Tools & Resources
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVII (September 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 2 September and 9 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 2000 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Interviews for this survey were completed before news of the bomb in front of the Australian Embassy on 9 September would have reached any but a very small proportion of respondents. This survey therefore does not take into account any impact the bombing may have had on opinions. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.2% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys – Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave III/IV: 26 January – 6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave V/VIII: 15 February – 10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XI/XII: 20 April - 8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIII: 14 – 9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XIV: 17 – 26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/- 2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XV: 7 – 14 July 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level – Wave XVI: 7 – 14 August 2004; 1250 respondents ; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, and Wave XVI is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVII survey.
August 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XVIII (October 2004)
Survey Implementation • This survey was conducted between 22 September and 29 September 2004, using face to face interviews with 1250 respondents in all 32 provinces. • Respondents were selected using multi stage random sampling of eligible voters. The composition of the respondents reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data is +/-2.8% at a 95% level of confidence. • Data comparisons in the text relate to earlier IFES tracking surveys –Wave I: 13-18 December 2003; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave II: 12-15 January 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave III/IV: 26 January –6 February 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave V/VIII: 15 February –10 March 2004; 4000 respondents; for national data +/-1.55% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave IX: 21-28 March 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave X: 7-14 April 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/2.8% marginof error at 95% confidence level –Wave XI/XII: 20 April -8 May 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIII: 14 –9 June 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XIV: 17 –26 June 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XV: 7 –14 July 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVI: 7 –14 August 2004; 1250 respondents; for national data +/-2.8% margin of error at 95% confidence level –Wave XVII: 2 –9 September 2004; 2000 respondents; for national data +/-2.2% margin of error at 95% confidence level • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV,Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, Wave XIII, Wave XIV Wave XV, Wave XVI, and Wave XVII is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XVIII survey. Regional and other breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XVIII survey.
September 30, 2004
Publication
Survey
National Public Opinion Survey in Indonesia (2002)
From 30 March to 22 April, Taylor Nelson Sofres Indonesia, in cooperation with the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), conducted a national public opinion survey in Indonesia. The field work was conducted in 30 provinces, including Aceh and North Maluku. The 3,580 respondents came from rural and urban areas using a random sample method. The objective of the survey was to inform members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the People's consultative Assembly (MPR) about the perceptions, hopes and attitudes of the Indonesian people. The survey covered a number of current topics such as the performance of the Indonesian government and national leaders, the popularity of political parties, the electoral law reform process and regional autonomy. In general, this study showed an apparent increase in people's awareness of economic and political issues. Compared to the survey conducted in June 2001, a greater proportion of people were able to provide an answer to most of the questions. In other words, there was a significant decrease in "don't know" and "can't say" responses. What has contributed to this shift is difficult to say and one can only speculate. However, it does highlight that compared to 12 months ago more people hold an opinion on the issues raised in the survey.
April 30, 2002
Publication
Report/Paper
Report on Indonesia's 7 June 1999 Parliamentary General Election and Recommendations for Electoral Reform
The June 7 parliamentary election in Indonesia represented a decisive step forward in Indonesia’s transition from authoritarian rule to democratic governance. It resulted, for the first time in Indonesia’s history, in a peaceful transfer of power. However, the election did not represent a significant break from the past in terms of election administration. This election process was marked by administrative inefficiency, non-transparency, and a lack of accountability. While certainly a momentous step in Indonesia’s transition, the credibility of the process hinged on election day itself, which was considered successful due to a lack of violence and to the enthusiasm and patience of the voters. These factors alone do not make a successful election, and serious flaws in the process should be addressed before future elections... TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TERMS AND APPREVIATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND III. THE ELECTION LAW A. The Proportional System B. Elements of a Majority System C. The Structure of the National Election Commission (KPU) D. Political Parties E. Office of the Secretariat F. Election Campaign G. Political Finance H. Voting, Vote Counting, and Tabulation I. Complaint Adjudication IV. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION A. General Principles of Election Administration B. Operational Standards for Election Administration C. Structure of the National Election Commission (KPU) D. Structure of the Election Administration (Management) E. Technology Support F. Planning G. Regulations, Procedures, and Mechanics H. Materials I. Systems and Methods V. RECOMMENDATIONS A. The Legal Framework—The Law on General Elections B. The Election Administration VI. CONCLUSIONS VII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: “Money Politics”: Regulation of Political Finance in Indonesia Attachment B: Election Material Distribution Attachment C: Projected and Actual Numbers of Polling Stations Attachment D: List of Forms Used for the 1999 General Election Attachment E: Forms Used for Polling and Counting (Forms C, C1, C3, C4, C5) Attachment F: Polling Station Counting Sheet (Form C2) Attachment G: Statements Related to the Consolidation of Results (Forms D, D1, D2, D3) Attachment H: Forms for Consolidation of Results for DPR, DPRD I, and DPRD II (Forms D41, D42, D43) Attachment I: Law Number 3 of 1999 on General Elections Attachment J: Law Number 2 of 1999 on Political Parties Attachment K: Structure of the Indonesian Election Administration Attachment L: Allocation of DPR Seats to Political Parties Attachment M: 1999 Ballot Sample
January 31, 2000
Publication
Report/Paper
Republic of Indonesia, 1999: Allocation of Seats to Political Parties for the Peoples Representative Assembly (DPR)
On June 7, 1999, elections were held in Indonesia for the 462 elected seats in the national People's Representative Assembly (DPR) and for assemblies at the provincial and district levels. The election law approved in January provided for assembly seats to be allocated to political parties contesting the election according to a proportional representation system.
September 08, 1999
Publication
Report/Paper
Evaluation of Pollworker Training, January 2000
This evaluation of the IFES pollworker training assistance program was conducted in Indonesia in 1999. The report concludes that pollworker training was inadequate and suggests direction for future training sessions in Indonesia.
December 31, 1999
Publication
Report/Paper
Report on the 7 June 1999 Parliamentary General Election and Recommendations for Electoral Reform
On June 7, 1999 Indonesia held parliamentary elections. This report summarizes IFES observations from those elections and provides recommendations for better administration in future elections.
January 31, 2000
Publication
Report/Paper
Republic of Indonesia: Evaluation of Poll Worker Training, January 2000
The June 7, 1999 parliamentary elections in the Republic of Indonesia were a transitional step toward democratic rule and professional, independent election administration. Although, for the most part, election day was a peaceful expression of the franchise, the election was seriously flawed administratively. One of the most glaring and potentially disastrous elements in the election administration was the training of the election day poll workers or KPPS members. Through the ingenuity of some, past experience of others, and willingness to work extremely hard, the Indonesian KPPS members performed admirably on June 7. But adequate and timely training, clear instructions, and uniform and professional administration would have improved their performance. The evaluation of the poll worker training program can be seen to clearly support the fact that the training was inconsistent at best, and/or non-existent throughout the country. In discussion after discussion, KPPS members support these findings and provide their own recommendations for improved election procedures and training. This inconsistency permeates the entire administration from the manner and timing of the appointment of KPPS members, to the number of KPPS members in a polling station, or TPS, to the delivery of materials and instructions to KPPS members. Regulations meant to standardize procedures either did not exist, were unknown, or were ignored by the various levels of election administration. It is essential that the National Election Commission (KPU) thoroughly review and prepare professional administrative remedies to correct these deficiencies before the next election. Only with uniform regulations and a consistent training program, which is professionally prepared and administered, can election administration problems be avoided in future elections.
December 31, 1999
Publication
Report/Paper
The Integrity of Elections in Asia: Policy Lessons Applied
In response to a recent study by Max Grömping entitled The Integrity of Elections in Asia: Policy Lessons from Expert Evaluations, IFES produced a briefing paper with some examples of policy lessons applied in practice across Asia. IFES has worked in Asia for the past three decades supporting election management bodies, civil society and other electoral stakeholders in their efforts to promote electoral integrity.
November 26, 2018