The Desk Research
Presentation
Mariam Darchiashvili
Chavchavadze State
University, Georgia
Content

Introducing the university

Discussing problems in election surveys

Assuming Georgian voters’ profile along
with statistical data
Some facts and figures about the university:










200 professors, 110 researchers, 8000 students
10 faculties, 2 colleges
Best annual research rate among Georgian universities and institutions
More than 30 active research projects
Highest annual salary rates among high education of Georgia
14% of the annual consolidated budget allocated for research
International peer reviewed publications
Internationally recognized textbooks translated into Georgian
Partnership with the following universities and research centers: University
of Idaho; Zoological Museum of Bonn; Free University of Brussels;
University of Limerick, Ireland; Suleiman Demirel University, Turkey;
Vilnius College of Higher Education, Lithuania; Universidad Autonoma de
Madrid, Spain; University of Groningen, Netherlands; University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, USA; Center for Science and Technologies in Ukraine;
University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania; University of California - Berkley
(Research project in Biophysics); Johns Hopkins University; University of
Vienna; Max Planck Institute –Berlin; University of Pennsylvania etc.
2 Marine Research Centers
Brief Introduction of
Chavchavadze State University
Ilia
Chavchavadze
State
University
(Iliauni)
was
established in 2006 on the basis
of two higher educational
institutions - Ilia Chavchavadze
State University for Language
and Culture and Sulkhan Saba
Orbeliani State Pedagogical
University. Although founded as
recently as in 2006, Iliauni has
been implementing a number of
large-scale
projects
and
programs in the fields of social
sciences,
humanities
and
natural sciences.
List of the researches and studies carried
out at Chavchvadze State University:
• Caucasus Biodiversity research using
Molecular-Genomic Methods;
• Astronomic and Astrophysical studies (including
Archeo-astronomy, only in the Black Sea and
Caucasus region);
• Seismic Researches of Georgia and Caucasus
region;
• Researches in Black Sea Biology and
Archeology;
• Metal and Bacteria interrelations (with Berkley
University Biophysics Lab);
• Regional studies:
Caucasus and the Black Sea;
Security Studies;
• Identity Studies:
Black Sea Identity Study with annual international
conference;
Soviet Studies;
Study of political theology in Georgia - history
and nowadays;
Study of sexual behavior in Georgia.
Problems in Political/Election
surveys
Difficulties regarding political/election surveys are generally
related to the fact that there are two international
organizations in Georgia IRI (International Republican
Institute) and NDI (National Democratic Institute) who
mainly conduct such surveys in the way that they request
local research centers for fieldworks. The problem is that
such donor organizations hold ownership on surveys and
leave a lot of significant information private.
Political parties also conduct election surveys, but in this
case also occurs the accessibility issue. They release
results with no farther clarification and elaboration. Thus,
one can hardly deal with methodology and sampling of
such surveys.
Problems during political/election
surveys
In contrast with other type of surveys it is common that
respondents reject participating in political/election surveys.
They appear to be more open and sincere in social, marketing
type of surveys rather than political ones. Respondents
especially avoid rating politicians or showing their political
sympathy. It can be assumed that today people in Georgia are
preoccupied with politics at least partially caused by media or
continuous street actions.
For receiving the desired information out of the survey there is
a need of well trained interviewers as well as well composed
questionnaires. Sociologist work hard that questions started
with general issues for preparing respondents for more
concretization.
How rejection on interviews affects the
quality of the survey
Generally rejection on interviews does not affect the
survey very much, since interviewers move towards other
respondents with pre-determined Step Size. It is a
regulated issue.
Despite the fact that respondents are not fond of speaking
about politics there are many ways of persuading them.
Most importantly interviewers must be trained and
prepared for all types of respondents. They must have
skills of gaining trust with relevant tone and spirit.
Determining respondents as participants of
elections
There is a group of questions in the questionnaire
analyzing of which leads us to logical conclusions
whether certain respondent will participate in elections
or not.
It is common that respondent avoids direct question
as whether he/she will vote, but other questions
defining his/her political attitudes/behaviors help us
find out about his/her electoral decisions. With direct
questions it is often impossible to gain a precise
information.
Georgian voters’ profile






Survey respondents are more or less interested in politics, moreover
they are politically active so that they will participate in elections even
if it were held the next day.
Respondents are undecided either about candidates/parties or general
issues related to politics.
Respondents are neutral in most cases as they do not appear to be
strictly positive or negative on issues presented bellow. Respondents
seem more to be grouping problems rather than distinguishing some
more than others.
Compared to previous elections respondents reveal positive
expectations towards the next one.
One reason for this improved confidence in the May 21 election may
be the various electoral reforms that have been implemented since the
January 3 election.
Despite respondents’ dislike to many issues, they seem to be voting
for stability than radical changes. It can be assumed as though they
complain a lot, they vote for the existing governmental power.
Briefly about active vs. passive voter
Passive voter – often rejecting questions, avoding
naming candidates, undecided about general political
situation, avoding rating politicians.
Active voter – has a selected candidate of whom
she/he speaks openly, decided about political
positions, quick and clear in rating politicians.
Survey data
By BCG Research,
Tbilisi, 4960 interviews
April, 2008
BCG - Business Consulting Group Research is full
service Marketing Research Agency operating both
in the public and private sector, covering entire
Georgia as well as conducting researches in
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The survey shows that 64 %
of respondents will definitely
participate in elections if it
were held in the following
week,
18,20
%
may
participate,
5,20%
may
participate, 4,50 % will
definitely not participate,
while 7,70 % are undecided
whether they will participate
in elections.
I will definitely participate
I may participate
I may not participate
I will definitely not participate
DK / undecided
70.00%
64.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
18.20%
5.20% 4.50% 7.70%
Survey Data
Carried out by CRRC for NDI, Public attitudes towards elections in
Georgia 2008
Research has been conducted in three waves:
April – 2228 interviews
July – 2152 interviews
November – 2480 interviews
Margin of error: +/- 3%
NDI is a non-profit, non-partisan, nongovernmental
organization that has supported democratic institutions
and practices in every region of the world for more than
two decades.
51 % of survey respondents will definitely participate in elections in contrast with
11 % who will definitely not participate in elections if it were held tomorrow. 16 %
of respondents are undecided while 3 % reject the question stated. Range of
numbers bellow represent 9 – definitely participating in elections, 2 - definitely not
participating.
60
%
51
50
40
30
20
16
11
10
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
RA
DK
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
De
fin
it e
ly
no
De
fin
it e
ly
ye
s
0
Bellow is the data how survey respondents would vote if parliamentary
elections were held tomorrow. The rating is leaded by UND 27 % (first
choice) and CDM 25 % (second choice). It is also worth mentioning 38
% reject answering the question, which means that they are either
undecided or avoid naming the chosen party.
38
40
First %
35
30
Second %
27
25
25
19
20
15
11
9
8
10
5
7
3
5
7
3 4
3
5
4
3
1
1
D
K
/R
A
e
ar
tic
ip
at
er
s
th
ld
n’
tp
an
s
ub
l ic
R
ep
rg
ia
G
O
Iw
ou
F
or
La
U
ni
te
d
bo
u
r
eo
P
ar
ty
ts
R
ig
h
N
ew
B
ur
ja
na
d
ze
C
D
M
N
in
o
U
N
M
0
54 % of respondents consider problems with voters’ lists as the biggest barrier to free
and fair elections. One person voting for other people and public officials
campaigning on behalf of one party is equally problematic for 20 % of the
respondents. Budget money being unfairly used in elections, voters’ feeling of
losing jobs unless they vote in certain way, harassment of party activists, unequal
access of election candidates to media and bribing the voters is also grouped
together as a barrier for free/fair elections, having 14 %.
%
Problems with voters’ lists
One person voting for other people
11
7
Public officials campaign on behalf of
one party
Budget money is used unfairly in the
election
Voters feeling they have to vote a
specific way to keep their jobs
Harassment of party activists
5
54
12
14
Unequal access to media for some
candidates or parties
Bribing of voters
14
20
14
14
15
20
Ballot stuffing
People voting more than once
Employers forcing employees to take
part in a campaign
Harassment of voters
in the July data 25 % of respondents
say not to be receiving enough
information about the parties they
are supporting, when 65 % of survey
respondents are against of such an
opinion.
In July data 25 % of respondents think
that candidates/parties have an equal
access to media, when 14 % of survey
respondents are negative about the
issue
November survey data shows that
44 % of respondents say to be
receiving enough information from
the media since May elections about
the parties they support in contrast
with 36 % answering the same
question negatively.
November survey shows 18 % of
respondents think that unequal access
to media for some candidates or parties
did not happen in contrast with 11 %
thinking it to be widespread.
50.00%
Did not happen
Widespread
RA
40.00%
30.00%
70%
25% 26%
18%
17%
20.00%
50%
10.00%
44%
No
25%
DK
10%
7%
3%
0%
July 2008
RA
13%
8%
November 2008
14%
Yes
36%
40%
20%
32%
65%
60%
30%
47%
Som etim es happen
DK
8%
2%
11%
0.00%
July 2008
November 2008
On question about how the parliamentary elections will be/were
conducted respondents answer the following way:
November
July
April
26%
21%
Completely accurate
16%
14%
24%
2
22%
21%
20%
3
19%
8%
9%
4
10%
Completely falsified
10%
10%
4%
19%
DK
16%
23%
RA
2%
1%
6%
Survey Data
By CRRC
2550 interviews
November-December,2008Georgia
The Caucasus Research Resource Centres program (CRRC) is a
network of resource, research and training centres established in the
capital cities of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia with the goal of
strengthening social science research and public policy analysis in the
South Caucasus.
Interest in international politics
%
14,2
0,5
1,6
Very interested
14,1
Quite interested
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
DK
30,5
RA
39,1
Interest in national politics
%
10,3
0,3 1,7
22
V ery interested
Quite interested
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
29,4
DK
36,4
RA
Interest in local politics
%
0,5
11,4
1,7
19,1
V ery interested
Quite interested
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
31,4
DK
36
RA
Interest in country’s foreign policy
%
9,6
1
2,2
18,3
V ery interested
Quite interested
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
30,3
DK
38,7
RA
Interest in domestic policy
%
7,5
0,8
2,1
22,5
Very interested
Quite interested
25,4
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
DK
RA
41,7
Interest in local policy
%
8,6
0,9
2,2
21,2
V ery interested
Quite interested
Hardly interested
Not interested at all
28,5
DK
38,7
RA
Party Ratings
Republican Party
Labour Party
Christian Democratic
Movement
3%
3,6%
7%
5,7%
11%
9,5%
Opinion Poll
Exit Poll
17%
14,2%
United Opposition
55%
United National
Movement
0,0%
63,1%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
Opinion Poll - Commissioned by four television stations and conducted by Ilia Chavchavadze
State University, the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, the Georgian
Institute of Public Affairs, and the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, in
cooperation with US, Estonia, and Ukrainian experts.
Exit Poll - Conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of United National Movement’s
campaign; the figures above reflect the results of polling work conducted from April 29 – May 2.
Survey Data
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
for the United National Movement
fieldworks by ACT Research
1,200 interviews, May 8-12, 2008
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is the world's premium research
and strategic consulting firm, working with corporations,
issue groups and political campaigns throughout the United
States and around the world.
The survey shows that
among
all
Georgian
adults, in the vote on the
party lists, the UNM has
the support of 43 percent,
compared to 14 percent
for
the
Christian
Democratic Movement, 11
percent for the United
National
Council,
5
percent for the Labor
Party of Georgia, and 2
percent for the Republican
Party; 21 percent are
undecided. [Figure1]
Looking only at the 53
percent of voters who are
most likely to vote on May
21, the UNM’s support
grows to 51 percent, while
the Christian Democratic
Movement
earns
11
percent,
the
United
National Council receives
10 percent, the Labor
Party earns 5 percent,
and
the
Republicans
attract 3 percent. Among
these likely voters, 19
percent
are
undecided. [Figure 2]
By examining their responses to
other questions in the survey, it
is possible to project how this
block of 19 percent likely but
undecided voters would most
likely cast their ballots. Once we
allocate the undecided likely
voters in this manner, the
National Movement emerges
with 54 percent of the vote, with
19 percent for the United
Opposition Council, 17 percent
for the Christian Democratic
Movement, 6 percent for the
Labor Party, and 4 percent
(which would be below the
threshold
for
gaining
parliamentary seats) for the
Republican Party. These figures
represent our best estimate of
the race going into the final 9
days of the campaign. [Figure 3]
To assess the vote for
candidates in the 75 singlemember districts, the survey
conducted a named ballot test;
that is, in each district survey
respondents were presented
with a choice among the actual
names of the candidates
running in that district. This
named ballot test shows the
United National Movement
winning 48 percent of the votes
across all districts among all
adults, and 56 percent of the
vote
among
likely
voters. [Figure 4] If the United
National Movement earns the
kinds of majorities that this
survey projects for both the
party list vote and the single
member district votes, the party
would emerge with a strong
majority of seats in the next
Parliament, and potentially a
two-thirds majority.
The May 12 survey also
shows that a strong
majority of the public
expects the May 21
elections to be more free
and fair than the January
3
presidential
election.
Among all
adults, 63 percent expect
the May 21 voting to be
more free and fair; the
figure among likely voters
is 68 percent. [Figure 5]
We test four different reforms
that have been put in place
since then: making voter lists
available for public scrutiny;
lowering the threshold at
which parties win seats in
parliament based on the party
list vote, down from 7 percent
to 5 percent; changing the
composition of the parliament
to include 75 seats selected
by national list, and 75
selected in single-member
districts; and ending sameday voter registration. Each
of these leads a majority of
the public to feel that it will
make the May 21 voting more
free and fair. [Figure 6]
To conclude, it is very interesting to evaluate the
situation in dynamics, having data of different time
periods and making comparisons. Most importantly for
a sound study it is essential having data of similar
methodology, time frame and questionnaires.
Nevertheless having the data as presented here gives
a good opportunity for making a farther qualitative
study about relation of people’s perceptions to events
that went through the same time that the surveys were
conducted. It would be very interesting to define what
matters when it comes to forming public opinion.