[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-265572-105":59,"doc-detail-265572-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","voting-from-abroad-a-survey-of-uocava-voters","Voting from Abroad - A Survey of UOCAVA Voters","","Report presents findings from two surveys of UOCAVA-covered voters conducted for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, examining voting experiences during the 2006 midterm election. Both surveys asked identical questions on voting practices and views toward online, email, and fax registration and voting. The Four States Survey targets electronic options in four states, while the Supplemental Survey draws a larger sample from all fifty states. Results highlight differences between military and nonmilitary overseas citizens and show strong support for electronic transmission of voting materials.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/voting-from-abroad-a-survey-of-uocava-voters/265572/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/voting-from-abroad-a-survey-of-uocava-voters/265572.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Angel","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What was the purpose of the surveys of UOCAVA voters?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The surveys were designed to assess voting experiences of UOCAVA-covered voters during the 2006 midterm election, including experiences and attitudes toward online, email, and fax registration and voting.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How were the two surveys structured and sampled?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The Four States Survey examined electronic options in four states, while the Supplemental Survey included a larger sample of overseas voters from all fifty states to broaden coverage.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What do the results indicate about electronic transmission for future voting?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"A majority of respondents reported they would feel comfortable using electronic transmission methods in future elections, with substantially higher comfort levels than those who would not.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},265572,1789397954,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687207412472,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","VOTING FROM ABROAD: A SURVEY OF UOCAVA VOTERS  \nA United States Election Assistance Commission Study  \nI. Introduction………………………………………………..…………………………………..3  \nExecutive Summary……………………………………………………………………….3  \nBackground………………………………………………………………………………..3  \nWhy survey UOCAVA voters?...........................................................................................4  \nII. Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management…………....6  \nSurvey Design……………………………………………………………………………..6  \nSample Selection…………………………………………………………………………..6  \nSample Response………………………………………………………………………….8  \nData Categorization……………………………………………………………………...10  \nSample Demographics…………………………………………………………………...10  \nIII. Discussion and Analysis………………………………………………………………..…..12  \nOverview of discussion...................................................................................................... 12  \nUniformed Service Members and Their Families Had Higher Voting Rates……………12  \nElectronic Exchange of Voting Materials Assessed……………………………………..17  \nLikelihood Would Use Same Transmission System for Next Ballot Return.....................24  \nConclusion……………………………………………………………………………….25  \nAppendix A: Survey Text......……………………………………………………..……………26  \nAppendix B: Invitation to VAOs…............................................................................................41  \nAppendix C: Multivariate Analysis…………………………………………………………....43  \nAppendix D: Respondent’s Reported Voting Success by State or Territory……………….48  \nAppendix E: Frequencies of all Variables…………………………………………………….53  \nExecutive Summary  \nThis 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.  \nIn 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% ofthe 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 optio","cbCaibrnheiyMjgT","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibrnheiyMjgT","pdf",441187,83,"English","# Executive Summary\n# Background\n# Why Survey UOCAVA Voters?\n# Survey Design, Sample Selection, Sample Response, and Data Management\n## Survey Design\n## Sample Selection\n## Sample Response\n## Data Categorization\n## Sample Demographics\n# Discussion and Analysis\n## Overview of discussion\n## Uniformed Service Members and Their Families Had Higher Voting Rates\n## Electronic Exchange of Voting Materials Assessed\n## Likelihood Would Use Same Transmission System for Next Ballot Return\n# Conclusion\n# Appendix A: Survey Text\n# Appendix B: Invitation to VAOs\n# Appendix C: Multivariate Analysis\n# Appendix D: Respondent’s Reported Voting Success by State or Territory\n# Appendix E: Frequencies of all Variables","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of the surveys of UOCAVA voters?\",\"answer\":\"The surveys were designed to assess voting experiences of UOCAVA-covered voters during the 2006 midterm election, including experiences and attitudes toward online, email, and fax registration and voting.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the two surveys structured and sampled?\",\"answer\":\"The Four States Survey examined electronic options in four states, while the Supplemental Survey included a larger sample of overseas voters from all fifty states to broaden coverage.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the results indicate about electronic transmission for future voting?\",\"answer\":\"A majority of respondents reported they would feel comfortable using electronic transmission methods in future elections, with substantially higher comfort levels than those who would not.\"}]","Voting from Abroad - A Survey of UOCAVA Voters | PDF",209]