Surveys and analyses

The Institute H21 (IH21) has been actively conducting various theoretical and empirical research studies since 2014. Overall the institute executed 31 election simulations where the Janeček Method (D21) was applied and tested along with other voting methods.

Research Objectives

To investigate and compare voting behaviour under different selected voting methods;
To empirically test and measure the impact of voting methods on election outcomes.

Elections

Research method

Sample

Weighted sample

Constituency under Study

2018 Senate Elections

Field Study

4,096

1,703

5 districts in the Czech Republic

2018 Presidential Election

Field Study

2,568

1,754

The Czech Republic

2014 Senate Elections

Exit poll

4,750

12 districts in the Czech Republic

2014 Municipal Elections

Exit poll

3,965

13 districts in the Czech Republic

Overview of Surveys (PDF) >

2018 Senate Elections

Investigative Themes

Candidates favourability under different voting methods;
Susceptibility and vulnerability of voting methods to different strategic voting;
Impact of voter profile and political knowledge on voting behaviour;
Voter engagement and political participation.

Voting Methods Applied

First-past-the-post voting (FPTP)
The Janeček Method (D21) with three plus and one minus votes
Approval Voting (AV)
Combined Approval Voting (CAV)
Majority Judgement (MJ)
Instant-runoff Voting (IRV)

Research Methodology

Number of Respondents

N = 4,096 respondents (18+), weighted sample of 1,703 voters

Data Collection

September 28th - October 6th 2018

Method of the Data Collection

CAPI

Sampling Method

Quota sampling

Research Characteristics

Representative sample of the voting population in selected 5 districts: Chomutov, Třebíč, Ostrava - město, Brno - město, Praha 2. Based on random sampling and weighting of the collected data.

Sample Characteristics

Data is representative for the adult population from the selected districts based on:
- socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education)
- age x education, gender x age, working status
- participation and indicated party preference in the 2017 Parliamentary elections
- participation and candidate preference in the first round of the 2018 Senate elections

Agencies

MEDIAN s.r.o. and STEM/MARK, a.s.

Statistical Error

Random and statistical error of +/- 1.5 % for responses of the 5 % and of +/- 4 % for responses of the 50 % of the sample

Vote structure under the Janeček Method (D21)

The average number of Plus votes: 2.42
The average number of Minus votes: 0.69

2018 Presidential Elections

Investigative Themes

Methodological and evidence-based assessment of the Janeček Method (D21) viability;
Impact of the Janeček Method (D21) on election results;
Voting behaviour under the Janeček Method (D21);
Candidates favourability under different voting methods;
Impact of voter profile on voting behaviour.

Voting Methods Applied

First-past-the-post voting (FPTP)
The Janeček Method (D21) with three plus and one minus votes

Research Methodology

Number of Respondents

N = 2,568 respondents (18+), weighted sample of 1,754 voters

Data Collection

January 12th - January 13th 2018

Method of the Data Collection

CAPI

Sampling Method

Quota sampling

Research Characteristics

Representative sample of the Czech population based on random sampling and weighting of the collected data.

Sample Characteristics

Data is representative for the adult population of the Czech Republic districts based on:
- socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, residency size)
- age x education, gender x age, working status
- participation and indicated party preference in the 2017 Parliamentary elections
- participation and candidate preference in the first round of the 2018 Presidential elections

Agencies

MEDIAN s.r.o. and STEM/MARK, a.s.

Statistical Error

Random and statistical error of +/- 1.5 % for responses of the 5 % and of +/- 4 % for responses of the 50 % of the sample

Vote structure under the Janeček Method (D21)

The average number of Plus votes: 2.34
The average number of Minus votes: 0.78

Results of Representative Survey (PDF) >

Analysis of Prezident 21 Results (PDF) >

Visit the Prezident 21 website >

2014 Municipal Elections

Investigative Themes

Methodological and evidence-based assessment of the Janeček Method (D21) viability;
Impact of the Janeček Method (D21) on election results;
Voting behaviour under the Janeček Method (D21);
Candidates favourability under different voting methods;
Impact of voter profile on voting behaviour.

Voting Methods Applied

First-past-the-post voting (FPTP)
The Janeček Method (D21) with three plus and one minus votes

Research Methodology

Number of Respondents

N = 3,965 respondents (18+)

Data Collection

October 11th - October 12th 2014

Method of the Data Collection

CAPI

Sampling Method

Quota sampling

Research Characteristics

Representative sample of the voting population in 13 selected cities:
a) large cities: Praha, Olomouc, Liberec, Teplice, Karlovy Vary
b) medium cities: Říčany, Nový Jičín, Hodonín, Tábor, Ostrov
c) small cities: Držovice, Velká Polom, Chýně
based on random sampling

Sample Characteristics

Data is representative for the adult population of the selected cities based on:
- socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, residency)

Agencies

Market Vision

Statistical Error

Random and statistical error of +/- 1.5 % for responses of the 5 % and +/- 4 % for responses of the 50 % of the sample

Vote structure under the Janeček Method (D21)

The average number of Plus votes: 1.67
The average number of Minus votes: 0.53

Findings from 31 Election Simulations

1. The majority of voters cast more than one vote when allowed.

On average, 32% of voters used only one vote.
On average, 64% of voters used all Plus votes.
On average, 53% of voters used the Minus vote.

2. Voter knowledge of candidates was the key factor influencing the number of votes cast.

The more candidates a voter knew, the more votes he/she cast.
Older (60+) and less educated voters used fewer votes.

3. The Janeček Method (D21) favours candidates with broader support.

Winning candidates under the Janeček Method (D21) are the recipients of the second and third Plus votes.
The results display tendencies in the Minus vote concentration in 28 out of 31 cases.

4. Under the Janeček Method (D21) the winners were different in six out 31 simulated elections compared to the official results.

In four out of these six cases, the election outcomes were different due to the availability of the multiple Plus votes.
In two out of these six cases, the election outcomes were different due to the availability of the Minus vote.

Contacts

Are you interested in the Janeček Method (D21) and the research conducted by the Institute H21? Do you want to cooperate with us on research projects?

Surveys and analyses

2018 Senate Elections

2018 Presidential Elections

2014 Municipal Elections

Findings from 31 Election Simulations

Jan Oreský