Introduction
The ADOS Research Institute has conducted an internal survey of the ADOS Advocacy Foundation (AF) membership in a two-part series, acquiring data from a subset of the total paid membership, for a total of N=213 volunteer respondents. The first of the surveys was designed to obtain demographic information that would provide a comprehensive understanding of participating members. The second of the surveys was designed to obtain election perspectives on the 2024 election cycle. The following is a written report on Part 1 of the survey, with a focus on ADOS AF demographics data.
Part 1: ADOS Advocacy Foundation Membership Demographics
As expected, the vast majority of respondents identify as ADOS (94.4%, n=201) with approximately 54% (n=115) identifying as male. Approximately 99% of subjects identified as citizens with about 1 in 5 (22%, n=47) having served in the armed forces. The largest portion of the membership polled are GenX (47%), followed by Millennials (32%) and Baby Boomers (20.6%); only 1 (0.4%) individual identified as GenZ.
In terms of highest educational attainment, those achieving bachelor’s degrees make up about 53%; the next highest percentage is those holding graduate degrees at 26%. The bulk of participants are employed for wages (62.4%, n=133) with roughly 60% (approximately n=129) earning at or above the reported 2023 U.S. Census Bureau Median Household Income of $80,610 (value is for all “races”; $56,490 for “Black” Americans).
"The bulk of participants are employed for wages (62.4%, n=133) with roughly 60% (approximately n=129) earning at or above the reported 2023 U.S. Census Bureau Median Household Income of $80,610"
The ADOS AF membership lives in a range of states across the country, with the top 3 states of residence being Georgia (12.2%, n=26), California (9.9%, n=21), and Maryland (9.4%, n=20). It should be noted that the District of Columbia was not included in the survey; future surveys will include the District in the list of options. An item allowing members to select all states from which their family lineage originates was used to generate what has been labeled the “Lineage Concentration Count.” As expected, states in the “Black Belt” held the highest concentrations of family lineage selection.
In Chapter 11 of the text, The American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality, Gilbert’s (2018) consideration of several economic and other descriptive factors point to six classes:
- “A capitalist class of investors, heirs, and top executives”
- “An upper-middle class of college-trained professionals and managers”
- “A middle class whose members have significant skills and perform varied tasks at work, under loose supervision”
- “A working class of people who are less skilled than members of the middle class and work at routinized, closely supervised manual and clerical jobs”
- “A working-poor class, consisting of people employed in low-skill jobs, often at marginal firms”
- “An underclass, whose members have limited or erratic participation in the labor force and do not have wealth to fall back on”
With no exposure to this specific contextualization, participants were asked to select the option that best describes their “perceived class status” as it relates to items 2-6. The first item (“capitalist class”) was not included in this initial assessment of perceived class due to the piloting of this framing and its unlikeliness of being selected based on the sample. Approximately 45.5% (n=97) of members identified as “working class”; 26.8% (n=57) identified as “middle class”; 18.3% (n=39) identified as “working poor”; 4.7% (n=10) identified as “upper-middle class” and 4.7% (n=10) identified as “underclass”. Class identifications were selected based on the presentation of the 5 terms and the respondents’ own conceptualization of the terms.
The following is a written report on Part 2 of the survey, with a focus on ADOS AF election perspectives data.
Part 2: ADOS Advocacy Foundation 2024 Election Perspectives
Membership Voting Behavior, For Whom, & When Decided
Of the members surveyed, 91.1% of respondents reported having “definitely voted” in the November 2024 election with some (6.6%, n=14) indicating that they did not vote, or that they planned to do so but were not able (2.3%, n=5). Most indicated that they made up their minds for whom to vote in before September 2024 (59.6%, n=127). Interestingly, the reported voting pattern reported by Advocacy Foundation members was spread across parties, with “Another Candidate” accounting for 38.5% (n=82) and the two major party nominees, Democratic and Republican, coming in at 15% (n=32) and 5.6% (n=12), respectively. Approximately 17.8% of the sample (n=38) selected the option “I did not vote for a candidate for president.”
Members most frequently reported voting on (31.9%, n=68) or before (59.6%, n=127) Election Day; there were n=18 (8.4%) who indicated that they did not vote. The largest proportion of voters did so in-person at a polling place (68.1%, n=145). Out of the 50 people who reported voting by absentee or mail-in ballot, n=30 said that they returned their ballot before Election Day. Most people (n=132) voting in-person noted their wait times were less than 30 minutes (n=132) with n=50 people reporting no wait time. For n=197 members (92.5%), it was not their first time voting; n=187 members (87.8%) expressed that it was not their first time voting the way in which they did (i.e., absentee, mail-in, in-person).
Community Run, US Run, & Overall Ease of Voting
When asked about the way the elections were run and administered, the sample showed a higher opinion for their communities than for the United States at-large. Whereas “very well” (45.5%, n=97) or “somewhat well” (32.4%, n=69) were primarily selected for their communities, “somewhat well” (41.3%, n=88) was selected most, followed by “not too well” and “not at all well,” both at 18.8% (n=40). Overall, participants found that, on the individual level, voting was personally “very easy” (67.1%, n=143).
"the sample showed a higher opinion for their communities than for the United States at-large."
Campaign Valence, Campaign Focus, & Satisfaction with Candidates
Generally, the sample showed the November 2024 election did not make them feel proud of the country (66.2%, n=141), finding that the campaigns were too negative (40%, n=83) and not focused on important policy debates (86.9%, n=185). Overall, respondents were “not too satisfied” or “not at all satisfied” with the choice of presidential candidates (82.6%, n=176).
Confidence in Voting Ability, Voting Accuracy & Voting Validity
Information about voter confidence in the November 2024 Election was collected from the sample. Most of the members surveyed responded that they were “somewhat confident” that people who were not legally qualified to vote were prevented from casting a ballot (32.4%, n=69) and that people who were legally qualified and wanted to vote were able to cast a ballot (47.9%, n=102). The majority of members were “very confident” (39.9%, n=85) or “somewhat confident” (40.4%, n=86) that their votes were accurately counted.
When it came to confidence that votes cast in-person at polling places across the United States were counted as voters intended, n=113 (53.1%) reported being “somewhat confident.” Approximately 44.21% (n=94) reported being “somewhat confident” that votes cast by absentee or mail-in ballot across the United States were counted as voters intended, with 25.8% (n=55) reporting that they were “not too confident.”
Membership’s Opinion Stability of the New Administration
When polled on opinions of the new administration in relation to the 2025 State of the Union Address, 51.2% (n=109) of participants reported that their opinion remained unchanged; approximately 32.4% (n=69) indicated that they did not watch nor listen to the Address. Of the remaining respondents who watched the State of the Union, 1.4% (n=3) reported improvement of opinion, whereas 14.6% (n=31) reported diminishment of their opinion of the incoming administration.
