Survey: The Adventist Vote & the 2016 National Election

With the results of the 2016 Presidential election only recently announced, the campaign, the candidates and our selection of the candidates are fresh on our minds. Spectrum readers are invited to participate in a research study that explores political behavior and religious perspectives of the readers of Adventist Today and Spectrum. The "Adventist Vote" survey take about 5 minutes to complete. Please click on the link below to get started. And thanks!

Adventists Vote - 2016 National Election Survey

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

I am assuming that this survey is intended for US citizens only, although the survey itself does not make that clear the first page of the survey leads one to that conclusion. I mention this as it is a flaw in the survey instrument not to ask whether you are a US resident, and a considerable misunderstanding of the global nature of the spectrum community. I would question conclusions about the political views of the spectrum community based on a survey that excludes international readers. I believe that the intersection of ideas across cultural boundaries is an important factor that makes spectrum what it is.

Thanks for clarifying. The target of this survey is voters in the United States.
-Website Editor


While the study is well intentioned and offers interesting questions there seem to be several flaws with it from a social science perspective - which will result in a simple effect: those who don’t like the results can always claim the study is rigged - or biased, to be more technical:

a) there were no checks on nationality
b) there were no checks on answering the survey multiple times (and if there should be an IP check … think of colleges using one IP via Wifi)
c) no certainty of reaching the target group to the exclusion of other groups
d) there is no indication (and probably no chance) to get a representative result

Nevertheless - perhaps, just perhaps, some correlations can be drawn (i.e. those who believe in creation are more likely to vote for…). But then - as we well know (or should know) correlation says very little - if anything - about causality. Tricky.


The Creation was limited.
So I just used the box. Stating “I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth”.
To me, the 6000 years seemed to indicate possibly being OK with Ussher and the Oct 23, 4004 b.c. date.
[of course, THAT would fit nicely in with the October 22, 1844 date. Beginning of a NEW YEAR.]
The Gender and non-Hetero was also limited.
Nothing about Gender and non-Hetero being a church member, or allowed church office [full inclusion in ALL areas of the church.]
Question about Women Ordination appeared adequate.

Gideon- For several months I was taking a friend to a large Baptist church [3500 on 3 services + children church]. Each service had 30 minutes of music and singing. 30 minutes by the Pastor. Every sermon was a Teaching Sermon. Had a bulletin insert with “fill in the blanks” so one could keep up with the important points of what he was presenting. They also promoted Bible reading. Had a list of chapters to read each day of that week. Many teaching sermons were part of a 3 to 5 week Topic. Most based on Christian growth.
Most SDA sermons are “haphazard” topics each week.

Elmer – Great video. Needs to be shown in churches. Great Testimony.

1 Like

Besides an SDA church, I regularly attend a non-denom mega church.(12-13 thousand ATTENDANCE WEEKLY) every bulletin has a feedback card to submit to the pastors so they can get reviewed or commented on their sermon. There is an announcement after every sermon to turn this feedback card in when the collection plates are passed around. Are SDA pastors/conference leaders paranoid about implementing a review feedback approach? I can hear it now…“people vote with their feet”.


Certainly the two most contended points are WO and creationism. The undercurrent is the relationship between Justication and Sanctification. Luther recognized two types of Rightousness, an Alien Righteousness i.e. Justification and a Proper Righteousness i.e. Sanctification. Unfortunately, the outcome following the Answers to Quesions on Doctrine and The Brinsmead fiasco, the Douglass response of a fusion unto perfection became the norm at the highest levels. This along with the assumed theological power of the Presidency moves Adventism outside of reformation all thought. The failure of the 1919 Bible Conference set the stage for the present autocratic stage set. tZ


Well, this is a pretty liberal site, so the results will be horribly skewed. Such a study will only sound in the liberal echo chamber. I can’t see that it will show anything but the liberal folks finding the Donald repugnant. Do we need a survey for that.

But I will take it.

1 Like

I never imagined that given the millions of election’s post mortem analyses, the most uplifting one for me would come from a sport commentator Ernie Johnson of TNT. Here’s a clip.


I took it but have the same questions as Andreas B. In addition there will be the problems the secular media surveys had. Still will be interested in the results.

The survey was distributed to many sources. As I recall, we actually had to write in Spectrum because it wasn’t on the original list of options. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And “conservative” folks do not find a man repugnant who is immoral and brags about his immoralities?