Election Quiz

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- A primary election
- A recount
- A recall election
- A referendum
- A winner-take-all appointment system
- Proportional representation
- Hereditary succession
- A nonbinding opinion poll
- A party primary
- A coalition agreement
- A referendum
- A legislative appointment
Election Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
For readers who want to understand election rules rather than express a party preference, this assessment offers a practical civic-learning check. Its focus on general election institutions, ballots, systems, and procedures makes it a useful election literacy quiz rather than a test of candidate approval. The election quiz questions test whether you can recognize core democratic concepts and apply them to short, realistic situations.
What This Assessment Explores
This assessment measures practical election literacy rather than ideology or candidate preference. It covers democratic principles, contest types, ballots, vote totals, electoral systems, and election administration.
The questionnaire is an electoral knowledge test covering election institutions and systems, rather than candidate or party support. The result is Election Knowledge (0-16): Foundation to build (0-6), Developing knowledge (7-12), or Strong knowledge (13-16). These bands are educational; laws and terminology vary by jurisdiction, so the result is not legal or civic-eligibility advice.
The tested areas include:
- Democratic procedures show whether you recognize peaceful transfers, secret voting, and representative elections.
- Electoral systems show how you distinguish primaries, referendums, plurality, majority, runoffs, and proportional representation.
- Ballot administration shows whether you understand voter registers, spoiled ballots, observers, turnout, and margins.
- Civic information shows whether you can identify authoritative election information and recognize gerrymandering.
Methodology and Evidence Base
Methodologically, the questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the CSES Module 1 political knowledge items, but it is not an adaptation of that module. Its topics also align with Reynolds, Reilly, and Ellis on electoral-system design and Wall and colleagues on electoral management. These works support its focus on representation, administration, ballots, and public decisions.
Each item presents a short scenario or definition with four fixed answer choices. The respondent selects one option, and responses are aggregated into the displayed score. Since no weighting or penalty rule is stated, the points added by individual answers should not be inferred from the range.
As an election knowledge quiz, it is best read as a focused educational check, not a norm-referenced measure with universal cutoffs. The online questionnaire has no stated standardization. Results may be affected by guessing, attention, prior learning, self-confidence, and jurisdiction-specific terminology. Its scenarios ask readers to apply terms to ballots, turnout, representation, majorities, and administration. Munzert and Selb’s web-survey study supports careful use of online political-knowledge formats, but it does not establish reliability, validity, or norms for this questionnaire.
- The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. CSES Module 1: 1996-2001 Full Release. December 15, 2015 version. Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. 10.7804/cses.module1.2015-12-15.
- Andrew Reynolds, Ben Reilly, and Andrew Ellis. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. International IDEA, 2005.
- Alan Wall, Andrew Ellis, Ayman Ayoub, Carl W. Dundas, Joram Rukambe, and Sara Staino. Electoral Management Design: The International IDEA Handbook. International IDEA, 2006.
- Simon Munzert and Peter Selb. Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal Instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 35(2), 167-183, 2017. 10.1177/0894439315616325.
Updated: