted ballots and two states, Florida and Illinois, from the category of allowing 

some emailing or uploading/downloading of blank ballots. Regional variation was also 

considered in the selection process. 

Once the four states were chosen, researchers consulted with the EAC, and expanded the 

sample from the originally proposed total of four, state or local jurisdictions. Instead, three to 

five local jurisdictions were identified in each of the four states to capture some variation within 

the states and to gain greater representation of each state’s practices. Some local jurisdictions 

were chosen because they had previously participated in one of the following electronic voting 

initiatives: Voting over the Internet (VOI), planning for the Secure Electronic Registration and 

Voting Experiment (SERVE) or the 2006 IVAS program5

. Additional jurisdictions were selected 

based on their population of UOCAVA voters. In Illinois one jurisdiction was added due to the 

relatively high number of UOCAVA ballots sent and returned. In Florida an additional county 

was chosen because of its large military population. In South Carolina, all counties had 

participated in VOI and SERVE, and there were no obvious distinctions based on the application 

of state laws by county, so the top five counties in terms of UOCAVA ballots sent in 2006 were 

 

5

 The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), the federal agency dedicated to assisting UOCAVA voters, 

launched their IVAS programs in 2004 and 2006. IVAS stood for Interim Voting Assistance System in 2004 and 

then Integrated Voting Alternative Site in 2006. Local election jurisdictions ‘participated’ in the 2006 IVAS 

program by signing up with FVAP to use one of two electronic transmission ‘tools’ to transmit balloting materials to 

and from some UOCAVA voters. 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 8

added. In Montana, four counties that email and fax voting materials were added - two of the 

Montana counties had participated in IVAS 2006. 

Two additional local jurisdictions were contacted for inclusion in the sample, but neither 

ultimately became part of it. One jurisdiction turned out not to have any registered UOCAVA 

voters, the other chose not to participate due to their lack of a fax machine and upcoming intradepartmental changes. 

Representatives of each State’s Election Authority signed agreements to participate in the 

research, including the case studies6

 and the survey. Election administrators in the local 

jurisdictions were subsequently contacted by telephone and email and invited to participate in the 

research. 

Once the local jurisdictions agreed to participate, they were asked to provide the 

addresses of all UOCAVA voters registered for the 2006 election. Over a period of several 

months, the local jurisdictions provided the email and postal addresses to which surveys or 

invitations to take the survey online, were mailed or emailed. Many of the files came in piecemeal, i.e. multiple files were supplied for single jurisdictions in many instances. 

 

Among the addresses provided were surprisingly few email addresses. This resulted in a 

number of changes to the survey implementation, including a larger than anticipated program for 

sending hardcopy surveys by regular mail. 

During the process of sending surveys and invitations to potential respondents, it became 

clear that many addresses were inaccurate. Hundreds of surveys were returned as undeliverable 

and many are likely to have gone lost. The problem of ‘bad’ addresses is well known by election 

administrators and was confirmed by this study. In order to supplement the sample, a request 

was mailed out on March 1, 2007 to Voting Action Officers for the United States Department of 

State, Air Force, Army, Marines, Coast Guard, and Navy to send out survey invitations to 

UOCAVA eligible voters through their respective organizations’ system of Voting Assistance 

Officers located around the world. While those Voting Action officers in the Armed Forces did 

not forward the invitation request, their civilian colleagues did. A sample of the request is 

attached as Appendix B. 

Sample Response 

For the Four State Sample, all the UOCAVA voters registered for the 2006 General 

Election were contacted. Survey invitations were sent to 1,199 email addresses that had been 

provided by the local jurisdictions. Approximately 20% of this group took the survey online. 

The hard-copy survey invitations were mailed to 12,752 addresses. Respondents had the 

option to either complete the survey on-line or to mail it back and pay for their own postage. 

About 12% responded by one of these two methods. In interviews for the case studies, 

researchers were told that up to 50 percent of addresses are inaccurate within one election cycle 

 

6

 Please note that the case study report is separate from this report 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 9

due to the high mobility of UOCAVA voters and the fact that many do not think to re-register or 

update their addresses unless there is a presidential election. Over 13 percent of the mailed 

surveys were returned as undeliverable. It is also highly likely that in many countries, 

undeliverable mail is not returned to the sender. 

As previously stated, the purpose of the Supplemental Survey was to gather opinions 

about registering and voting overseas from a wider selection of UOCAVA voters. The responses 

came from several sources. An online link to the survey on the EAC’s website posted for public 

comment purposes resulted in 77 responses. The Voting Action Officers emailed notifications of 

the survey to their networks of Voting Assistance Officers, who then distributed the email 

invitations to UOCAVA voters, resulting in an additional 4261 online responses. 

Only surveys received between December 13, 2006 and April 30, 2007 are included for 

purposes of this report. Incomplete online surveys were not included, but many partially 

completed paper surveys were. The reason for this is that non-completion meant different things 

for the on-line and hard copy surveys. Due to the design of the online survey, respondents could 

not skip around in the survey and answer questions they wanted to answer. Rather, they were 

held to a strict “path” from which they could not deviate. Some of those who were not interested 

in going through the entire process abandoned it rather early on. There is essentially very little to 

be learned from the partial online surveys. In contrast, respondents were able to skip and choose 

questions they wanted to answer, or felt were more important than others, in the hard copy 

surveys. Most of the partial hard-copy surveys are almost complete. 

The overall response rate as calculated from the raw numbers for responses to the email 

invitations and the mailed survey was 13%. The response rate for the survey based on the online 

invitations alone was 20%. The response rate for the mailed invitations (including those that 

responded to the paper survey by completing the survey on-line) was 12%. 

A variety of other factors in addition to those mentioned above may have negatively 

influenced the overall response rate to survey invitations sent to the UOCAVA addresses 

provided by the local jurisdictions in the four states. These likely include the following: 

• The 2006 election was a non-presidential election. 

• Even though respondents were asked to skip inapplicable questions, on first glance, the 

survey may have seemed too lengthy. 

• Some of the addresses provided by the local jurisdictions had not been verified or 

updated since the 2004 election. These older addresses had a substantially higher “bad” 

address or “return” rate than the addresses from the 2006 election. Even some of the 2006 

addresses were outdated already by the spring of 2007. 

Whether or not the Supplemental Sample is representative of the UOCAVA population as 

a whole, it is at least geographically diverse, coming from 132 different countries and 

representing UOCAVA eligible voters from all 50 states 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 10

 Generally, the combined 5769 responses which were analyzed for this report (4166 for 

the Supplemental Sample, 1603 for the Four States Sample)7 represent a diverse population by 

state, country, age, and military/nonmilitary status, but there is no way of knowing whether it is 

representative of the entire UOCAVA population. 

Data Categorization 

All responses were coded as follows: The multiple choice answers were assigned 

numerical characters based on the order in which they appeared in the question (e.g. Yes =1, 

No=2, Maybe =3). For many of the questions respondents had the option of writing in an 

alternative ‘other’ answer, and these responses required categorization and assigning of codes. 

The coding scheme followed an emergent and reiterative method. Using a sample of the first 

hundred responses, researchers went through each question and categorized the alternative 

answers. These categories were then assigned codes using sequential numbering, for example if 

the question provided 5 possible answers, then code 6 was assigned to ‘other’ (i.e. answers that 

were not categorized elsewhere) and codes 7, 8, 9 etc. were assigned to categories that emerged 

from the hand written/typed answers. Code 6 was only used if the hand written -typed answer 

did not fall into categories 7-9. While one researcher developed the categories, the four coders 

provided feedback on the codes and suggested new categories as they were encountered, and 

those were incorporated into the coding scheme. In cases in which text had already been entered 

without a code, it was recoded into the appropriate category later. 

Coders were trained in the coding method and all completed coding was subjected to 

multiple checks for reliability. 

Sample Demographics 

The following describes and compares the two samples of respondents. A complete 

listing of the frequencies can be found in Appendix D. In general, the FSS sample has more 

military voters and the SS sample has a higher share of overseas civilians. There was no 

significant difference in the age or education profiles between them. 

] Civilian/Military 

 Civilians living outside the United States accounted for 39% of the FSS and 94% of the 

SS respondents. These figures represent both those who identify themselves as living outside of 

the United States temporarily (FSS 12%, SS 33%), and as those living outside the United States 

indefinitely or permanently (FSS 27%, SS 61%). 

 Uniformed service members and their spouses or dependents were 61% of the FSS and 

6% of the SS respondents. 1.9% of the total number of respondents did not provide information 

for this portion of the survey, and the percentages above are out of the number that did answer 

this question. 

 

7

 Only the cases with no missing data were analyzed for this report. 
Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management 11

 In short, the Four States Sample (FSS) had a much larger military component, and this 

helps to account for some of the differences between the samples in terms of voting experiences 

reported. 

] Education 

 The education levels of respondents were very high in both samples. About a third of the 

total sample reported holding up to a Baccalaureate degree (FSS 31%, SS33.5%) and almost half 

had graduate degrees (FSS 45.5%, SS 49%). Approximately 90% (FSS 87%, SS 92.5%) had 

daily internet access and approximately half (53%, 63%) of them had access to FAX. If this is in 

any way indicative of UOCAVA voters generally, it bodes well for potential use of electronic 

transmission of voting materials. 

] Gender 

Among the survey respondents, 61% of FSS and 59% of the SS identified themselves as 

male, and 39%, 41% as female. A small number gave no answer. Again, there was little 

difference between the samples. 

 

] Location 

On November 7, 2006, 48% of FSS but only 5% of SS respondents were active duty 

military within the United States. The combined sample contains residents from 132 countries. 

Respondents’ home voting jurisdictions included all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 4 

U.S. territories. Because of the FSS design, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, and Montana are 

overrepresented in the total sample. 

] Age 

The sample distribution across age groups is shown in Table 1. The FSS is slightly 

younger in distribution. But less than 10% in both samples fall into either the youngest (i.e. 

student age) or oldest (i.e. retirement age) categories. 

Table 1: Age Breakdown of Sample

Age Group Percent 

(FSS,SS) 

18-24 6, 7 

25-34 24, 19 

35-44 35, 25 

45-54 18, 25 

55-64 10, 17 

65-74 5, 6 

74+ 2, 1 

 

Total 100, 100 
Discussion and Analysis 12

III. Discussion and Analysis 

Overview of discussion 

 In this section, the findings of the surveys are analyzed. In the discussion that follows, the 

‘percentages of respondents’ refers to the percentage of those who actually answered the 

question(s) being discussed. Unless otherwise specified or required by the context, ‘voting via 

electronic transmission’ or simply ‘electronic transmission’ refers to online, email, and fax 

processes. Results from the four states sample are referred to as FSS, those from the 

supplemental sample as SS, and the combined sample as CS. Differences between samples are 

reported only when they are meaningful. The discussion of each subject will begin with the 

simple frequencies, and then expand to analysis based upon multivariate models that control for 

other factors. The details of these models are displayed and discussed in Appendix C of this 

report. 

Uniformed Service Members and Their Families Had Higher Voting Rates

 Table 2 clearly shows that uniformed service members and their families were more 

likely to have voted in the November 2006 U.S. Election than civilians living overseas. 

Uniformed service members in the combined survey reported an 82.6% voting participation rate. 

The spouses and dependents of uniformed service members reported an even higher voting 

participation rate of 92%. U.S. citizens who were not uniformed service members and who were 

living outside the United States permanently or indefinitely voted at a rate of 49.5%. U.S. 

citizens who were not uniformed service members and who were living outside the United States 

temporarily reported the lowest voting rate of 41.6%. 

 Since it is possible that at least some of the non-voters did not even try to vote, it is 

instructive to look at those who tried to vote but were unsuccessful. The respondents most likely 

to have attempted to vote without success were non-military U.S. citizens who were living 

outside the United States temporarily. They reported a 24% rate of attempting to vote without 

succeeding. Non-military U.S. citizens living outside the United States permanently or 

indefinitely reported a 20% rate of attempting to vote without succeeding. Only 6.% of the 

uniformed service members reported attempting to vote without succeeding. Even fewer of the 

spouses and dependents of the uniformed service members reported attempting to vote without 

succeeding (2.1%). The differences in reported voting success rates between the military and 

non-military survey respondents remain even when the survey responses are divided into the FSS 

and SS samples. 
Discussion and Analysis 13

Table 2: 2006 Voting Experience, by Voter Type

Did you vote in 2006?

Respondent Type: Yes No No, but tried Total 

 

Spouse/dependent of service member 92.0% 5.9% 2.1% 100.0% 

 219 14 5 238 

Uniformed service member 82.6% 11.2% 6.2% 100.0% 

 817 111 61 989 

U.S. citizen abroad permanently 49.5% 30.4% 20.1% 100.0% 

 1,481 908 603 2,992 

U.S. citizen abroad temporarily 41.6% 34.4% 24.0% 100.0% 

 642 532 371 1,545 

Total N 3,159 1,565 1,040 5,764 

 Researchers found that a small number (< 20) of respondents wrote in that they did not 

vote because they feared that maintaining a state residency would create state income tax liability 

and jury duties. More generally, when nonvoters were probed in open-ended questions for their 

reasons for not participating, about half reported problems with requesting registration and ballot 

materials, a quarter had difficulty with returning ballots and another quarter indicated that they 

were politically unmotivated. This suggests that facilitating the transmission of voting and 

registration materials between election offices and UOCAVA voters could substantially increase 

UOCAVA voting rates. For additional information on voting success rates by state, as reported 

by survey respondents, see state tables in Appendix D. 

 It is of course possible that the difference between military and non-military voters is 

actually the artifact of other characteristics—that military voters are older, or better educated, for 

instance. While researchers cannot to control for all the possible explanations, they can control 

for many of the most likely competing factors. Using multivariate techniques (see Appendix C 

for details and tables with estimated coefficients), researchers computed the probability of a 

military versus overseas civilian citizen voting in the 2006 election while holding constant the 

effects of age, gender, level of education, amount of time spent abroad, whether the respondent 

lived in a developed country or not, and whether he or she had voted overseas before. 

Researchers estimated the model with just the Four State and Supplemental Samples 

separately as well as with the Combined Sample, and in all instances the signs of the coefficients 

indicated that both permanent and temporary civilians were less likely to vote than the military 

and their families. In addition, it appears that the older, better educated voters and women, plus 

those who live in developed countries, who have voted before and who have lived overseas 

longer, all had a statistically significant higher probability of voting than the rest of the 

UOCAVA sample. 
Discussion and Analysis 14

The size of the military versus nonmilitary effect is shown in Figure 1. When the 

researchers controlled for the other variables, they found the probability of a military citizen 

voting is more than twice the probability of a nonmilitary, overseas citizen voting in the election. 

As learned from the case studies, the process for helping the military vote is far more efficient 

than the one for the non-military overseas citizens, and additionally, many local election officials 

made it a point to ensure that those fighting for the country were given every opportunity to vote. 

It is important to add, however, that it is not possible to say precisely how much of the voting 

rate difference is due to the procedural differences as opposed to patriotism, civic duty, or other 

unmeasured characteristics, but it is reasonable to suspect, based on the case studies, that there is 

some procedural basis to this gap. 

Figure 1: Predicted Probability of Voting, by Voter Type 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Uniformed service member or

spouse

US Citizen abroad temporarily US Citizen abroad permanently

Predicted Probability of Voting

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

 The point that military voters found the voting process easier than non-military voters did 

is reinforced by a second set of questions that asked respondents to rate the ease of obtaining and 

sending ballots, and to indicate their overall level of satisfaction with the voting process. In all 

instances, non-military overseas voters had a statistically higher likelihood of having difficulty or 

being dissatisfied with the voting process, controlling for age, gender, education etc as before. 

This is clearly illustrated in Figure 2, which displays the estimated level of satisfaction for 

different types of UOCAVA voters with other factors being held constant. It shows that military 

voters were clearly more likely to be satisfied with the voting process. 
Discussion and Analysis 15

Figure 2: Satisfaction with Voting Process, by Voter Type 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service member US Citizen abroad

temporarily

US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluation

Dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neutral

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

Breaking this down a little further, respondents were asked specifically about the ease of 

receiving a blank ballot. As Figure 3 shows, controlling for other factors, there is a fairly large 

difference in the experience of receiving the blank ballot for uniformed versus non-uniformed 

citizens, with military respondents 20 percent more likely to express satisfaction. Dissatisfaction 

was highest among the better educated and younger individuals. Controlling for other factors, 

they were more likely to find the process to be slow, difficult, impractical, etc. Those who got 

the ballot electronically were more satisfied with the process than those who did not, and the 

effect was statistically significant. There are similar patterns with respect to the ease of 

completing the ballot (see Figure 4) and of sending in the ballot (see Figure 5). 
Discussion and Analysis 16

Figure 3: Experience of Receiving Blank Ballot, by Voter Type 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service member

or spouse

US Citizen abroad

temporarily

US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluatio

n

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

Figure 4: Ease of Completing Ballot, by Voter Type

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service

member

US Citizen abroad

temporarily

US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluatio

n

Difficult

Somewhat difficult

Neither

Somewhat easy

Easy

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.
Discussion and Analysis 17

Figure 5: Ease of Sending Voted Ballot, by Voter Type 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service member US Citizen abroad

temporarily

US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluatio

n

Difficult

Somewhat difficult

Neither

Somewhat easy

Easy

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

Electronic Exchange of Voting Materials Assessed 

 

The survey included a number of questions designed to gather information on the use of 

email, fax, and online services in voting. Even among the Four State Sample respondents, living 

in jurisdictions with electronic transmission options, the number who used fax, email or the 

internet was very small. For instance, 73% of the respondents from the four states requested 

their ballots/registration forms by regular mail and only 9% used email or FAX. Eighty-three 

percent of them received their ballots by regular mail and only 4% received them by FAX or 

email. And 79% sent their ballots by regular mail and only 3% by FAX or email. Needless to 

say, the percentages of electronic usage in the Supplemental Survey, which includes many 

jurisdictions that do not allow emailing or FAXing of materials, were even lower. Clearly, there 

is a lot of room for growth in this respect. 

 

 Testing for those most likely to use electronic transmission, researchers modeled the 

probability of e-voting as a function of age, education, time spent abroad, gender, military versus 

non-military status, whether they voted overseas in the past and living in an OECD country. The 

results, displayed in Appendix C show that younger voting age citizens, those who have spent 

less time abroad, males and those living in non-OECD countries were more inclined to use these 

methods. The age finding makes sense since in general younger people are generally more 

comfortable with electronic technology, and especially the internet. Still, the change in the 

probability of e-voting is not very large, even if significant, as you move from young to old (see 
Discussion and Analysis 18

Figure 3), which suggests that there is a sizeable group of older overseas citizens who might 

utilize the option if provided to them 

Figure 6: Voting with Electronic Transmission, by Age Group 

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-80

Age Category

Predicted Probability of E-Voting

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

Even though the numbers who used electronic options were low, those respondents who 

availed themselves of electronic options reported a high level of satisfaction with them. 

Respondents were asked to rate the ease of and their satisfaction with using electronic 

transmission for returning ballots. The results are displayed in Tables 3 and 4. Although the 

responses from the Four State and Supplemental Surveys have been combined, the cell entries 

are quite small so caution must be exercised in interpreting the results. Even so, it is clear that 

the vast majority found both email and fax to be at least somewhat easy to use and to be at least 

somewhat satisfied with them. Email was ranked as the easiest method for returning the ballot, 

followed by fax, email plus original ballot, then fax plus original ballot. Clearly, requirements 

that the original ballot be sent as well as the Email or FAX significantly decrease the perceived 

ease of use somewhat. 
Discussion and Analysis 19

Table 3: Ease of Method, by Electronic Transmission of Voted Ballot 

How would you rate the ease-of-use of this way of sending in your voted ballot? 

Somewhat Somewhat 

Ballot delivery method: Easy Easy Neither difficult Difficult Total 

Email 71.4% 9.5% 14.3% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0% 

15 2 3 1 0 21 

FAX 57.1% 25.4% 8.0% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0% 

36 16 5 3 3 63 

Email & original ballot 35.0% 40.0% 15.0% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

7 8 3 2 0 20 

FAX & original ballot 31.0% 26.2% 19.1% 23.8% 0.0% 100.0% 

13 11 8 10 0 42 

Note: One person reported internet fax of a ballot and reported it as “somewhat difficult.” One person reported 

internet fax of a ballot + original ballot by mail and reported it as “easy.” 

Similarly, respondents returning ballots by some type of electronic transmission were most 

satisfied returning the ballot via email and FAX, but somewhat less satisfied when they had to 

return the ballot as well. 

Table 4: Satisfaction, by Electronic Transmission of Voted Ballot 

How would you rate the ease-of-use of this way of sending in your voted ballot? 

Somewhat Somewhat 

Ballot delivery method: Satisfied Satisfied Neutral dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total 

Email 65.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.0% 100.0% 

13 4 2 0 1 20 

FAX 61.3% 12.9% 11.3% 9.7% 4.8% 100.0% 

38 8 7 6 3 62 

Email & original ballot 40.0% 30.0% 10.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100.0% 

8 6 2 3 1 20 

FAX & original ballot 26.8% 34.2% 14.6% 19.5% 4.9% 100.0% 

 11 14 6 8 2 41 

Note: One person reported sending ballot by internet fax and indicated they were “somewhat satisfied” with that method. 

One person reported sending ballot by internet fax & original by mail and indicated they were “satisfied” with that method. 
Discussion and Analysis 20

Given the myriad issues about the security of domestic balloting and the potential for 

materials getting lost in long distance transmission, the survey asked a number of questions 

about the security and privacy of the various options. Email was reported as the most secure 

method of blank ballot delivery. Military postal systems and courier or certified mail was 

reported to be close to the email level of security. The question asked only about the 

respondent’s perception of security of the ballot delivery method. Respondents were not offered 

any technical information that might assist them in understanding details relating to potential 

security strengths and weaknesses of the security of the different methods. 

 

Table 5: Perception of Security, by Blank Ballot Delivery Method

Was the way you received the ballot secure? 

Ballot delivery method : 

 Very 

Secure Secure Neutral Insecure 

 Very 

insecure Total 

Email 39.5% 40.3% 14.3% 3.4% 2.5% 100.0% 

47 48 17 4 3 119 

Courier, certified, express mail 38.0% 36.6% 17.0% 5.6% 2.8% 100.0% 

27 26 12 4 2 71 

Military Postal Service 25.1% 53.7% 16.3% 3.9% 1.0% 100.0% 

51 109 33 8 2 203 

Downloaded via DOD 21.7% 47.8% 21.7% 8.7% 0.0% 100.0% 

IVAS 5 11 5 2 0 23 

Regular mail 16.7% 42.8% 27.7% 9.9% 3.0% 100.0% 

429 1,100 711 255 76 2,571 

FAX 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

0 1 2 2 0 5 

Vote security concerns with respect to voted as opposed to blank ballots are somewhat 

greater as one might expect. This is true regardless of the ballot return method they used. 

Rates of concern are similar for electronic ballot transmission and physical ballot return systems. 
Discussion and Analysis 21

Table 6: Security Concern by Method of Transmission of Voted Ballot 

How did you feel about security of your vote? 

Ballot delivery 

method: Concerned 

Somewhat 

Concerned Neutral 

Somewhat 

Unconcerned Unconcerned 

Don’t 

Know Total 

 

Email 18.2% 22.7% 18.2% 13.6% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0% 

 4 5 4 3 6 0 22 

 

Email & original 

ballot 4.6% 40.9% 22.7% 18.2% 13.6% 0.0% 100.0% 

 1 9 5 4 3 0 22 

FAX| 14.3% 17.5% 23.8% 15.9% 28.6% 0.0% 100.0% 

 9 11 15 10 18 0 63 

FAX & original 

ballot 8.9% 33.3% 24.4% 15.6% 15.6% 2.2% 100.0% 

 4 15 11 7 7 1 45 

Internet FAX 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Internet FAX & 

original ballot 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Regular mail 7.9% 22.3% 19.8% 12.8% 36.3% 0.9% 100.0% 

 173 491 437 283 801 20 2,205 

Courier, certified, 

express mail 13.3% 26.3% 20.1% 13.7% 24.8% 1.8% 100.0% 

 37 73 56 38 69 5 278 

Military Postal 

Service 6.3% 16.0% 18.5% 12.6% 46.1% 0.5% 100.0% 

 13 33 38 26 95 1 206 

Embassy, consulate 

mail pouch 9.1% 18.2% 19.6% 15.4% 35.7% 2.1% 100.0% 

 13 26 28 22 51 3 143 

Dropped off or 7.2% 7.2% 18.6% 9.3% 56.7% 1.0% 100.0% 

voted at local 

election office in 

the US 7 7 18 9 55 1 97 

 With respect to security of receiving a ballot, these models reveal that younger people felt 

more secure, while nonmilitary and those living in developed countries felt more insecure. 

Importantly, those who received their ballots electronically were more likely to feel secure. But 
Discussion and Analysis 22

this result reverses with respect to sending the ballot: those who sent electronically felt less 

secure. 

Figure 7: Perceived Security of Method for Receiving Blank Ballot, by Voter Type 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service member US Citizen abroad temporarily US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluation

Veru insecure

Insecure

Neutral

Secure

Very secure

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.

Figure 8: Perceived Security of Sending Vote, by Voter Type 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Uniformed service

member

US Citizen abroad

temporarily

US Citizen abroad

permanently

Predicted Probability of Expressing Evaluatio

n

Concerned

Somewhat

concerned

Neutral

Somewhat

unconcerned

Unconcerned

Note: All other variables held at the sample average.
Discussion and Analysis 23

Another area of potential concern is the privacy of the vote. The principle of a secret 

ballot is that a vote should remain anonymous and its content unknown except for the purpose of 

a tally. Faxing in particular requires that someone on the other end receive the ballot. That 

necessarily compromises the secrecy of the ballot. In some cases, overseas citizens are asked to 

waive their right to a private ballot. Table 8 shows how prevalent this waiving of privacy was 

among respondents who electronically transmitted their ballots. As one might expect, those who 

faxed in their ballots were most likely to report having been asked to give up the right to a 

private vote. 

Table 8: Waiving Privacy , by Electronic Transmission of Voted Ballot 

Were you asked to give up the right to a private vote? 

 I don't 

Ballot delivery method: Yes No remember Total 

 

FAX 52.4% 46.0% 1.6% 100.0% 

 33 29 1 63 

FAX + original ballot 37.5% 62.5% 0.0% 100.0% 

 15 25 0 40 

Email 31.6% 63.2% 5.3% 100.0% 

 6 12 1 19 

Email + original ballot 19.1% 80.9% 0.0% 100.0% 

 4 17 0 21 

Note: One person reported sending in their ballot by internet fax and indicated they were asked to give up 

the right to a private vote. 
Discussion and Analysis 24

Likelihood Would Use Same Transmission System for Next Ballot Return 

When all is said and done, a strong indicator of whether people are satisfied with a 

particular method of transmission is whether they would use the same method again. When those 

in the total sample were asked about their future votes, most reported that they were willing to 

use the same ballot transmission system the next time they return a ballot. 

Table 9: Future Method Use, by Method of Transmission of Voted Ballot

 Would you use the sending method again? 

Ballot delivery method: Yes No Total 

 

Email 95.5% 4.5% 100.0% 

 21 1 22 

Email & original ballot 95.5% 4.5% 100.0% 

 21 1 22 

FAX 85.5% 14.5% 100.0% 

 53 9 62 

FAX & original ballot 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% 

 40 4 44 

Internet FAX 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

 1 0 1 

Internet FAX & original ballot 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

 2 0 2 

Regular mail 94.7% 5.2% 100.0% 

 2,081 115 2,196 

Courier, certified, express mail 86.1% 13.9% 100.0% 

 241 39 280 

Military Postal Service 96.1% 3.9% 100.0% 

 195 8 203 

Embassy, consulate mail pouch 90.7% 9.3% 100.0% 

 127 13 140 

Dropped off or voted in person 77.5% 22.5% 100.0% 

 69 20 89 
Discussion and Analysis 25

Conclusion 

 This report reveals several clear trends. First, non-military overseas citizens find the 

process of receiving materials and casting a vote more difficult than the military. As a 

consequence, their participation rates are lower. Secondly, usage of electronic options such as 

FAX or email, even in states that offer them, is low. However, those who did make use of 

electronic options for receiving and transmitting voting materials were overwhelmingly positive 

about their experiences. Security concerns are somewhat greater for sending in voted ballots 

than receiving voting materials. However, under an optional program overseas voters can 

choose to use traditional means of sending materials if the internet options do not appeal to them
Appendix A 26

APPENDIX A 

Survey Text 

PDF version available at: 

www.eac.gov/docs/2006%20EAC%20UOCAVA%20Voter%20Survey.pdf] 

Dear Voter, 

We are conducting a survey of overseas and uniformed services absentee voters 

and are inviting you to tell us about your experiences with the election process. 

The United States Congress has asked for this study because of the reports that 

uniformed services and overseas voters often have problems when trying to vote. 

We are working to make sure that your experiences and suggestions are being 

collected and forwarded to Congress. Your responses are confidential so please 

take 8-10 minutes to fill out this survey, and tell us about your voting experience 

in November of 2006. This is a great opportunity to help improve the system and 

your participation matters: we can not do a good job without your help! 

Thank you so much! 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

2006 Overseas and Military Voter Survey 

OMB Control No. 3265-0005 Expiration Date: 5/31/2007 

Section 245 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301) requires the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) to conduct a study of issues and challenges, including the potential for election fraud, that are 

presented by the incorporation of communications and Internet technologies in the Federal, State, and local electoral 

process. The EAC is required to submit a report on the results of the study to Congress. In addition, this information 

will be made publicly available on the EAC website at www.eac.gov. Respondents to this survey are uniformed and 

overseas voters. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The 

valid OMB control number for this information collection is OMB Control No. 3265-0005 (expires 5/31/2007). The time 

required to complete this information collection is estimated to average .25 hours per response. This estimate 

includes the time for reviewing the instructions, gathering information, and completing the form. Comments regarding 

this burden estimate should be sent to the Program Manager - 2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey, U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission, 

1225 New York Ave, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. 

Please send your completed replies to: 

Q2 Data & Research, LLC 

Mail Services Office 

217 Bayview Street 

San Rafael, CA 94901 USA 
Appendix A 27

Please Note: 

You are invited to take this same survey online. 

It's fast and there's no postage! 

Click here to take the 2006 EAC UOCAVA Voter Survey online! 

2006 EAC UOCAVA Voter Survey 

Survey Instructions: 

Work your way through the survey following 

the numbered questions in order. Several 

of the questions instruct you to skip 

ahead to a specific question depending on 

how you answered the question. Please 

follow these skip instructions carefully. 

Make a heavy mark in the box next to your 

chosen answer or answers. Many of the 

questions allow for more than one response. 

Thanks again for your help with this important 

project. 

1. Were you an overseas citizen or a 

member of the Uniformed Services, a 

spouse or dependent of a uniformed 

service member on November 7, 2006? 

 U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. 

temporarily 

 U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. 

indefinitely/permanently 

 Uniformed service member 

 Spouse or dependent of a uniformed 

service member 

2. On November 7th in which country 

were you living or serving? 

3. In which U.S. state or territory did you 

vote, or would you have voted, had you 

been in the U.S. on November 7, 2006. 

4. Describe your voting history: 

(check all that apply) 

 This was or would have been my first 

time voting in my life as an overseas 
Appendix A 28

citizen 

 This was or would have been my first 

time voting as an absentee military service 

member, spouse or dependent 

 Voted before as an overseas citizen 

 Voted before as an absentee military 

services member spouse or dependent. 

 Voted before locally in the US 

 Voted before as a domestic absentee in 

the US 

 I don't remember 

5. Did you vote in the November 7, 2006 

election? 

 Yes, I voted Skip to Q12! 

 No, I did not vote or try to vote 

 No, I tried but was unable to complete 

the process 

6. Why didn't you vote? 

(check all that apply) 

 My ballot did not arrive 

 My ballot was late 

 My ballot arrived while I was traveling 

 My ballot arrived while I was on duty 

somewhere else 

 I moved and my ballot was sent to my 

old address 

 I forgot to send my ballot 

 My voter registration/ballot request was 

denied 

 I missed the registration deadline 

 I thought I was registered, but wasn't 

 My address changed 

 I could not meet my state's notarization 

requirements 

 I could not meet my state's witness 

requirements 

 I did not know what I needed to do to 

register to vote 

 I didn’t think my vote would matter 

 I found the process to complicated 

 I had no interest in voting 

 Other, please specify: 

7. If you had been in the U.S. on 
Appendix A 29

November 7, 2006, Election Day, 

how likely is it that you would have 

voted? 

 Very likely 

 Somewhat likely 

 Neither likely or unlikely 

 Somewhat likely 

 Very unlikely 

8. Did you complete a form to register to 

vote and/or request an absentee 

ballot for the November 7, 2006 

election? 

 Yes 

 No Skip to Q42! 

 I don’t remember Skip to Q42! 

9. How did you get your voter 

registration/ballot request form? 

 I downloaded the blank form from a 

website 

 I filled-out the form online and printed it 

 I received it from my state/local election 

office 

 I picked it up at the US Embassy/ 

Consulate 

 I used the online IVAS system 

 I registered and/or received a form in 

person 

 I received it in the mail 

 It was faxed to me 

 I received it as an email attachment 

 Other, please specify: 

10. When, in 2006, did you send in your 

voter registration/ballot request form? 

 Between January and July 2006 

 August 

 September 

 First half of October 

 Second half of October 

 November 

 I never sent the form 

 I don't remember 

11. How did you SEND IN your voter 
Appendix A 30

registration/ballot request form? 

 FAX 

 FAX + original form by mail 

 Email 

 Email + original form by mail 

 I used the IVAS service for the DOD 

 Regular Mail 

 Courier/Certified or Express Mail 

 Military Postal Service (APO/FPO) 

 Sent through Consulate/Embassy mail 

pouch 

 In person at my election office 

 I never sent the form 

 Other, please specify: 

Skip to Q42! 

12. Did you complete a form to register 

to vote and/or request an absentee ballot 

for the November 7, 2006 election? 

 Yes 

 No Skip to Q16! 

 I don’t remember. Skip to Q16! 

13. How did you get your voter registration/ 

ballot request form? 

 I downloaded the blank form from a 

website 

 I filled-out the form online and printed it 

 I received it from my state/local election 

office 

 I picked it up at the US Embassy/ 

Consulate 

 I used the online IVAS system 

 I registered and/or received a form in 

person 

 I received it in the mail 

 It was faxed to me 

 I received it as an email attachment 

 Other, please specify: 

14. When, in 2006, did you send in your 

voter registration/ballot request form? 

 Between January and July 2006 

 August 

 September 
Appendix A 31

 First half of October 

 Second half of October 

 November 

 I never sent the form 

 I don't remember 

15. How did you send in your voter 

registration/ballot request form? 

 FAX 

 FAX + original form by mail 

 Email 

 Email + original form by mail 

 I used the IVAS service for the DOD 

 Regular Mail 

 Courier / Certified or Express Mail 

 Military Postal Service (APO/FPO) 

 Sent through Consulate/Embassy mail 

pouch 

 In person at my election office 

 I never sent the form 

 Other, please specify: 

16. When did you receive your blank 

ballot for the November 7, 2006 

election? 

 August 

 September 

 First half of October 

 Second half of October 

 The week before the election 

 Election Day 

 After Election Day 

 I don't remember 

17. How was your blank ballot delivered 

to you? 

 FAX 

 Email 

 Downloaded through DOD IVAS service 

 Regular Mail 

 Courier / Certified or Express Mail 

 Military Postal Service (APO/FPO) 

 Other, please specify: 

18. Had you ever received a blank ballot 

in this way before? 
Appendix A 32

 Yes 

 No 

19. How would you describe the way 

you received your blank ballot? 

(check all that apply) 

 Fast 

 Easy 

 Practical 

 Slow 

 Difficult 

 Impractical 

 No opinion 

 Other, please describe: 

20. Did you feel it was a secure way to 

receive your blank ballot? 

 Very secure 

 Secure 

 Neutral 

 Insecure 

 Very insecure 

21. Was the ballot easy to complete? 

 Easy 

 Somewhat easy 

 Neither 

 Somewhat difficult 

 Difficult 

 Don't know 

22. What method did you use to SEND 

IN your VOTED ballot? 

 Email 

 Email + original ballot in mail 

 FAX machine 

 FAX machine + original ballot in mail 

 Internet FAX transmission 

 Internet FAX transmission + original 

ballot in mail 

 Regular Mail 

 Courier / Certified or Express Mail 

 Military Postal Service (APO/FPO) 

 Sent through Consulate/Embassy mail 

pouch 

 I dropped it off or voted at my local 
Appendix A 33

election office in the US 

 Other, please specify: 

If you chose any of the final six answers 

to this question, please complete Q23 - 

Q25 and then skip to Q35. 

If you chose any of the top six answers 

to this question, please continue 

through the survey with no skips. 

23. How would you rate the ease-of-use 

of this way of sending in your voted 

ballot? 

 Easy 

 Somewhat easy 

 Neutral 

 Somewhat difficult 

 Difficult 

24. When did you send in your voted 

ballot for the November 7, 2006 

election? 

 September 

 First half of October 

 Second half of October 

 First week of November 

 Election Day 

 After Election Day 

 I can't remember 

25. How satisfied were you with the 

process of obtaining and casting a ballot 

in 2006? 

 Satisfied 

 Somewhat satisfied 

 Neutral 

 Somewhat dissatisfied 

 Dissatisfied 

After completing the above questions 

23 - 25, please return to Q22 to 

determine where to move to next. 

If you chose any of the top 6 answers to 

Q22, please continue through all 

questions in the survey to the end. 

If you chose any of the bottom 6 answers 
Appendix A 34

to Q22, please skip to Q35 and 

complete the survey from that point. 

26. How would you describe the electronic 

transmission method you used to 

RETURN your voted ballot? 

(check all that apply) 

 Practical 

 User-friendly 

 Logical 

 Well-defined 

 Fast 

 Easy 

 Slow 

 Difficult 

 Hard to understand 

 Other, please describe: 

27. Did you ever use this electronic 

transmission method to send a voted 

ballot in any other election? 

 Yes 

 No 

28. Please rate the ease-of-use of the 

electronic transmission method you 

used to send your voted ballot? 

 Easy 

 Somewhat easy 

 Neutral 

 Somewhat difficult 

 Difficult 

29. If you found this method easy to use, 

please tell us what contributed to that 

ease-of-use. (check all that apply) 

 Clear instructions 

 Easy to understand 

 Fast 

 Handy 

 Good format - easy to see 

 Could use it from my location 

 No travel required 

 Not applicable; I found it difficult to use 

 Other, please specify 

30. Why did you decide to send your 
Appendix A 35

ballot in this way? (check all that apply) 

 It was easy 

 It saved me time 

 I didn't need to travel 

 I thought it was required 

 It was offered 

 It was less expensive 

 To get my ballot back faster 

 It was suggested that I use this method 

 I received an email telling me about it 

 I thought it was safer than regular mail 

 My blank ballot arrived late 

 Other, please specify: 

31. Did you have any problems with the 

electronic transmission method of sending 

your voted ballot? 

(check all that apply) 

 There were too many steps 

 I didn't understand the instructions 

 I wasn't sure if I needed a witness 

 I didn't understand what to do 

 No, I did not have any problems 

 Other, please specify 

32. How satisfied were you with the 

electronic method used to send in your 

voted ballot? 

 Satisfied 

 Somewhat satisfied 

 Neutral 

 Somewhat dissatisfied 

 Dissatisfied 

33. Were you asked to waive (give up) 

the right to a private vote? 

 Yes 

 No 

Additional Comment: 

34. If you did waive your right to a 

private vote, how would you describe 

your feelings about that? 

 Concerned 

 Somewhat concerned 

 Neutral 
Appendix A 36

 Somewhat unconcerned 

 Unconcerned 

 Don't know 

 Not Applicable 

35. Would you send in your voted ballot 

again in the future using the same 

method as you did in the election of 

November 7, 2006? 

 Yes 

 No 

36. How did you find out about the voting 

method you used? (check all that 

apply) 

 Internet Search 

 Got an Email 

 Local Election Official 

 Consulate/Embassy 

 Voting Assistance Officer 

Federal Voter Assistance Program 

 IVAS Website from DOD 

 Newspaper 

 Newsletter 

 State Election Office web site 

 Local Election Office web site 

 Political party 

 Voter organization 

 Can't remember 

 Other, please specify 

37. How did you feel about the security 

of your actual VOTE? 

 Concerned 

 Somewhat concerned 

 Neutral 

 Somewhat unconcerned 

 Unconcerned 

 Don't know 

 Not Applicable 

38. What security concerns did you have 

in regard to your vote? 

(check all that apply) 

 I was not sure my voted ballot actually 

arrived 
Appendix A 37

 I was concerned that my voted ballot 

could get lost 

 I was concerned that someone saw how 

I voted 

 I was concerned someone could change 

my vote 

 I had no concerns 

 Other, please specify 

39. Did you confirm that your ballot 

arrived? 

 Yes, I checked through state or county 

online tracking tool 

 Yes, I contacted my election office 

 No, I did not confirm my ballot arrival 

 Other, please specify 

40. How much time would you estimate 

the entire process of voting took you 

from the time you started till the time 

you sent your voted ballot for November 

7, 2006? 

Include registration/ballot request, 

paperwork processing, phone calls or 

visits to official offices, as applicable to 

you. 

 Less than 2 weeks 

 2 - 4 weeks 

 5 - 6 weeks 

 7 - 8 weeks 

 More than 8 weeks 

 I don't know 

41. What was the TOTAL cost to you to 

return your registration AND ballot materials, 

including postage and any other 

costs? (in $USD) 

 None 

 Under $5 

 $ 5 - $10 

 $10 - $25 

 $25 - $50 

 $50 - $100+ 

 Other, please specify 

42. If you were to send a FAX, what type 
Appendix A 38

of FAX service would you use: (check all 

that apply) 

 FAX machine always available 

 Pay-per-use FAX services 

 Internet FAX program 

 No FAX services available 

 I don't use FAX services 

 Other, please specify 

43. How often do you access the 

Internet? 

 Daily 

 2-3 times a week 

 Once a week 

 Sometimes 

 Almost Never 

 Never 

44. Where do you access the Internet? 

(check all that apply) 

 Home 

 Work 

 Internet Cafe 

 Library 

 Other, please specify 

45. What kind of Internet access location 

do you use: (check all that apply) 

 Public 

 Private 

 Business 

 Other, please specify 

46. In a future election, would you be 

comfortable sending in a voted ballot 

electronically by email, FAX or voting 

online? 

 Yes 

 No 

 Not sure 

 Other, please specify: 

47. What concerns would you have 

about sending in a voted ballot electronically 

by email, FAX or voting 

online? (check all that apply) 
Appendix A 39

 I do not have any concerns about voting 

online 

 I do not have any concerns about voting 

by FAX 

 I do not have any concerns about voting 

by email 

 I have privacy concerns 

 I have security concerns 

 I don't trust the Internet 

 I don't want to share personal information 

on the Internet 

 I'm concerned that my election official 

will see how I voted 

 I'm afraid that people could see how I 

voted 

 Other, please specify 

48. How old were you on November 7, 

2006? 

 18 to 24 years 

 25 to 34 years 

 35 to 44 years 

 45 to 54 years 

 55 to 64 years 

 65 to 74 years 

 75 years and older 

49. Please indicate your gender. 

 Male 

 Female 

50. When did you last live in the US? 

 Less than 1 year ago 

 At least 1 year but less than 2 years ago 

 At least 2 years but less than 5 years 

ago 

 At least 5 year but less than 10 years 

ago 

 10 or more years ago 

 Does not apply - I am active duty / active 

duty family member in the US 

51. What is the highest level of formal 

education you have completed? 

 Some high school 

 High school graduate or GED 
Appendix A 40

 Trade school 

 College or associate’s degree 

 Bachelor’s degree 

 Advanced degree 

 Other, please specify 

52. Did you have to go to the US Embassy 

or Consulate at any time in the 

voting process? 

 Yes 

 No 

53. How often do you go to the US Embassy 

or Consulate related to the voting 

process during an average election 

year? 

 Never 

 Once 

 Twice 

 Three times or more 

 Other, please specify 

54. How long does it take to travel to the 

closest US Consulate/Embassy from 

where you live right now? 

 Less than 1 hour 

 2-3 hours 

 4 or more hours 

55. Please provide other comments or 

suggestions that you may have here: 

2006 EAC UOCAVA Voter Survey 

Thank you for participating in this EAC voter survey. 

Your feedback will contribute to the further development 

and improvement of voter services to overseas citizens 

and military absentee voters. 

Please send your completed replies to: 

Q2 Data & Research, LLC 

Mail Services Office 

217 Bayview Street 

San Rafael, CA 94901 USA 

OMB Control No. 3265-0005 Expiration Date: 5/31/2007
Appendix B 41

APPENDIX B 

Invitation to VAOs 

Dear Chief Voting Assistance Officer: 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has awarded a research contract to our combined 

team, Q2 Data & Research LLC and Overseas Vote Foundation, to conduct a study of military 

and overseas voting processes. One component of the study is a voter survey which asks voters 

about their experiences and preferences with respect to electronic (fax, email, online) 

transmission of voting materials. 

We are contacting you today to ask you to help us increase the number of voters who respond to 

this important survey by forwarding the invitation (below), with the link to access the online 

survey, to the VAO’s in your branch and request that they forward it to the service men and 

women in their units. This would help to increase the reach of the survey and the critical 

feedback from the voters themselves. The responses will be compiled into summary data, and 

contextualized with the use of the case studies to result in a report and recommendations to 

Congress, election administrators, and to the general public. The ultimate intent of the study is to 

improve the ability of military and overseas citizens to vote. 

Below is the text of a survey invitation & survey link which can be “copied and pasted” into an 

email. The invitation is signed by Overseas Vote Foundation who is conducting the on-line 

survey. Attached is a reference copy of the survey for you only, it is not meant to be distributed, 

just the invitation below with the link to the online survey. We invite you to take the survey 

yourself. 

Thanks in advance and please contact us if you have any questions or comments. Any input you 

have about our study is greatly appreciated! 

Bonnie Glaser, Associate 

Q2 Data & Research LLC 

[contact information here] 

Dear Voter: 

We are conducting a survey of military and overseas absentee voters and are inviting you to tell 

us about your experience with voting or trying to vote in the November 2006 election. Please 

take 8-10 minutes to fill out this survey. Your responses are confidential and will be used to 

improve military and overseas voting programs. 
Appendix B 42

This survey is sponsored by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and being conducted by 

the Overseas Vote Foundation and our project partner, Q2 Data & Research, LLC, to study 

overseas and military voting processes. Your feedback will help to influence developments 

which will make it easier for us to participate! 

Please help by sharing your experiences and opinions with us. Only with your feedback can we 

make good recommendations. Thank you in advance for your time. 

We want to hear from both overseas voters AND active duty service members and their spouses 

and dependents currently in the US! 

From your friends at Overseas Vote Foundation 

Please click this link to begin the survey: 

http://www._________________________
Appendix C 43

APPENDIX C 

Multivariate Analysis

Table 1 : Voting 

 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age 0.82*** (0.16) 2.54*** (0.58) 2.07** (0.60) 1.12*** (0.15)

Education 1.00*** (0.18) 1.07* (0.46) 0.93 (0.49) 0.78*** (0.15)

Time abroad 0.38** (0.11) -1.19* (0.46) -1.38** (0.49) 0.26* (0.10)

Female 0.11 (0.07) -0.17 (0.25) -0.04 (0.27) 0.12 (0.06)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad -0.48 (0.28) -0.46 (0.37) -0.12 (0.40) -1.83*** (0.17)

US Citizen, permanently abroad -0.41 (0.28) -0.39 (0.37) 0.04 (0.41) -1.79*** (0.17)

 

Developed country 0.56*** (0.07) 0.70* (0.29) 0.62* (0.31) 0.86*** (0.06)

Voted before 0.17* (0.07) 0.51 (0.27) 0.46 (0.28) 0.26*** (0.07)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.20*** (0.44) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.71*** (0.38) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.29** (0.79) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.65 (0.38) ---- ---- 

Constant -1.70*** (0.31) 0.72 (0.50) -0.54 (0.58) -0.14 (0.20)

 

N 3,834 757 757 4,591 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

Dependent variable coding: 1 = voted, 0 = did not vote. 

 

Table 2: Voting electronically 

 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.80 (0.42) -0.34 (0.62) -0.44 (0.63) -0.68* (0.34)

Education -0.51 (0.45) -0.05 (0.56) 0.01 (0.57) -0.29 (0.35)

Time abroad -0.36 (0.29) -1.69** (0.49) -1.76*** (0.50) -0.70** (0.24)

Female -0.26 (0.19) -0.48 (0.30) -0.46 (0.30) -0.32* (0.16)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 1.12 (1.04) 0.42 (0.36) 0.56 (0.38) 0.22 (0.27)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 1.17 (1.04) 0.34 (0.40) 0.55 (0.43) 0.23 (0.28)

Developed country -0.69*** (0.19) 0.03 (0.33) -0.02 (0.34) -0.50** (0.15)

Voted before -0.13 (0.19) -0.31 (0.29) -0.33 (0.29) -0.19 (0.16)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.01 (0.55) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.34 (0.56) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.89 (0.67) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.72 (0.69) ---- ---- 

Constant -1.99* (1.08) -1.28* (0.59) -1.23 (0.75) -1.11** (0.39)

 

N 1,538 679 679 2,217 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

Dependent variable coding: 1 = voted electronically, 0 = voted, but not electronically. 

 
Appendix C 44

Table 3: Descriptions of method for receiving blank ballot 

 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.69*** (0.15) -0.57* (0.24) -0.57* (0.25) -0.73*** (0.13)

Education 0.41* (0.17) 0.12 (0.23) 0.12 (0.23) 0.41** (0.14)

Time abroad 0.07 (0.11) 0.29 (0.20) 0.34 (0.20) 0.16 (0.09)

Female 0.06 (0.07) 0.13 (0.11) 0.09 (0.11) 0.07 (0.06)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.69* (0.28) -0.10 (0.17) -0.15 (0.17) 0.62*** (0.11)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.67* (0.28) 0.23 (0.16) 0.14 (0.17) 0.66*** (0.11)

Developed country -0.37*** (0.07) -0.17 (0.14) -0.21 (0.14) -0.46*** (0.06)

Voted before -0.26*** (0.07) -0.22 (0.11) -0.22* (0.11) -0.27*** (0.06)

Received ballot electronically -1.03*** (0.18) -0.25 (0.24) -0.26 (0.24) -0.85*** (0.14)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.46* (0.23) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.25 (0.22) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.51 (0.30) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.39 (0.25) ---- ---- 

 

/cut1 0.55 (0.31) 0.72 (0.25) 0.31 (0.32) 0.64 (0.16)

/cut2 0.93 (0.31) 1.23 (0.26) 0.82 (0.32) 1.03 (0.16)

N 1,454 675 675 2,129 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

Dependent variable coding: 0 = "positive" (fast, easy practical, etc.), .5 = "neutral" (no opinion, etc.), 1 = 

"negative" (slow, difficult, impractical, etc.) 

 

Table 4: Ease of completing ballot 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.78*** (0.15) -0.27 (0.21) -0.27 (0.22) -0.63*** (0.12)

Education 0.12 (0.16) -0.03 (0.20) -0.02 (0.20) 0.07 (0.12)

Time abroad 0.15 (0.10) -0.12 (0.18) -0.11 (0.18) 0.11 (0.09)

Female 0.03 (0.06) 0.07 (0.10) 0.02 (0.10) 0.05 (0.05)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.01 (0.25) 0.22 (0.15) 0.08 (0.15) 0.42*** (0.11)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.02 (0.25) 0.59*** (0.15) 0.34* (0.16) 0.51*** (0.11)

Developed country -0.02 (0.06) 0.16 (0.13) 0.13 (0.13) -0.02 (0.05)

Voted before 0.04 (0.07) -0.05 (0.10) -0.06 (0.10) 0.00 (0.05)

Received ballot electronically 0.05 (0.14) 0.24 (0.19) 0.22 (0.19) 0.10 (0.11)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.42 (0.22) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.15 (0.21) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.12 (0.27) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.14 (0.23) ---- ---- 

 

/cut1 0.10 (0.28) 0.68 (0.23) 0.37 (0.30) 0.56 (0.15)

/cut2 0.99 (0.28) 1.83 (0.24) 1.54 (0.30) 1.51 (0.15)

/cut3 1.44 (0.28) 2.20 (0.24) 1.93 (0.31) 1.94 (0.15)

/cut4 2.16 (0.29) 2.86 (0.29) 2.61 (0.34) 2.65 (0.17)

 

N 1,482 671 671 2,153 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

High values of the dependent variable corresponded to feeling the ballot was difficult to complete, low values to 
Appendix C 45

feeling it was easy. 

 

Table 5: Ease of sending ballot 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.83*** (0.13) -0.73*** 0.21 -0.70** (0.21) -0.88*** 0.11 

Education 0.23 (0.15) 0.27 0.19 0.28 (0.20) 0.34** 0.12 

Time abroad -0.03 (0.09) -0.20 0.17 -0.19 (0.17) -0.02 0.08 

Female 0.01 (0.06) -0.02 0.10 -0.06 (0.10) -0.01 0.05 

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.83** (0.25) 0.58*** 0.14 0.45** (0.15) 0.97*** 0.10 

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.89*** (0.25) 0.80*** 0.14 0.59*** (0.15) 1.05*** 0.10 

Developed country -0.26*** (0.06) 0.05 0.12 0.03 (0.12) -0.31*** 0.05 

Voted before -0.10 (0.06) -0.09 0.09 -0.09 (0.10) -0.12* 0.05 

Sent ballot electronically -0.26* (0.11) 0.20 0.19 0.32 (0.20) -0.14 0.10 

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.30 (0.21) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.16 (0.20) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.20 (0.27) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.04 (0.22) ---- ---- 

 

/cut1 0.10 (0.28) 0.60 (0.22) 0.42 (0.28) 0.40 (0.14)

/cut2 0.69 (0.28) 1.26 (0.22) 1.09 (0.29) 1.00 (0.14)

/cut3 1.24 (0.28) 1.89 (0.23) 1.73 (0.29) 1.55 (0.14)

/cut4 2.06 (0.28) 2.76 (0.26) 2.58 (0.32) 2.35 (0.15)

 

N 1,522 672 672 2,194 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

High values of the dependent variable corresponded to feeling the way of sending the ballot was difficult, low 

values to feeling it was easy. 

 

Table 6: Satisfaction with process of getting and sending ballot 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.73*** (0.13) -0.93*** (0.21) -0.92*** (0.21) -0.88*** (0.11)

Education 0.37* (0.15) 0.16 (0.20) 0.16 (0.20) 0.41** (0.12)

Time abroad -0.09 (0.09) -0.05 (0.17) 0.02 (0.18) -0.04 (0.08)

Female -0.06 (0.06) -0.01 (0.10) -0.06 (0.10) -0.06 (0.05)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.53* (0.25) 0.26* (0.14) 0.17 (0.15) 0.75*** (0.10)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.61* (0.25) 0.48** (0.14) 0.31* (0.15) 0.85*** (0.10)

Developed country -0.29*** (0.06) -0.11 (0.12) -0.16 (0.12) -0.39*** (0.05)

Voted before -0.17** (0.06) -0.10 (0.10) -0.11 (0.10) -0.17** (0.05)

Received ballot electronically -0.38** (0.14) -0.02 (0.21) -0.07 (0.21) -0.30* (0.12)

Sent ballot electronically -0.06 (0.13) 0.40 (0.22) 0.51* (0.23) 0.07 (0.11)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.54** (0.21) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.16 (0.20) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.50 (0.27) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.48* (0.22) ---- ---- 

 

/cut1 -0.18 (0.27) 0.22 (0.22) -0.26 (0.28) 0.15 (0.14)

/cut2 0.42 (0.27) 0.86 (0.22) 0.39 (0.28) 0.74 (0.14)

/cut3 0.79 (0.27) 1.30 (0.22) 0.85 (0.28) 1.12 (0.14)
Appendix C 46

/cut4 1.58 (0.27) 1.96 (0.24) 1.51 (0.30) 1.86 (0.14)

 

N 1,495 671 671 2,166 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

High values of the dependent variable corresponded to feeling dissatisfied with the proces of getting and sending 

ballots, and low values to feeling satisfied. 

 

Table 7: Opinions on security of method for receiving ballot 

 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -1.10*** (0.13) -0.65** (0.19) -0.63** (0.19) -0.99*** (0.11)

Education 0.10 (0.15) -0.17 (0.17) -0.16 (0.17) 0.01 (0.11)

Time abroad 0.12 (0.09) 0.22 (0.16) 0.25 (0.16) 0.17* (0.08)

Female -0.02 (0.06) 0.08 (0.09) 0.03 (0.09) 0.01 (0.05)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.07 (0.23) 0.28* (0.13) 0.19 (0.13) 0.46*** (0.09)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.15 (0.23) 0.43** (0.13) 0.27* (0.14) 0.55*** (0.09)

Developed country -0.16** (0.06) 0.05 (0.11) 0.03 (0.11) -0.16** (0.05)

Voted before -0.05 (0.06) -0.04 (0.09) -0.04 (0.09) -0.07 (0.05)

Received ballot electronically -0.75*** (0.13) -0.21 (0.17) -0.22 (0.17) -0.58*** (0.10)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.42 (0.19) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.12 (0.18) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.18 (0.24) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.19 (0.20) ---- ---- 

 

/cut1 -1.38 (0.25) -0.81 (0.20) -1.15 (0.26) -0.97 (0.13)

/cut2 -0.27 (0.25) 0.47 (0.20) 0.14 (0.26) 0.19 (0.13)

/cut3 0.61 (0.25) 1.53 (0.21) 1.21 (0.26) 1.10 (0.13)

/cut4 1.43 (0.26) 2.26 (0.23) 1.93 (0.28) 1.90 (0.14)

 

N 1,495 673 673 2,168 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

High values of the dependent variable corresponded to feeling very secure about the security of the receiving 

method, low values to feeling very insecure. 

 

Table 8: Opinions on security of the actual vote 

 Email sample State sample State effects Combined 

Age -0.76*** (0.13) -0.25 (0.19) -0.22 (0.19) -0.61*** (0.11)

Education 0.04 (0.15) -0.43* (0.17) -0.44* (0.18) -0.15 (0.11)

Time abroad 0.06 (0.09) 0.18 (0.16) 0.20 (0.16) 0.09 (0.08)

Female 0.09 (0.06) 0.17 (0.09) 0.14 (0.09) 0.11* (0.05)

US Citizen, temporarily abroad 0.12 (0.23) 0.40** (0.13) 0.30* (0.13) 0.45*** (0.09)

US Citizen, permanently abroad 0.23 (0.23) 0.34** (0.13) 0.19 (0.14) 0.52*** (0.09)

Developed country 0.07 (0.06) -0.05 (0.11) -0.05 (0.11) 0.01 (0.05)

Voted before -0.05 (0.06) 0.05 (0.09) 0.05 (0.09) -0.03 (0.05)

Sent ballot electronically 0.09 (0.11) 0.33 (0.18) 0.43* (0.18) 0.14 (0.09)

FL ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.12 (0.20) ---- ---- 

IL ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.17 (0.19) ---- ---- 

MT ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.22 (0.25) ---- ---- 

SC ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.24 (0.21) ---- ---- 
Appendix C 47

 

/cut1 -0.66 (0.26) -0.31 (0.20) -0.37 (0.27) -0.37 (0.13)

/cut2 -0.23 (0.26) -0.01 (0.20) -0.06 (0.27) 0.01 (0.13)

/cut3 0.35 (0.26) 0.51 (0.20) 0.46 (0.27) 0.57 (0.13)

/cut4 1.22 (0.26) 1.43 (0.21) 1.39 (0.27) 1.45 (0.13)

 

N 1,495 666 666 2,161 

*** p<.001;** p<.01; * p<.05 

High values of the dependent variable corresponded to feeling unconcerned about the security of the vote, low 

values to feeling concerned. 

Coding of the independent variables in multivariate analyses: 

Age: 0 = ages 18-24; 

 .17 = ages 25-34; 

 .33 = ages 35-44; 

 .50 = ages 45-54; 

 .67 = ages 55-64; 

 .83 = ages 65-74; 

 1 = ages 75 and above;

Education: 0 = some high school;

 .2 = high school diploma or GED 

 .4 = trade school 

 .6 = some college or associate degree 

 .8 = Bachelor’s degree 

 1 = advanced degree 

Time abroad: 0 = less than 1 year; 

 .25 = 1-2 years; 

 .5 = 2-5 years; 

.75 = 5-10 years; 

1 = 10 or more years; 

Female: 0 = male; 

1 = female

US Citizen, temporarily abroad: 0 = not a US citizen temporarily abroad; 

1 = a US citizen temporarily abroad 

US Citizen, permanently abroad: 0 = not a US citizen permanently abroad; 

1 = a US citizen permanently abroad 

Developed country: 0 = not in developed country; 

1 = in developed country 

Voted before: 0 =has not voted in a previous election; 

1 = voted in a previous election

Received ballot electronically: 0 = did not receive ballot electronically; 

1 = did receive ballot electronically 

Sent ballot electronically: 0 = did not send ballot electronically; 

1 = did send ballot electronically 
Appendix D 48

APPENDIX D 

Respondent’s Reported Voting Success by State or Territory 

Note: As discussed in more detail in the body of this report, military voters have higher 

success rates than non-military. Thus a portion of the difference in success rates 

between any two states will be a result of any differences in the percentage of their 

respective populations that are military. 

Table C1, alphabetical. Table C2, by “yes.” Table C3, by “no, but tried.” 

TABLE C1 

 Did you vote - 2006 (by %) 

 no but no. of 

State yes no tried Total respondents

 

Alabama 41.38 24.14 34.48 100 29

Alaska 50 18.75 31.25 100 32

American Samoa 0 66.67 33.33 100 3

Arizona 32.91 30.38 36.71 100 79

Arkansas 31.25 25 43.75 100 16

California 38.73 34.18 27.09 100 550

Colorado 37.25 27.45 35.29 100 102

Connecticut 51.32 32.89 15.79 100 76

Delaware 35.71 35.71 28.57 100 14

District of Columbia 16.67 53.33 30 100 30

Florida 85.25 8.35 6.4 100 1078

Georgia 36.08 41.24 22.68 100 97

Guam 71.43 14.29 14.29 100 7

Hawaii 53.85 34.62 11.54 100 26

Idaho 38.89 44.44 16.67 100 18

Illinois 73.32 17.49 9.19 100 566

Indiana 42.59 33.33 24.07 100 54

Iowa 46.88 34.38 18.75 100 32

Kansas 32.35 52.94 14.71 100 34

Kentucky 43.48 39.13 17.39 100 23

Louisiana 29.27 46.34 24.39 100 41

Maine 50 27.78 22.22 100 18

Maryland 45.13 34.51 20.35 100 113

Massachusetts 38.39 40.18 21.43 100 112

Michigan 27.64 45.53 26.83 100 123

Minnesota 52.5 28.75 18.75 100 80

Mississippi 18.18 45.45 36.36 100 11

Missouri 47.69 32.31 20 100 65

Montana 79.49 10.26 10.26 100 78
Appendix D 49

Nebraska 46.15 30.77 23.08 100 13

Nevada 33.33 25.64 41.03 100 39

New Hampshire 51.72 31.03 17.24 100 29

New Jersey 35.04 41.61 23.36 100 137

New Mexico 40.74 14.81 44.44 100 27

New York 48.34 33.15 18.51 100 362

North Carolina 35.42 43.75 20.83 100 96

North Dakota 16.67 83.33 0 100 6

Ohio 36.92 37.69 25.38 100 130

Oklahoma 51.61 35.48 12.9 100 31

Oregon 52.54 28.81 18.64 100 59

Pennsylvania 43.83 37.65 18.52 100 162

Puerto Rico 14.29 71.43 14.29 100 7

Rhode Island 60 26.67 13.33 100 15

South Carolina 69.95 15.96 14.08 100 213

South Dakota 84.62 7.69 7.69 100 13

Tennessee 52.46 19.67 27.87 100 61

Texas 37.44 39.41 23.15 100 406

Utah 28.57 42.86 28.57 100 21

Vermont 62.5 18.75 18.75 100 16

Virgin Islands 0 50 50 100 2

Virginia 56 29.71 14.29 100 175

Washington 56.44 24.26 19.31 100 202

West Virginia 33.33 50 16.67 100 12

Wisconsin 40.22 39.13 20.65 100 92

Wyoming 28.57 14.29 57.14 100 14

 

Total 54.64 27.23 18.13 100 5847

 3195 1592 1060 

TABLE C2 

 Did you vote - 2006 (by %) 

 no but no. of 

State Yes no tried Total respondents

 

Florida 85.25 8.35 6.4 100 1078

South Dakota 84.62 7.69 7.69 100 13

Montana 79.49 10.26 10.26 100 78

Illinois 73.32 17.49 9.19 100 566

Guam 71.43 14.29 14.29 100 7

South Carolina 69.95 15.96 14.08 100 213

Vermont 62.5 18.75 18.75 100 16

Rhode Island 60 26.67 13.33 100 15

Washington 56.44 24.26 19.31 100 202

Virginia 56 29.71 14.29 100 175

Hawaii 53.85 34.62 11.54 100 26

Oregon 52.54 28.81 18.64 100 59

Minnesota 52.5 28.75 18.75 100 80
Appendix D 50

Tennessee 52.46 19.67 27.87 100 61

New Hampshire 51.72 31.03 17.24 100 29

Oklahoma 51.61 35.48 12.9 100 31

Connecticut 51.32 32.89 15.79 100 76

Alaska 50 18.75 31.25 100 32

Maine 50 27.78 22.22 100 18

New York 48.34 33.15 18.51 100 362

Missouri 47.69 32.31 20 100 65

Iowa 46.88 34.38 18.75 100 32

Nebraska 46.15 30.77 23.08 100 13

Maryland 45.13 34.51 20.35 100 113

Pennsylvania 43.83 37.65 18.52 100 162

Kentucky 43.48 39.13 17.39 100 23

Indiana 42.59 33.33 24.07 100 54

Alabama 41.38 24.14 34.48 100 29

New Mexico 40.74 14.81 44.44 100 27

Wisconsin 40.22 39.13 20.65 100 92

Idaho 38.89 44.44 16.67 100 18

California 38.73 34.18 27.09 100 550

Massachusetts 38.39 40.18 21.43 100 112

Texas 37.44 39.41 23.15 100 406

Colorado 37.25 27.45 35.29 100 102

Ohio 36.92 37.69 25.38 100 130

Georgia 36.08 41.24 22.68 100 97

Delaware 35.71 35.71 28.57 100 14

North Carolina 35.42 43.75 20.83 100 96

New Jersey 35.04 41.61 23.36 100 137

Nevada 33.33 25.64 41.03 100 39

West Virginia 33.33 50 16.67 100 12

Arizona 32.91 30.38 36.71 100 79

Kansas 32.35 52.94 14.71 100 34

Arkansas 31.25 25 43.75 100 16

Louisiana 29.27 46.34 24.39 100 41

Utah 28.57 42.86 28.57 100 21

Wyoming 28.57 14.29 57.14 100 14

Michigan 27.64 45.53 26.83 100 123

Mississippi 18.18 45.45 36.36 100 11

District of Columbia 16.67 53.33 30 100 30

North Dakota 16.67 83.33 0 100 6

Puerto Rico 14.29 71.43 14.29 100 7

American Samoa 0 66.67 33.33 100 3

Virgin Islands 0 50 50 100 2

 

Total 54.64 27.23 18.13 100 5847

 3195 1592 1060 
Appendix D 51

TABLE C3 

 Did you vote - 2006 (by %) 

 no but no. of 

State Yes no tried Total Respondents

 

Wyoming 28.57 14.29 57.14 100 14

Virgin Islands 0 50 50 100 2

New Mexico 40.74 14.81 44.44 100 27

Arkansas 31.25 25 43.75 100 16

Nevada 33.33 25.64 41.03 100 39

Arizona 32.91 30.38 36.71 100 79

Mississippi 18.18 45.45 36.36 100 11

Colorado 37.25 27.45 35.29 100 102

Alabama 41.38 24.14 34.48 100 29

American Samoa 0 66.67 33.33 100 3

Alaska 50 18.75 31.25 100 32

District of Columbia 16.67 53.33 30 100 30

Delaware 35.71 35.71 28.57 100 14

Utah 28.57 42.86 28.57 100 21

Tennessee 52.46 19.67 27.87 100 61

California 38.73 34.18 27.09 100 550

Michigan 27.64 45.53 26.83 100 123

Ohio 36.92 37.69 25.38 100 130

Louisiana 29.27 46.34 24.39 100 41

Indiana 42.59 33.33 24.07 100 54

New Jersey 35.04 41.61 23.36 100 137

Texas 37.44 39.41 23.15 100 406

Nebraska 46.15 30.77 23.08 100 13

Georgia 36.08 41.24 22.68 100 97

Maine 50 27.78 22.22 100 18

Massachusetts 38.39 40.18 21.43 100 112

North Carolina 35.42 43.75 20.83 100 96

Wisconsin 40.22 39.13 20.65 100 92

Maryland 45.13 34.51 20.35 100 113

Missouri 47.69 32.31 20 100 65

Washington 56.44 24.26 19.31 100 202

Vermont 62.5 18.75 18.75 100 16

Minnesota 52.5 28.75 18.75 100 80

Iowa 46.88 34.38 18.75 100 32

Oregon 52.54 28.81 18.64 100 59

Pennsylvania 43.83 37.65 18.52 100 162

New York 48.34 33.15 18.51 100 362

Kentucky 43.48 39.13 17.39 100 23

New Hampshire 51.72 31.03 17.24 100 29

Idaho 38.89 44.44 16.67 100 18

West Virginia 33.33 50 16.67 100 12

Connecticut 51.32 32.89 15.79 100 76

Kansas 32.35 52.94 14.71 100 34

Guam 71.43 14.29 14.29 100 7
Appendix D 52

Virginia 56 29.71 14.29 100 175

Puerto Rico 14.29 71.43 14.29 100 7

South Carolina 69.95 15.96 14.08 100 213

Rhode Island 60 26.67 13.33 100 15

Oklahoma 51.61 35.48 12.9 100 31

Hawaii 53.85 34.62 11.54 100 26

Montana 79.49 10.26 10.26 100 78

Illinois 73.32 17.49 9.19 100 566

South Dakota 84.62 7.69 7.69 100 13

Florida 85.25 8.35 6.4 100 1078

North Dakota 16.67 83.33 0 100 6

 

Total 54.64 27.23 18.13 100 5847

 3195 1592 1060 
Appendix E 53

APPENDIX E 

Frequencies of all Variables 

Were you an overseas citizen or a member of the Uniformed Services, a spouse or dependent of a uniformed 

service member on November 7, 2006? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

U.S. citizen outside 

the U.S. temp 1547 26.3 26.8 26.8 

U.S. citizen outside 

the U.S. prem 2993 50.9 51.9 78.7 

Uniformed service 

member 991 16.9 17.2 95.9 

Spouse/dep. or 

service member 238 4.0 4.1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5769 98.1 100.0 

Missing 999 112 1.9 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 54

On November 7th, in which country were you living or serving? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Active duty in US 984 16.7 17.0 17.0 

Afghanistan 14 .2 .2 17.2 

Albania 1 .0 .0 17.2 

Algeria 1 .0 .0 17.2 

Angola 33 .6 .6 17.8 

Antigua and Barbuda 1 .0 .0 17.8 

Argentina 3 .1 .1 17.9 

Armenia 23 .4 .4 18.3 

Australia 67 1.1 1.2 19.4 

Austria 7 .1 .1 19.6 

Azerbaijan 39 .7 .7 20.2 

Bahamas 3 .1 .1 20.3 

Bahrain 49 .8 .8 21.1 

Belgium 15 .3 .3 21.4 

Belize 1 .0 .0 21.4 

Benin 5 .1 .1 21.5 

Bolivia 5 .1 .1 21.6 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 13 .2 .2 21.8 

Brazil 202 3.4 3.5 25.3 

Brunei Darussalam 6 .1 .1 25.4 

Bulgaria 5 .1 .1 25.5 

Burkina Faso 1 .0 .0 25.5 

Burundi 5 .1 .1 25.6 

Cambodia 2 .0 .0 25.6 

Cameroon 1 .0 .0 25.6 

Canada 137 2.3 2.4 28.0 

Chile 4 .1 .1 28.1 

China 481 8.2 8.3 36.4 

Columbia 4 .1 .1 36.4 

Congo Democratic 

Republic of 1 .0 .0 36.4 

Costa Rica 6 .1 .1 36.5 

Cate d’Ivoire 12 .2 .2 36.7 

Cuba 2 .0 .0 36.8 

Czech Republic 7 .1 .1 36.9 

Denmark 4 .1 .1 37.0 

Djibouti 2 .0 .0 37.0 

Dominican Republic 2 .0 .0 37.0 

East Timor 1 .0 .0 37.1 

Ecuador 5 .1 .1 37.1 

Egypt 4 .1 .1 37.2 

Equatorial Guinea 1 .0 .0 37.2 

Eritrea 4 .1 .1 37.3 

Valid 

Ethiopia 2 .0 .0 37.3 
Appendix E 55

Fiji 

1 .0 .0 37.4 

Finland 71 1.2 1.2 38.6 

France 398 6.8 6.9 45.4 

Georgia 

2 .0 .0 45.5 

Germany 300 5.1 5.2 50.6 

Ghana 

2 .0 .0 50.7 

Greece 243 4.1 4.2 54.9 

Grenada 

1 .0 .0 54.9 

Guatemala 

3 .1 .1 54.9 

Guinea 

1 .0 .0 55.0 

Guinea-Bissau 

2 .0 .0 55.0 

Honduras 

1 .0 .0 55.0 

Hungary 98 1.7 1.7 56.7 

India 

8 .1 .1 56.8 

Indonesia 26 .4 .4 57.3 

Iraq 42 .7 .7 58.0 

Ireland 16 .3 .3 58.3 

Israel 12 .2 .2 58.5 

Italy 65 1.1 1.1 59.6 

Japan 60 1.0 1.0 60.6 

Jordan 59 1.0 1.0 61.7 

Kazakhstan 32 .5 .6 62.2 

Kenya 

4 .1 .1 62.3 

Kiribati 

2 .0 .0 62.3 

Korea, North 

3 .1 .1 62.4 

Korea, South 27 .5 .5 62.8 

Kuwait 18 .3 .3 63.1 

Kyrgyzstan 

1 .0 .0 63.2 

Laos 10 .2 .2 63.3 

Lebanon 135 2.3 2.3 65.7 

Lesotho 

2 .0 .0 65.7 

Liberia 

1 .0 .0 65.7 

Libya 

1 .0 .0 65.7 

Lithuania 25 .4 .4 66.2 

Luxembourg 28 .5 .5 66.6 

Macedonia 33 .6 .6 67.2 

Madagascar 12 .2 .2 67.4 

Malawi 

5 .1 .1 67.5 

Malaysia 132 2.2 2.3 69.8 

Maldives 

3 .1 .1 69.8 

Malta 

1 .0 .0 69.9 

Marshall Islands 

1 .0 .0 69.9 

Mauritania 

5 .1 .1 70.0 

Mexico 69 1.2 1.2 71.2 

Mongolia 19 .3 .3 71.5 

Morocco 62 1.1 1.1 72.5 

Mozambique 17 .3 .3 72.8 
Appendix E 56

Netherlands 21 .4 .4 73.2 

New Zealand 

4 .1 .1 73.3 

Nicaragua 

2 .0 .0 73.3 

Niger 

1 .0 .0 73.3 

Nigeria 

1 .0 .0 73.3 

Norway 

7 .1 .1 73.5 

Oman 42 .7 .7 74.2 

Pakistan 19 .3 .3 74.5 

Panama 62 1.1 1.1 75.6 

Paraguay 

1 .0 .0 75.6 

Peru 

6 .1 .1 75.7 

Philippines 

7 .1 .1 75.8 

Poland 

4 .1 .1 75.9 

Portugal 10 .2 .2 76.1 

Qatar 

3 .1 .1 76.1 

Romania 46 .8 .8 76.9 

Russian Federation 83 1.4 1.4 78.3 

Rwanda 

5 .1 .1 78.4 

Samoa 

1 .0 .0 78.4 

Saudi Arabia 12 .2 .2 78.7 

Senegal 37 .6 .6 79.3 

Serbia 26 .4 .4 79.7 

Singapore 157 2.7 2.7 82.4 

Slovakia 31 .5 .5 83.0 

South Africa 26 .4 .4 83.4 

Spain 210 3.6 3.6 87.0 

Sweden 12 .2 .2 87.3 

Switzerland 30 .5 .5 87.8 

Syria 

1 .0 .0 87.8 

Taiwan 97 1.6 1.7 89.5 

Tajikistan 12 .2 .2 89.7 

Thailand 25 .4 .4 90.1 

Trinidad and Tobago 

1 .0 .0 90.1 

Tunisia 18 .3 .3 90.4 

Turkey 

7 .1 .1 90.6 

Uganda 34 .6 .6 91.1 

Ukraine 

4 .1 .1 91.2 

United Arab Emirates 281 4.8 4.8 96.1 

United Kingdom 138 2.3 2.4 98.4 

Uzbekistan 

7 .1 .1 98.6 

Vietnam 

1 .0 .0 98.6 

Zambia 32 .5 .6 99.1 

Zimbabwe 

1 .0 .0 99.1 

Other 50 .9 .9 100.0 

Total 5799 98.6 100.0 

Missing 999 82 1.4 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 57

In which U.S. state or territory did you vote, or would you have voted, had you been in the U.S. on November 

7, 2006? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Alabama 29 .5 .5 .5 

Alaska 32 .5 .5 1.0 

American Samoa 4 .1 .1 1.1 

Arizona 80 1.4 1.4 2.5 

Arkansas 16 .3 .3 2.8 

California 550 9.4 9.4 12.1 

Colorado 102 1.7 1.7 13.9 

Connecticut 76 1.3 1.3 15.2 

Delaware 14 .2 .2 15.4 

District of Columbia 30 .5 .5 15.9 

Florida 1080 18.4 18.5 34.4 

Georgia 97 1.6 1.7 36.1 

Guam 7 .1 .1 36.2 

Hawaii 26 .4 .4 36.6 

Idaho 18 .3 .3 36.9 

Illinois 567 9.6 9.7 46.6 

Indiana 54 .9 .9 47.5 

Iowa 32 .5 .5 48.1 

Kansas 34 .6 .6 48.7 

Kentucky 23 .4 .4 49.1 

Louisiana 41 .7 .7 49.8 

Maine 18 .3 .3 50.1 

Maryland 113 1.9 1.9 52.0 

Massachusetts 112 1.9 1.9 53.9 

Michigan 123 2.1 2.1 56.0 

Minnesota 80 1.4 1.4 57.4 

Mississippi 11 .2 .2 57.6 

Missouri 65 1.1 1.1 58.7 

Montana 78 1.3 1.3 60.0 

Nebraska 13 .2 .2 60.2 

Nevada 39 .7 .7 60.9 

New Hampshire 29 .5 .5 61.4 

New Jersey 137 2.3 2.3 63.7 

New Mexico 27 .5 .5 64.2 

New York 362 6.2 6.2 70.4 

North Carolina 96 1.6 1.6 72.0 

North Dakota 6 .1 .1 72.1 

Ohio 130 2.2 2.2 74.4 

Oklahoma 31 .5 .5 74.9 

Oregon 59 1.0 1.0 75.9 

Pennsylvania 162 2.8 2.8 78.7 

Valid 

Puerto Rico 7 .1 .1 78.8 
Appendix E 58

Rhode Island 15 .3 .3 79.0 

South Carolina 213 3.6 3.6 82.7 

South Dakota 13 .2 .2 82.9 

Tennessee 61 1.0 1.0 83.9 

Texas 406 6.9 6.9 90.9 

Utah 21 .4 .4 91.2 

Vermont 16 .3 .3 91.5 

Virgin Islands 2 .0 .0 91.5 

Virginia 175 3.0 3.0 94.5 

Washington 202 3.4 3.5 98.0 

West Virginia 12 .2 .2 98.2 

Wisconsin 92 1.6 1.6 99.8 

Wyoming 14 .2 .2 100.0 

Total 5852 99.5 100.0 

999 27 .5 

System 2 .0 

Missing 

Total 29 .5 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 59

 Did you vote? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Yes, I voted 3220 54.8 54.8 54.8 

No, I did not vote or try 1594 27.1 27.1 82.0 

No, I tried but did not 

complete process 1060 18.0 18.0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5874 99.9 100.0 

Missing 999 7 .1 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Voted if had been in U.S. 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Very likely 1976 33.6 75.3 75.3 

Somewhat likely 377 6.4 14.4 89.6 

Neither likely nor unlikely 91 1.5 3.5 93.1 

Somewhat unlikely 51 .9 1.9 95.0 

Very unlikely 130 2.2 5.0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 2625 44.6 100.0 

Missing 999 3256 55.4 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Nonvoters: complete form to register or request ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Yes 648 11.0 24.3 24.3 

No 1684 28.6 63.2 87.6 

I don’t remember 331 5.6 12.4 100.0 

Valid 

Total 2663 45.3 100.0 

Missing 999 3218 54.7 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 60

 Nonvoters: How did you get registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 1 .0 .2 .2 

I downloaded the blank 

form from a website 162 2.8 28.1 28.2 

I filled out the form online 

and printed it 81 1.4 14.0 42.3 

I received it from my state, 

local election office 21 .4 3.6 45.9 

I picked it up at the US 

embassy/consulate 91 1.5 15.8 61.7 

I used the online IVAS 

system 2 .0 .3 62.0 

I registered and/or received 

a form in person 39 .7 6.8 68.8 

I received it in the mail 111 1.9 19.2 88.0 

I received it as an email 

attachment 11 .2 1.9 89.9 

Other, please specify 47 .8 8.1 98.1 

From VAO,VAP,MVR 3 .1 .5 98.6 

From other military person 

or office 2 .0 .3 99.0 

From government 

office/program 4 .1 .7 99.7 

An organization registered 

me/gave me form 1 .0 .2 99.8 

I don’t remember 1 .0 .2 100.0 

Valid 

Total 577 9.8 100.0 

Missing 999 5304 90.2 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Nonvoters: When did you send in registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Between January and July 110 1.9 17.9 17.9 

August 57 1.0 9.3 27.2 

September 69 1.2 11.2 38.4 

1st half of Oct 69 1.2 11.2 49.7 

2nd half of Oct 37 .6 6.0 55.7 

November 3 .1 .5 56.2 

I never sent form 71 1.2 11.6 67.8 

I don’t remember 198 3.4 32.2 100.0 

Valid 

Total 614 10.4 100.0 

Missing 999 5267 89.6 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 61

 Nonvoters: How did you send in registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

FAX 4 .1 .8 .8 

FAX plus original from 

by mail 5 .1 1.0 1.8 

Email 1 .0 .2 2.0 

Email plus original 

form by mail 2 .0 .4 2.4 

I used IVAS service 

for the DOD 1 .0 .2 2.5 

Regular mail 286 4.9 56.1 58.6 

Courier, certified, or 

express mail 2 .0 .4 59.0 

Military Postal Service 

(APO,FPO) 13 .2 2.5 61.6 

In person at my 

election office 35 .6 6.9 68.4 

I never sent the form 103 1.8 20.2 88.6 

Other, please specify 51 .9 10.0 98.6 

Dropped off, left at 

govt. office 3 .1 .6 99.2 

Someone took it to 

election office for me 1 .0 .2 99.4 

I don’t remember 3 .1 .6 100.0 

Valid 

Total 510 8.7 100.0 

Missing 999 5371 91.3 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Voters: complete form to register or request ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Yes 2692 45.8 83.5 83.5 

No 387 6.6 12.0 95.5 

I don’t remember 146 2.5 4.5 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3225 54.8 100.0 

Missing 999 2656 45.2 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 62

 Voters: How did you get registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

I downloaded the blank 

form from a website 362 6.2 13.6 13.6 

I filled out the form online 

and printed it 238 4.0 8.9 22.6 

I received it from my state, 

local election office 844 14.4 31.7 54.3 

I picked it up at the US 

embassy/consulate 112 1.9 4.2 58.5 

I used the online IVAS 

system 27 .5 1.0 59.5 

I registered and/or received 

a form in person 120 2.0 4.5 64.0 

I received it in the mail 736 12.5 27.7 91.7 

It was faxed to me 11 .2 .4 92.1 

I received it as an email 

attachment 57 1.0 2.1 94.2 

Other, please specify 81 1.4 3.0 97.3 

From VAO,VAP,MVR 31 .5 1.2 98.5 

From other military person 

or office 7 .1 .3 98.7 

From government 

office/program 4 .1 .2 98.9 

Completed and sent all 

online 3 .1 .1 99.0 

Wrote letter to election 

official 3 .1 .1 99.1 

Emailed election official 2 .0 .1 99.2 

Phoned election official 11 .2 .4 99.6 

Already registered in 

previous year and 

automatically get ballot 

2 .0 .1 99.7 

An organization registered 

me/gave me form 5 .1 .2 99.8 

I don’t remember 4 .1 .2 100.0 

Valid 

Total 2660 45.2 100.0 

Missing 999 3221 54.8 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 63

 Voters: When did you send in registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Between January and July 593 10.1 22.4 22.4 

August 233 4.0 8.8 31.2 

September 351 6.0 13.3 44.5 

1st half of Oct 333 5.7 12.6 57.1 

2nd half of Oct 168 2.9 6.4 63.5 

November 60 1.0 2.3 65.7 

I never sent form 102 1.7 3.9 69.6 

I don’t remember 804 13.7 30.4 100.0 

Valid 

Total 2644 45.0 100.0 

Missing 999 3237 55.0 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Voters: How did you send in registration/ballot request? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 1 .0 .0 .0 

FAX 16 .3 .6 .7 

FAX plus original from 

by mail 25 .4 1.0 1.7 

Email 90 1.5 3.6 5.3 

Email plus original form 

by mail 42 .7 1.7 6.9 

I used IVAS service for 

the DOD 12 .2 .5 7.4 

Regular mail 1716 29.2 68.3 75.7 

Courier, certified, or 

express mail 133 2.3 5.3 81.0 

Military Postal Service 

(APO,FPO) 159 2.7 6.3 87.3 

Sent through 

consulate/embassy 

mail pouch 

107 1.8 4.3 91.6 

In person at my 

election office 136 2.3 5.4 97.0 

I never sent the form 64 1.1 2.5 99.5 

Other, please specify 5 .1 .2 99.7 

Dropped off, left at 

govt. office 5 .1 .2 99.9 

I don’t remember 2 .0 .1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 2513 42.7 100.0 

999 3263 55.5 

System 105 1.8 

Missing 

Total 3368 57.3 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 64

 When did you receive blank ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 2 .0 .1 .1 

Between January and July 114 1.9 3.6 3.7 

August 474 8.1 15.1 18.7 

September 886 15.1 28.2 46.9 

1st half of Oct 525 8.9 16.7 63.6 

2nd half of Oct 212 3.6 6.7 70.3 

November 27 .5 .9 71.2 

I never sent form 39 .7 1.2 72.4 

I don’t remember 868 14.8 27.6 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3147 53.5 100.0 

Missing 999 2734 46.5 

Total 5881 100.0 

 How was ballot delivered to you? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 1 .0 .0 .0 

FAX 5 .1 .2 .2 

Email 120 2.0 3.8 4.0 

Downloaded regularly 

through DOD IVAS service 23 .4 .7 4.7 

Regular mail 2574 43.8 81.9 86.6 

Courier, certified, express 

mail 71 1.2 2.3 88.9 

Military Postal Service 203 3.5 6.5 95.3 

Other, please specify 107 1.8 3.4 98.7 

Received more than one 

ballot 2 .0 .1 98.8 

Picked up at local election 

office 20 .3 .6 99.4 

Voted locally, not absentee 11 .2 .3 99.8 

It never arrived 5 .1 .2 99.9 

I don’t remember 2 .0 .1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3144 53.5 100.0 

Missing 999 2737 46.5 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 65

 Had you received ballot this way before? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Yes 2448 41.6 77.9 77.9

No 695 11.8 22.1 100.0

7 1 .0 .0 100.0

Valid 

Total 3144 53.5 100.0

Missing 999 2737 46.5

Total 5881 100.0

 Was the way you received ballot secure? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

very secure 613 10.4 19.4 19.4

secure 1347 22.9 42.6 62.0

neutral 820 13.9 25.9 87.9

insecure 288 4.9 9.1 97.0

very insecure 95 1.6 3.0 100.0

Valid 

Total 3163 53.8 100.0

999 2716 46.2

System 2 .0

Missing 

Total 2718 46.2

Total 5881 100.0

 Was ballot easy to complete? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

easy 2032 34.6 64.1 64.1 

somewhat easy 806 13.7 25.4 89.5 

neither 167 2.8 5.3 94.8 

somewhat difficult 110 1.9 3.5 98.2 

difficult 28 .5 .9 99.1 

don’t know 28 .5 .9 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3171 53.9 100.0 

999 2709 46.1 

System 1 .0 

Missing 

Total 2710 46.1 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 66

 How did you send in your ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Email 25 .4 .8 .8 

Email plus original ballot in 

mail 22 .4 .7 1.5 

FAX 65 1.1 2.0 3.5 

FAX plus original ballot in 

mail 45 .8 1.4 4.9 

Internet FAX 1 .0 .0 4.9 

Internet FAX plus original 

ballot in mail 2 .0 .1 5.0 

Regular mail 2226 37.9 69.1 74.1 

Courier, certified, express 

mail 282 4.8 8.8 82.9 

Military Postal Service 208 3.5 6.5 89.3 

Embassy, consulate mail 

pouch 144 2.4 4.5 93.8 

Dropped off or voted at 

local election office in US 112 1.9 3.5 97.3 

Other, please specify 76 1.3 2.4 99.6 

Another person took to US 

and mailed for me 4 .1 .1 99.8 

Sent through employer 1 .0 .0 99.8 

Never received blank ballot 

1 .0 .0 99.8 

I never sent it 3 .1 .1 99.9 

Fax plus phone call 

verification 1 .0 .0 99.9 

1207 1 .0 .0 100.0 

20407 1 .0 .0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3220 54.8 100.0 

Missing 999 2661 45.2 

Total 5881 100.0 

 How easy was the way you sent ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

easy 1665 28.3 52.6 52.6 

somewhat easy 632 10.7 20.0 72.6 

neither 429 7.3 13.6 86.1 

somewhat difficult 323 5.5 10.2 96.3 

difficult 117 2.0 3.7 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3166 53.8 100.0 

999 2713 46.1 

System 2 .0 

Missing 

Total 2715 46.2 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 67

 When did you send in your ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

September 200 3.4 6.4 6.4 

1st half of Oct 593 10.1 19.0 25.4 

2nd half of Oct 1210 20.6 38.7 64.0 

1st week of Nov 432 7.3 13.8 77.8 

Election Day 72 1.2 2.3 80.1 

After Election Day 25 .4 .8 80.9 

I cant remember 596 10.1 19.1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3128 53.2 100.0 

Missing 999 2753 46.8 

Total 5881 100.0 

 How satisfied were you with process of obtaining and casting a ballot? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

satisfied 1648 28.0 51.9 51.9 

somewhat satisfied 618 10.5 19.5 71.4 

neutral 322 5.5 10.1 81.5 

somewhat dissatisfied 387 6.6 12.2 93.7 

dissatisfied 200 3.4 6.3 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3175 54.0 100.0 

Missing 999 2706 46.0 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Used the electronic transmission method before? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

yes 35 .6 15.6 15.6

no 190 3.2 84.4 100.0

Valid 

Total 225 3.8 100.0

Missing 999 5656 96.2

Total 5881 100.0
Appendix E 68

 Rate the ease of electronic transmission method 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

easy 81 1.4 43.8 43.8 

somewhat easy 40 .7 21.6 65.4 

neither 36 .6 19.5 84.9 

somewhat difficult 21 .4 11.4 96.2 

difficult 7 .1 3.8 100.0 

Valid 

Total 185 3.1 100.0 

Missing 999 5696 96.9 

Total 5881 100.0 

 How satisfied with electronic transmission method? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

satisfied 77 1.3 43.0 43.0 

somewhat satisfied 39 .7 21.8 64.8 

neutral 33 .6 18.4 83.2 

somewhat dissatisfied 18 .3 10.1 93.3 

dissatisfied 12 .2 6.7 100.0 

Valid 

Total 179 3.0 100.0 

Missing 999 5702 97.0 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Were you asked to give up right to private vote? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

yes 62 1.1 30.5 30.5 

no 138 2.3 68.0 98.5 

I don’t remember 3 .1 1.5 100.0 

Valid 

Total 203 3.5 100.0 

Missing 999 5678 96.5 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 69

 If you waived right to private vote, how concerned are you about that? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

concerned 30 .5 19.5 19.5 

somewhat concerned 20 .3 13.0 32.5 

neutral 14 .2 9.1 41.6 

somewhat unconcerned 6 .1 3.9 45.5 

unconcerned 22 .4 14.3 59.7 

don’t know 2 .0 1.3 61.0 

not applicable 60 1.0 39.0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 154 2.6 100.0 

Missing 999 5727 97.4 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Would you use sending method again? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

yes 2902 49.3 92.7 92.7

no 229 3.9 7.3 100.0

Valid 

Total 3131 53.2 100.0

Missing 999 2750 46.8

Total 5881 100.0

 How did you feel about security of your vote? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

concerned 271 4.6 8.6 8.6 

somewhat concerned 686 11.7 21.7 30.2 

neutral 628 10.7 19.8 50.1 

somewhat unconcerned 413 7.0 13.0 63.1 

unconcerned 1132 19.2 35.8 98.9 

don’t know 36 .6 1.1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3166 53.8 100.0 

999 2702 45.9 

System 13 .2 

Missing 

Total 2715 46.2 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 70

 Did you confirm that your ballot arrived? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 2 .0 .1 .1 

Yes, I checked through 

state or county online 

tracking tool 

52 .9 1.7 1.7 

Yes, I contacted by 

election office 117 2.0 3.7 5.5 

3 2746 46.7 87.5 93.0 

4 126 2.1 4.0 97.0 

5 12 .2 .4 97.4 

6 2 .0 .1 97.4 

7 6 .1 .2 97.6 

8 3 .1 .1 97.7 

9 4 .1 .1 97.9 

10 38 .6 1.2 99.1 

11 9 .2 .3 99.4 

12 8 .1 .3 99.6 

16 1 .0 .0 99.6 

102 1 .0 .0 99.7 

310 4 .1 .1 99.8 

3010 3 .1 .1 99.9 

39173 1 .0 .0 99.9 

39180 1 .0 .0 100.0 

304010 1 .0 .0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3137 53.3 100.0 

Missing 999 2744 46.7 

Total 5881 100.0 

 How long was voting process? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

less than 2 wks 1107 18.8 35.3 35.3 

2-4 weeks 689 11.7 22.0 57.3 

5-6 weeks 327 5.6 10.4 67.8 

7-8 weeks 205 3.5 6.5 74.3 

more than 8 wks 383 6.5 12.2 86.5 

I don’t know 422 7.2 13.5 100.0 

Valid 

Total 3133 53.3 100.0 

Missing 999 2748 46.7 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 71

 Total cost of voting? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

none 1060 18.0 33.8 33.8

under $5 1367 23.2 43.6 77.4

$5-10 434 7.4 13.8 91.2

$10-25 156 2.7 5.0 96.2

$25-50 83 1.4 2.6 98.8

$50-100+ 37 .6 1.2 100.0

Valid 

Total 3137 53.3 100.0

999 2742 46.6

System 2 .0

Missing 

Total 2744 46.7

Total 5881 100.0

 How often access internet? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

daily 5310 90.3 91.1 91.1 

2-3 times per week 323 5.5 5.5 96.6 

once a week 78 1.3 1.3 98.0 

sometimes 57 1.0 1.0 99.0 

almost never 30 .5 .5 99.5 

never 31 .5 .5 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5829 99.1 100.0 

Missing 999 52 .9 

Total 5881 100.0 

Would you feel comfortable sending in a voted ballot electronically by email, FAX or voting online? (Q46) 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

yes 4566 77.6 78.6 78.6 

no 424 7.2 7.3 85.9 

not sure 685 11.6 11.8 97.6 

other, please specify 111 1.9 1.9 99.6 

yes, by email 8 .1 .1 99.7 

yes, by fax 3 .1 .1 99.7 

yes, online voting 10 .2 .2 99.9 

no, by email 1 .0 .0 99.9 

no, on-line voting 1 .0 .0 99.9 

not sure about email 1 .0 .0 100.0 

not sure about online 

voting 2 .0 .0 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5812 98.8 100.0 

Missing 999 69 1.2 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 72

 Age 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

18-24 374 6.4 6.5 6.5

25-34 1176 20.0 20.5 27.0

35-44 1607 27.3 28.0 54.9

45-54 1326 22.5 23.1 78.0

55-64 859 14.6 14.9 92.9

65-74 326 5.5 5.7 98.6

74+ 80 1.4 1.4 100.0

Valid 

Total 5748 97.7 100.0

Missing 999 133 2.3

Total 5881 100.0

 Gender 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Male 3381 57.5 59.2 59.2

Female 2330 39.6 40.8 100.0

Valid 

Total 5711 97.1 100.0

Missing 999 170 2.9

Total 5881 100.0

 When last lived in the U.S.? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

less than 1 year ago 812 13.8 14.1 14.1 

1-2 years ago 578 9.8 10.1 24.2 

2-5 years ago 1124 19.1 19.6 43.8 

5-10 years ago 902 15.3 15.7 59.5 

10+ years ago 1377 23.4 24.0 83.5 

does not apply 950 16.2 16.5 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5743 97.7 100.0 

999 137 2.3 

System 1 .0 

Missing 

Total 138 2.3 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 73

 Education 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Some HS 5 .1 .1 .1 

HS or GED 360 6.1 6.3 6.4 

trade school 89 1.5 1.6 7.9 

college or ass. degree 650 11.1 11.3 19.3 

BA 1882 32.0 32.9 52.1 

Advanced degree 2741 46.6 47.9 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5727 97.4 100.0 

999 139 2.4 

System 15 .3 

Missing 

Total 154 2.6 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Did you have to visit consulate or embassy? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Yes 709 12.1 12.7 12.7

No 4858 82.6 87.3 100.0

Valid 

Total 5567 94.7 100.0

Missing 999 314 5.3

Total 5881 100.0

 How often do you go to consulate or embassy for voting process matters? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

Never 4678 79.5 82.9 82.9 

Once 596 10.1 10.6 93.4 

Twice 155 2.6 2.7 96.2 

Three times + 53 .9 .9 97.1 

other, please specify 153 2.6 2.7 99.8 

went during earlier 

election 1 .0 .0 99.8 

go regularly 5 .1 .1 99.9 

I don’t know 4 .1 .1 100.0 

Valid 

Total 5645 96.0 100.0 

Missing 999 236 4.0 

Total 5881 100.0 
Appendix E 74

 How long to consulate or embassy? 

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 21 .4 .4 .4

Less than 1hr 3225 54.8 63.8 64.2

2-3 hrs 1036 17.6 20.5 84.7

4 hrs+ 775 13.2 15.3 100.0

Valid 

Total 5057 86.0 100.0 

Missing 999 824 14.0 

Total 5881 100.0 

 Voting History (Q4) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

was, would have been first 

time voting as overseas 

citizen 

1444 15.1% 24.7%

was, would have been first 

time voting as military, 

spouse, dep 

180 1.9% 3.1%

voted before as overseas 

citizen 2618 27.4% 44.8%

voted before as military, 

spouse, dep 1140 11.9% 19.5%

voted before locally in US 3209 33.5% 54.9%

voted before as domestic 

absentee in US 883 9.2% 15.1%

Q4(a) 

I don’t remember 94 1.0% 1.6%

Total 9568 100.0% 163.8%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 Non-voters: Why didn’t you vote? (Q6) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

my ballot did not arrive 362 8.8% 13.9%

my ballot was late 252 6.1% 9.7%

my ballot arrived while I 

was traveling 69 1.7% 2.6%

my ballot arrived while I 

was on duty somewhere 

else 

21 .5% .8%

I moved and my ballot was 

sent to my old address 55 1.3% 2.1%

Q6(a) 

I forgot to send my ballot 58 1.4% 2.2%
Appendix E 75

My voter registration/ballot 

request was denied 36 .9% 1.4%

I missed the registration 

deadline 542 13.2% 20.8%

I thought I was registered, 

but wasn’t 214 5.2% 8.2%

My address changed 153 3.7% 5.9%

I could not meet my states 

notarization requirements 48 1.2% 1.8%

I could not meet my states 

witness requirements 17 .4% .7%

I did not know what I 

needed to do to register 

and vote 

748 18.2% 28.7%

I didn’t think my vote would 

matter 177 4.3% 6.8%

I found the process too 

complicated 572 14.0% 22.0%

I lacked candidate 

information 361 8.8% 13.9%

I had no interest in voting 216 5.3% 8.3%

Other, please specify 

1 .0% .0%

Too difficult complete 

process (time) 43 1.0% 1.7%

I had no time or was 

busy/away/traveling 28 .7% 1.1%

I didn’t know I needed to 

re-register 

4 .1% .2%

I could not register (afford, 

not online, no address) 43 1.0% 1.7%

county did not respond to 

my ballot request 

6 .1% .2%

I lacked information on 

issues 13 .3% .5%

problem with ballot 

8 .2% .3%

I mailed ballot too late 

6 .1% .2%

I don’t remember 

2 .0% .1%

Only vote in Pres. elections 

28 .7% 1.1%

Only vote on federal 

elections 

7 .2% .3%

No interest in what was on 

Nov. ballot 

9 .2% .3%

Total 4099 100.0% 157.4%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 76

 How would you describe the way you received your blank ballot? (Q19) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

Fast 910 17.4% 29.1%

Easy 1599 30.6% 51.2%

Practical 1471 28.1% 47.1%

Slow 537 10.3% 17.2%

Difficult 174 3.3% 5.6%

Impractical 253 4.8% 8.1%

No opinion 241 4.6% 7.7%

Other, please describe 3 .1% .1%

Fine,okay,average 2 .0% .1%

preferred mail ballot, more 

secure 3 .1% .1%

upsetting 8 .2% .3%

worried it wouldn’t arrive in 

time 5 .1% .2%

inefficient because 

detoured 3 .1% .1%

prefer to get ballot through 

email or online OR regular 

mail, fax is antiquated 4 .1% .1%

mailed ballot is insecure 1 .0% .0%

emailed or faxed ballot 

was hard to read 1 .0% .0%

blank ballot never arrived 7 .1% .2%

Q19(a

) 

voted locally, not absentee 7 .1% .2%

Total 5229 100.0% 167.4%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 77

How would you describe the electronic transmission method you used to RETURN your voted ballot? (Q26) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

practical 110 23.4% 61.1%

user-friendly 73 15.5% 40.6%

logical 55 11.7% 30.6%

well-defined 38 8.1% 21.1%

fast 73 15.5% 40.6%

easy 74 15.7% 41.1%

slow 8 1.7% 4.4%

difficult 18 3.8% 10.0%

hard to understand 9 1.9% 5.0%

very good 1 .2% .6%

would prefer emailing 

voted ballot to faxing 1 .2% .6%

unsure of receipt 1 .2% .6%

hard to read ballot 2 .4% 1.1%

Q26(a

) 

didn’t use electronic 

method 8 1.7% 4.4%

Total 471 100.0% 261.7%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

If you found this method easy to use, please tell us what contributed to that ease-of-use (Q29) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

clear instructions 61 17.3% 43.0%

easy to understand 53 15.0% 37.3%

fast 56 15.9% 39.4%

handy 41 11.6% 28.9%

good format - easy to see 20 5.7% 14.1%

could use it from my 

location 54 15.3% 38.0%

no travel required 54 15.3% 38.0%

not applicable, found 

difficult 11 3.1% 7.7%

Q29(a

) 

I didn’t use electronic 

method 3 .8% 2.1%

Total 353 100.0% 248.6%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 78

 Why did you decide to send your ballot in this way? (Q30) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

It was easy 64 16.6% 40.8%

it saved my time 64 16.6% 40.8%

I didn’t need to travel 53 13.8% 33.8%

I thought it was required 10 2.6% 6.4%

it was offered 47 12.2% 29.9%

it was less expensive 19 4.9% 12.1%

to get my ballot back 

faster 55 14.3% 35.0%

method was suggested 24 6.2% 15.3%

an email told me about it 8 2.1% 5.1%

safer than regular mail 8 2.1% 5.1%

blank ballot arrived late 21 5.5% 13.4%

my blank ballot never 

arrived 1 .3% .6%

expediency, appropriate 1 .3% .6%

practical, convenient 1 .3% .6%

with this method waived 

another requirement 4 1.0% 2.5%

Q30(a

) 

I didn’t use electronic 

method 5 1.3% 3.2%

Total 385 100.0% 245.2%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

Did you have any problems with the electronic transmission method of sending your voted ballot? (Q31) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

Too many steps 9 5.7% 5.9%

Wasn’t sure if needed 

a witness 7 4.4% 4.6%

Didn’t understand 

what to do 5 3.1% 3.3%

No problems 51 32.1% 33.6%

other, please specify 81 50.9% 53.3%

method is insecure 1 .6% .7%

hard to read ballot 1 .6% .7%

Q31(a

) 

didn’t use electronic 

method 4 2.5% 2.6%

Total 159 100.0% 104.6%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 79

 How did you find out about the voting method you used? (Q36) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

Internet search 502 12.7% 16.9%

got an email 213 5.4% 7.2%

local election official 681 17.3% 23.0%

consulate/embassy 510 12.9% 17.2%

voting assistance officer 380 9.6% 12.8%

Federal Voter Assistance 

Program 172 4.4% 5.8%

IVAS website from DOD 38 1.0% 1.3%

newspaper 59 1.5% 2.0%

newsletter 48 1.2% 1.6%

State Election Office web 

site 254 6.4% 8.6%

Local Election Office web 

site 177 4.5% 6.0%

political party 160 4.1% 5.4%

voter organization 177 4.5% 6.0%

cant remember 393 10.0% 13.2%

other, please specify 6 .2% .2%

already knew, common 

sense, general 

knowledge 

64 1.6% 2.2%

ballot came unsolicited, 

automatically 19 .5% .6%

I am, was a VAO 2 .1% .1%

received notice, info in 

mail 15 .4% .5%

sought info 10 .3% .3%

heard on radio or tv 2 .1% .1%

through family, friend 39 1.0% 1.3%

through other 

organization 9 .2% .3%

through military, 

commanding officer 5 .1% .2%

directions included with 

ballot 2 .1% .1%

Q36(a

) 

state election office, 

agency, official 3 .1% .1%

Total 3940 100.0% 132.8%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 80

 What security concerns did you have in regard to your vote? (Q38) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

not sure ballot arrived 1536 33.2% 50.0%

concerned ballot could get 

lost 1206 26.1% 39.2%

concerned someone saw 

how I voted 260 5.6% 8.5%

concerned someone could 

change my vote 370 8.0% 12.0%

no concerns 1136 24.6% 36.9%

other, pleas specify 18 .4% .6%

concerned not counted 74 1.6% 2.4%

concerned about voter 

fraud 7 .2% .2%

didn’t like having personal 

info on envelope 2 .0% .1%

concerned ballot opened 

en route 2 .0% .1%

concerned based on 

reputation of location and 

officials 

3 .1% .1%

not sure if ballot would 

arrive on time 4 .1% .1%

concern problem 

processing ballot 2 .0% .1%

Q38(a

) 

concern about security of 

fax line 1 .0% .0%

Total 4621 100.0% 150.3%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 81

 If you were to send a FAX, what type of FAX service would you use (Q42) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

FAX machine always 

available 2724 45.4% 49.2%

pay-per-use FAX machine 725 12.1% 13.1%

Internet FAX services 636 10.6% 11.5%

no FAX services available 372 6.2% 6.7%

don’t use FAX services 1493 24.9% 27.0%

other, please specify 2 .0% .0%

fax through computer 5 .1% .1%

home, personal FAX 

machine 7 .1% .1%

work FAX machine 17 .3% .3%

limited FAX availability 8 .1% .1%

barrow FAX from friend or 

office 4 .1% .1%

cant fax, don’t know how 3 .0% .1%

Q42(a

) 

would not fax ballot 9 .1% .2%

Total 6005 100.0% 108.5%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 Where do you access the Internet? (Q44) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

home 5310 50.3% 91.6%

work 4014 38.0% 69.3%

internet cafe 687 6.5% 11.9%

library 476 4.5% 8.2%

other, please specify 8 .1% .1%

PDA or other mobile 

device 12 .1% .2%

hotel, airport, business 

center 14 .1% .2%

school, university 9 .1% .2%

friends, family house, 

computer 18 .2% .3%

wireless hotspot 4 .0% .1%

office of specific 

organization 3 .0% .1%

military internet 3 .0% .1%

Q44(a

) 

don’t have internet access 6 .1% .1%

Total 10564 100.0% 182.3%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 82

 What kind of Internet access location do you use (Q45) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

public 1660 16.5% 28.8%

private 5133 51.2% 89.0%

business 3229 32.2% 56.0%

Q45(a

) 

other, please specify 12 .1% .2%

Total 10034 100.0% 174.0%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 

 Case Summary for Q47 (next page) 

Cases 

Valid Missing Total 

 N Percent N Percent N Percent 

$Q47(

a) 5599 95.2% 282 4.8% 5881 100.0%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. 
Appendix E 83

What concerns would you have about sending in a voted ballot electronically by email, FAX or voting online? 

(Q47) 

Responses 

Percent of 

Cases 

 N Percent N 

do not have concerns 

about voting online 3180 27.2% 56.8%

do not have concerns 

about voting by FAX 1092 9.3% 19.5%

do not have concerns 

about voting by email 1670 14.3% 29.8%

I have privacy concerns 1430 12.2% 25.5%

I have security concerns 1977 16.9% 35.3%

I don’t trust the internet 425 3.6% 7.6%

I don’t want to share 

personal info on internet 862 7.4% 15.4%

concerned my election 

official will see how I voted 411 3.5% 7.3%

afraid people could see 

how I voted 518 4.4% 9.3%

other, please specify 4 .0% .1%

concerns about voting 

online 22 .2% .4%

concerns about voting by 

fax 15 .1% .3%

concerns about voting by 

email 10 .1% .2%

OK if can assure privacy 

of vote 1 .0% .0%

OK if can resolve security 

issues 26 .2% .5%

concern about vote being 

received OR ok with 

verification 

40 .3% .7%

conditional support of 

voting online 4 .0% .1%

conditional support of 

voting by fax 1 .0% .0%

conditional support of 

voting by email 1 .0% .0%

access to online 10 .1% .2%

access to fax 1 .0% .0%

Q47(a

) 

access to email 5 .0% .1%

Total 11705 100.0% 209.1%

a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.