Parties and Candidates in the Electoral Process

For political parties and candidates, elections are a key period. This is the time where they are most active, most visible in media, and in closest contact with large numbers of voters and supporters. Some political parties seem to exist mainly as campaign machines, while they are hardly visible at all between elections. Other parties maintain high levels of engagement between elections but still increase their activities during election campaigns. The success or failure in the election process determines not only if a party or candidate comes to power, but may also have an impact on levels of support and funding between elections.

This section of the topic area Parties and Candidates deals with the principles, rules, and mechanism that guide parties and candidates and the effects they have on the electoral processes, such as:

• General rules and regulations
  
  

The rules and regulations that concern registration of parties and candidates, and the nomination of candidates for printing on the ballot, including regulations for de-registration.

The different effects that the electoral system may have on parties and candidates.

What happens if a candidate dies, withdraws, or leaves his or her political party after the ballots are printed but before the election is held?

• Campaigns
  
  

How political parties and candidates campaign in the elections campaign.

Codes of conduct that may guide the political parties as organisations and the candidates taking part in the elections.

The role of media in election campaigns.

• Election administration
  
  

The relationship between parties and candidates and the Electoral Management Body (EMB). When does a political party act as an election monitor and what implications does that have?

• Coalitions and pre-election alliances
  
  

Pre-election alliances and coalitions, and their effect on government formation.

Image:

Election Candidate by JanneM is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.

Political Party Codes of Conduct

A code of conduct for political parties is usually a voluntary agreement on rules of behaviour for political parties and their supporters during an election campaign. Especially in transitional countries where the rule of law is not yet developed and trusted, the goal of establishing a code of conduct can help political parties agree on accepted rules of the game and increase confidence in the electoral process. Codes of conduct that involve encouraging or requiring political parties and candidates to meet regularly during the election campaign can contribute to avoiding violent conflicts and increase public support for the democratic process.

A code of conduct for political parties may be developed in any of several ways and can be quite diverse in character:

1. It may be a part of the electoral law, determined by the sovereign authority in a country.
2. It may be agreed by political parties, as an outcome of negotiations entirely among themselves, or, more commonly, as a result of negotiations moderated by a third party.
3. It may be agreed by the parties, and then embodied in law.
4. It may be determined by a third party, such as the electoral management body (EMB).

Voluntary Codes of Conduct

An emphasis is often put on the importance of the voluntary aspect of the codes of conduct. The reasons for this include:

1. Political parties are more likely to feel bound by commitments into which they have freely entered, and therefore may be more likely to fulfil those commitments.
2. Parties to a voluntary code of conduct are able to bind themselves, and each other, to conduct or refrain from conduct that might otherwise conflict with international or constitutional obligations such as the freedom of speech or association.
3. By participating in consultation, development, and use of a voluntary code, political parties contribute positively to the style and culture of campaigning.

Who does the Code of Conduct apply to?

A code of conduct should explicitly bind at least:

1. The parties, including political parties and independent candidates; and
2. through the control of each party, its leader, officials, candidates, and, ideally, its members.

To the extent that is reasonable in the prevailing local circumstances, a party should be expected to:

1. exercise control over the activities of its supporters; and
2. be responsible for violations of the code by its supporters, or at least make a good-faith effort to make supporters aware of the code and encourage them to abide by it.

If a voluntary code of conduct is subsequently incorporated in a law, the law or the general legal framework will determine who is bound by the Code.

During what period will the Code apply?

The period will vary from case to case: in some circumstances, it will be the election period as provided by law; in other cases, the Code itself may specify a time for its application.

The Code should always apply to the period from the specified beginning of campaigning until the announcement and certification of the results.

Beyond that, a Code should apply to any period during which violations of it might have a particularly dramatic effect on the integrity of the election process. This could include the periods for political party registration, voter registration, and candidate nomination, all of which will fall before an official campaign period.

Many of the provisions in a typical code of conduct, for example those that reflect and reinforce general human or political rights, would be operative at all times.

Relationship of a Code of Conduct to the electoral law Electoral legislation will generally set out the procedures and mechanisms to be used when dealing with complaints and disputes regarding the electoral process. Those provisions will differ from country to country, both in detail and in content and may affect how the code of conduct is enforced. For example, a country’s electoral law may provide for adjudication or other mechanisms, such as mediation, to deal with infringement of a code of conduct or disputes arising from such an infringement.

What sanctions will apply to breaches of the Code?

The most basic sanction, which should apply in virtually all cases, is the public exposure of a failure to comply with the Code by a party, or by those persons for whose conduct a party has some responsibility. The type of sanction may vary from country to country.

If the Code is incorporated in a law, criminal or civil penalties could apply, and other specific electoral penalties, such as the disqualification of candidates or parties, may also be possible.

Whatever legal or other sanctions are established, a party and its members have to be able to clearly understand their obligations. Therefore, it is important that both the obligations and the sanctions be clearly spelled out in legal form.

Relationship of a Code of Conduct to Human Rights Codes Typically, a code of conduct will incorporate generally accepted provisions embodying basic human and political rights. However, some of its more valuable provisions may be:

1. those that require self-restraint by the parties in the exercise of their rights; and
2. the procedures which are to apply when the rights of different parties may potentially be in conflict.

Desirable forms of self-restraint, and the procedures for managing conflicting rights, will be determined by such factors as:

1. the political traditions and culture of a country;
2. the threats which may exist to the electoral process; and 3. the prevailing institutional framework.

In the past, the importance of each country’s specific circumstances has been reflected in considerable variations in national codes.

Implementing the Code of Conduct

For a voluntary code of conduct to be useful, the parties must be committed to it, viewing it not merely as a set of mechanical rules, but as a set of principles to be honoured in spirit as well as in letter. No single Code can ever anticipate and make appropriate prescriptions for the diversity of situations that may be encountered in the course of elections. In all cases, a code of conduct must be implemented with common sense and in good faith.

The parties who negotiate a code of conduct should expect to:

1. Meet regularly after the Code has been adopted to discuss observing and implementing the Code over the campaign period. The duty to participate in these meetings could be an obligation in the Code.
2. Meet before, and in the early stages of, an election campaign to discuss the Code. These meetings can be a valuable step towards a tolerant electoral campaign.

Content of Political Party Codes of Conduct

The following are core prescriptions generally accepted as applicable to the behaviour of political parties during a democratic election campaign.

Application of the Code

In this code, “party” includes:

a) any entity that subscribes to this Code of Conduct, including political parties, independent candidates, alliances or coalitions of parties, and political movements other than parties; and

b) the leader, officials, candidates, members, agents, and representatives of any entity that subscribes to this Code of Conduct. However, the party isn’t fully liable for its members if it makes a good-faith effort to inform its members of the code and encourage them to abide by it.

Principles of the Code

a) The legitimacy of a government chosen through democratic multi-party elections rests on these principles

• that as a result of being informed through the electoral campaign of the policies and qualities of all political parties and candidates, voters are able to make an informed choice; and
• that voters are able to vote freely, without interference, fear, undue influence, or bribery.

b) All parties, having accepted this election campaign Code of Conduct, commit themselves to these principles and undertake voluntarily and in good faith to adhere to the Code so that:

• these principles will be upheld;
• the elections will be recognized as expressing the free choice of the voters; and
• the result of that choice will be respected by all

c) In any matter relating to the election process, a party will conduct itself in conformity with the prescriptions set out below.

Compliance with the Code

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code:

• is bound by the Code
• will take decisive steps to prohibit leaders, officials, candidates, and members from infringing the Code;
• will take all reasonable steps to discourage any type of conduct by their supporters which would, if undertaken by a party official, candidate, or member, be in breach of the Code; and
• will not abuse the right to complain about violations of the Code, nor make false, frivolous, or vexatious complaints.

b) The leader of a party that has subscribed to this Code will issue directives to the party’s officials, candidates, members, and supporters, requiring each of them to:

• familiarize themselves with the Code;
• observe the Code; and
• take all other necessary steps to ensure compliance.

Adherence to the law

A party that has subscribed to this Code will adhere to existing election laws, rules, and regulations as well as any that are legally instituted subsequent to the signature of this Code.

Campaign management

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code will

• respect the right and freedom of all other parties to campaign, and to disseminate their political ideas and principles without fear;
• conduct itself in a manner that respects the rights of other parties, and respects the rights of voters and other members of the community;
• respect the freedom of the press;
• use its good offices to seek to ensure reasonable freedom of access by all parties to all potential voters; and
• seek to ensure that potential voters wishing to participate in related political activities enjoy the freedom to do so.

b) A party that has subscribed to this Code will not

• harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities, or disrupt, destroy, or frustrate the campaign efforts of any other party;
• prevent the distribution of handbills and leaflets, and the display of posters, of other parties and candidates;
• deface or destroy posters of other parties and candidates;
• prevent any other party from holding rallies, meetings, marches, or demonstrations;
• seek to prevent any person from attending the political rallies of another party; or
• encourage its supporters to do anything prohibited by this section or condone such actions.

The election process

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code will:

• co-operate with election officials in order to ensure: peaceful and orderly polling; and complete freedom for voters to exercise their right to vote without being subjected to any annoyance or obstructions ensure the safety and security of electoral officials before, during, and after the polls; * maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of the voting.

b) A party that has subscribed to this Code will not:

• procure votes by forcible occupation of polling stations or through illegal activities in the polling stations;
• interfere unjustifiably or in bad faith with the duties of election officials, or disturb the process of casting or counting votes; or
• falsely assert to voters that their votes will not be secret.

Accepting the outcome of a free and fair election

A party that has subscribed to this Code will:

• accept the outcome of an election that has been certified;
• submit any grievance only to the relevant dispute settlement agency; and
• accept and comply with, and encourage its members and supporters to accept and comply with, the final decision of the dispute settlement agency.

Language

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code will:

• organize and conduct its election campaign in a manner that contributes toward a congenial and peaceful atmosphere during the campaign period, the polling, the counting, and the post-election period; and
• act with a sense of responsibility and dignity befitting its status.

b) Speakers at political rallies will avoid using language that:

• is inflammatory, or defamatory; or
• threatens or incites violence in any form against any other person or group of persons

c) A party that has subscribed to this Code will not issue, either officially or anonymously, pamphlets, newsletter, or posters containing language or material that threatens or incites violence.

Symbols

A party that has subscribed to this Code will not:

• imitate the symbols of another party;
• steal, disfigure, or destroy political or campaign materials of another party; or
• encourage its supporters to do anything prohibited by this section or condone such action.

Intimidation and violence

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code accepts that intimidation, in any form, is unacceptable, and will:

• issue directives expressly forbidding its officials, candidates, members, and supporters to intimidate any person at any time;
• campaign against violence or threats of violence, and against any acts of vandalism or public disorder committed by or threatened by their officials, candidates, members, or supporters, and publicly denounce any such action; and
• respect other persons and parties, and their property

b) The leader of a party that has subscribed to this Code will instruct the party’s officials, candidates, members, and supporters that no weapon of any kind, including any traditional weapon, may be brought to any political rally, meeting, march, or other demonstration.

c) A party that has subscribed to this Code will not:

• engage in or permit any kind of violent activity to demonstrate party strength or to prove supremacy;
• cause damage to any private or public property; or
• permit its supporters to do anything prohibited by this section.

Abuse of position

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code will not:

• Abuse a position of power, privilege, or influence for a political purpose, by offering a reward, threatening a penalty, or by any other means; or
• use official State, Provincial, Municipal, or other public resources for campaign purposes.

b) In this section, a “position of power, privilege, or influence” includes a position of parental, patriarchal, governmental, police, military, or traditional authority.

Corrupt practices

A party that has subscribed to this Code will not:

• coerce or offer monetary or other kinds of inducements to persons, directly or indirectly, to vote for or against a particular party or candidate, to surrender or destroy their voter registration card, or to abstain from voting;
• coerce or offer monetary or other kinds of inducements to persons, directly or indirectly, to stand or not to stand as candidates, or to withdraw or not to withdraw their candidacies; or
• procure the support or assistance of any official or civil servant to promote or hinder the election of a candidate.

Continued Communications

a) A party that has subscribed to this Code will:

• make every effort to maintain communication with other parties that have subscribed to this code;
• participate in forum for the discussion of issues of common concern during an electoral campaign established by the parties that have subscribed to this Code.

The committee will comprise representatives of: political parties contesting candidates; and * officials from the Electoral Management Body (EMB).

Registration for Election and Nomination of Candidates

The registration for election (registration to gain ballot access) confirms a political party’s or candidate’s intention to contest a specific election and is often linked to the process of nominating candidates. The registration of a political party as an organisation or association is sometimes different from the registration to gain ballot access.

Even if the registration of political parties as organisations is different from the registration of parties to gain ballot access, the legal framework could be structured in a way as to make it easier, or sometimes even automatic, for registered parties gain access to the ballot.

It is good practise to ensure that the legal framework clearly specifies when, how, and where registration procedures must be undertaken, what the requirements for registration are, and how the verification of registration will take place. The legal framework should provide for uniformity in the registration process so that the same registration process applies to all political parties and candidates at all levels. To ensure fairness, the grounds for rejection of a registration application have to be based on objective criteria and have to be clearly stated in the legal framework for elections, along with avenues of appeal against such rejection. Correctly applied, this would protect political parties against arbitrary discrimination. In order to make sure that the registration procedure, including possible appeals, is finalized well in time for the EMB to print and distribute ballot papers, it is advisable to have a clear and transparent schedule with deadlines by which appeals have to be submitted, etc.

Criteria for registration

The criteria for registering a political party or candidate for election are often the same or similar as for registering a political party as an organisation, see Registration of political parties, such as proof of popular support or adherence, proof of geographical presence, often in the form supporting signatures from a certain number of regions or districts, and proof of economic viability.

Nomination of candidates

The nomination of candidates (to gain ballot access) is the formal procedure by which political parties and/or individuals put candidates forward for election, and the acceptance of the EMB of that nomination. In list systems, parties put forward a list of candidates selected within the political party. In constituency systems, candidates are nominated individually (not as part of party lists). Depending on the country, they can be nominated either by a political party or by an individual.

Legal frameworks can place requirements on the composition of party lists. In some cases, there are requirements aimed at increasing the representativity of the list by, for example, asking or requiring the party to have a certain number of women (or members of other traditionally under-represented groups) on its list. In some cases, not only the number but the placement on the list is specified.

Criteria to stand as a candidate

To read more about what is required of candidates to gain ballot access, see the file about criteria to stand as a candidate.

Registration Requirements of Candidates for Election

The registration of candidates for election (registration to gain ballot access) confirms a candidate’s intention to contest a specific election and is often linked to the process of nominating candidates.

It is good practise to ensure that the legal framework clearly specifies when, how, and where registration procedures must be undertaken, what the requirements for registration are, and how the verification of registration will take place. To ensure fairness, the grounds for rejection of a registration application have to be based on objective criteria and have to be clearly stated in the legal framework for elections, along with avenues of appeal against such rejection. Correctly applied, this would protect candidates against arbitrary discrimination. In order to make sure that the registration procedure, including possible appeals, is finalized well in time for the EMB to print and distribute ballot papers, it is advisable to have a clear and transparent schedule with deadlines by which appeals have to be submitted, etc.

Criteria for registration

The criteria for registering as a candidate for election are often the same or similar as for registering a political party as an organisation.

Requirements may include:

• List of signatures in support of the candidate registration. If full addresses or other forms of information that can be used as identification (voter registration number, social security number, address, profession, workplace) are required, this makes it easier for the authorities to verify that the signatures are real.
• Proof of geographical presence, often in the form of supporting signatures from a certain number of regions or districts.
• Economic Viability through payment of registration fees ranging from smaller administrative fees to more substantial sums; or through payment of monetary deposits that may or may not be returned to the political party or candidate on the basis of election results.

In addition to these legal requirements for registration, candidates must also fulfil a number of qualifications to stand as a candidate.

Clear procedure and timetable

Deciding that a political party or candidate cannot contest an election is sensitive and will arouse anger and resentment – both from the affected party or candidate and from their followers and potential voters. In order to – as much as possible – avoid such problems, the conditions and timing for registration and nomination should be communicated in detail well before the election, and the EMB should maintain close contact with the parties and candidates seeking acceptance.

A well communicated and thought-through timetable is of great help. The Electoral Management Body or other responsible agencies need time to scrutinize the registration, for example, verifying signatures of party supporters – and to give parties the chance to appeal if they feel that their registration has been unduly denied. Therefore, political parties are often required to register and candidates be nominated well in time before the election. After the scrutinizing procedure, the EMB still needs time to print the ballot papers and distribute them to the polling stations.

Nomination of candidates

The nomination of candidates (to gain ballot access) is the formal procedure by which political parties and/or individuals put candidates forward for election, and the acceptance of the EMB of that nomination. In list systems, parties put forward a list of candidates selected within the political party.

In constituency systems, candidates are nominated individually (not as part of party lists). Depending on the country, they can be nominated either by a political party or by an individual.

Legal frameworks can place requirements on the composition of party lists. Sometimes, requirements aimed at increasing the representativity of the list by, for example, requiring the party to have a certain number of women (or other traditionally under-represented groups) are placed on the list. In some cases, not only the number but the placement on the list is specified.

Monetary Deposits for Ballot Access

It is good practice for a democratic political system to try to encourage the citizens to put themselves forward as candidates for election to public office. To make sure that only citizens with serious intentions try to gain a seat in parliament in the elections some democracies place financial deposits on the access to the ballot.

This is not only done to keep away irresponsible candidates from the ballot but also to alleviate the number of candidates who want to stand for election. Voters need some kind of a limitation of the number of candidates to select between.

One can distinguish between payment of a fee and a monetary deposit that is returned to the candidate after the elections if she/he has gained a certain amount of votes.

The monetary deposit system is applied in different ways in different electoral systems (Katz 1997: 255).

The deposits are usually higher in candidate-oriented Majority/Plurality systems than in more party-oriented Proportional Representation Systems. The Majority/Plurality electoral system tends to encourage the two major parties and hence discourage third parties and independent candidates. It is therefore said to be easier for frivolous candidates to gain votes and a seat in parliament in Plurality/Majority systems.

It is still unclear if there is a correlation between financial deposits for candidates and the number of candidates that are actually included in the ballot. One would assume in the first instance that the higher the deposit, the lower would the number of candidates be. Not all parties are as much affected by financial deposits as others. Minor parties who nominate candidates only in a few constituencies where the candidate has good hope to win the run are said to be less affected by those financial restrictions.

The example of the UK, where the financial deposit was raised by law in 1985 and the threshold of necessary vote shares to return the deposit likewise lowered, indicates that the effect of raising the deposits and lowering the threshold is rather marginal for major parties but can be significant for independent candidates (Katz 1997: 260). Although it seems very difficult to separate the effect of the lower threshold from the higher deposit. Richard Katz interprets the data as follows: the higher the deposit the lower the number of candidates of subminor parties and independents, the higher the threshold the more costs of competition for smaller and middle size parties that are placing their candidates on the ballot no matter how high the deposit will be (ibid).

Other effects of deposits, like societal implications – ie. who has wealth in society has more possibilities to stand as a candidate – or gender implications have not been explored in detail yet. But one can assume that the richer a candidate is the less deterred will he or she be by higher deposits. Serious but poor candidates may not want to contest an election because they cannot afford to potentially loose the fees (Maley 2000).

Higher deposits may also lead to a lower representation of women in parliament because they are usually faced by more financial drawbacks than man in political systems all over the world. But again, there is no clear evidence for that correlation/connection.

To avoid the deterring effects on those candidates and to discourage frivolous but rich candidates, alternative ways of requirements can be introduced, as for instance the stipulation of a specific number of nominators for one candidate.(ibid). This may however lead to discrimination as well if the required number of nominators is excessively high and only achievable for well equipped parties and candidates.

In the table (see the dynamic sidebar at the right hand side) "Table of Financial Requirements for Parliamentary Ballot Access" adapted from Katz (1997) and supplemented with other data you find a compilation of ballot access deposits in a number of countries.The inflation rate in a country is influencing the significance of the amount of the deposit.

Criteria to stand as a candidate

In addition to the qualifications that each political party may expect of the persons that will be their candidates, the legal framework can place qualification requirements on individual candidates.

The basic legal qualifications to stand as a candidate are those that apply to voters: citizenship, being of age, and in full possession of civil and political rights. If any other requirements are imposed, it is good practice to ensure that they are rational, reasonable, and objective. In order to avoid the nomination procedure being used in a discriminatory way, countries should make sure that it is clearly stated in the law what the qualifications are.

Legal qualifications to become a candidate can aim at any of the following:

• Support from a strong network or organisation by requiring candidates to be endorsed by a political party. (Such a requirement would make it impossible for an independent candidate to stand for election).
• A certain level of maturity by requiring a higher age than that required to vote. It is common for the minimum age to vary according to the importance of the office – the more important the office, the higher the minimum age for candidacy.
• Neutrality or commitment to the country by requiring the candidate to be a “natural born citizen”, not be a citizen of any other country, and/or having resided in the country (or in some countries, the relevant constituency for local or legislative elections) for a certain period before the election. Candidates may be disqualified if they have been convicted of treason or treachery. In some cases, a proof of commitment could also include having completed the military service (especially for men) and/or being a registered voter. (In countries with compulsory voting, the person may be required to have voted in the last elections.)
• Personal competence by requiring a certain level of education, that the candidate has a working level of the official language(s), and that the person is physically and (more commonly) mentally sound.
• Precluding conflicts of interest by stipulating that candidates may not hold a position in a company that is a government contractor.
• Moral aptitude by disqualifying persons that have been convicted of certain categories of crime such as crimes related to the election process, or corruption, or persons who are bankrupt.
• Ability to assume office by disqualifying persons who are under current criminal incarceration (though generally not simply under arrest prior to trial).
• Allegiance to certain societal norms like democracy, support for peaceful ethnic co-existence, non-violent competition, etc.

Any qualification, especially those based on criteria of competence, moral aptitude, and allegiance to societal norms, can be used in a discriminatory manner. If opposition politicians are subject to quasi-legal persecution, court cases could be used to stop them from contesting an election. In other cases, the requirements may not have the desired effect. Where a certain level of education is required, that often discriminates against women who have not had the same access to formal education as their male counterparts.

In general, the imposition of too many requirements always carrys with it the risk of creating legislatures or other elected bodies that are dominated by an unrepresentative elite.

De-Registration of Parties and Candidates

De-registration procedures need to be in place for occasions where a political party or a candidate wants to withdraw from the election, or is forced by circumstances to withdraw, as well as for cases where the de-registration is not voluntary but decided by the Electoral Management Body or similar authority. To read about rules for registration of political parties and candidates for elections, see the file "Registration for Election and Nomination of Candidates".

De-registration practices have often been employed as a tool to oppress opposition parties and candidates. Therefore, the stipulation of clear de-registration rules is considered an important issue for democratizing countries.

If a candidate has been registered and the ballot papers printed, countries have different ways of dealing with the situation. For examples, read the file "Resignation, Removal, Death of a Candidate Before an Election".

Voluntary de-registration

A registered political party or a candidate may voluntarily apply to be de-registered for several reasons. If a candidate has been approved for the elections, but wants to withdraw his or her nomination just before the elections, electoral laws often stipulate the necessary administrative actions.

A registered party may often apply for de-registration at any time; however, a registered political party often cannot be de-registered during the campaign period of a general election. For voluntary de-registration, there usually has to be a formal application. Sometimes, the electoral law stipulates who has to sign the application to de-register, such as the party leader, a minimum number of party members, or the parliamentary party group. In many countries, the Chief Electoral Officer decides whether the application will be granted or not, possibly after having considered the reasons for de-registration.

Involuntary de-registration

Sometimes involuntary de-registration may be used as a penalty against political parties and individual candidates in case of serious infractions of the electoral law. De-registration of political parties and candidates is the strongest sanction and in liberal democracies only applied for very limited and well-defined infractions in order to prevent abuses of the sanction itself, e.g., to exclude bona fide parties and candidates of the opposition parties from the elections.

The party that is in danger of being de-registered often has a certain timeframe to respond to accusations. In particular, the de-registered candidate or party needs a certain time to appeal for reinstatement. Some candidates and parties may refuse to accept their de-registration for election, in particular if they are not aware of the reasons for de-registration. The appeals process is an essential part of a free and fair election.

Several reasons can lead to involuntary de-registration of a registered political party, generally involving situations where the political party is no longer able to fulfil the requirements defined by the electoral or party law. Examples are cases where:

• The party has failed to nominate candidates in time for election
• The party has failed to report in time about internal party changes, such as change of party name, logo, or replacement of party leader
• The party has failed to report financial transactions, such as election expenses and incomes
• The party no longer fulfills membership requirements
• The registration was gained through corruption or other unlawful means

In the case of candidates, de-registration can occur if the candidate for example

• Starts campaigning before he or she has officially registered as a candidate
• Campaigns during the blackout period (if any)
• Dishonours other candidates in the election campaign or in other ways violates important aspects of the electoral law

The Effect of Electoral System on Parties and Candidates

There are several elements of electoral systems that may influence political parties in their magnitude, organisation, and campaigning and the opportunities for independent candidates in a political system.

One of the most important factors is the electoral system’s ability to translate votes cast into seats won proportionally. Determining this is to a large extent the district magnitude, which is the number of members to be elected in each electoral district.

Under a Plurality/Majority system such as FPTP, AV, or the Two-Round System, there is a district magnitude of one; voters are electing a single representative.

By contrast, all PR systems, some plurality/majority systems such as Block Vote and PBV, and some other systems such as Limited Vote and SNTV, require electoral districts which elect more than one member. Under any proportional system, the number of members to be chosen in each district determines, to a significant extent, how proportional the election results will be.

There is generally a strong positive correlation between average district magnitude and average party magnitude. The party magnitude is an important factor in determining who will be elected. If only one candidate from a party is elected in a district, that candidate is likely to be male and a member of the majority ethnic or social group in the district. If two or more are elected, balanced tickets may have more effect, making it likely that more women and more candidates from minorities will be successful.

Different kinds of electoral system are likely to encourage different kinds of party organisation and party system.

Highly centralized political systems using closed-list PR are the most likely to encourage strong party organisations; conversely, decentralized, district-based systems like FPTP may have the opposite effect. The type of electoral system may influence the type of party system that evolves. The FPTP system, for instance, mostly sustains a party system that consists of two major parties, often gravitating towards a party on the left and one on the right, alternating in power. Proportional Representation Systems, on the other hand, encourage the formation of several political parties, thereby better reflecting the policy, ideology, or leadership differences within society.

The electoral system design is crucial for the understanding of the position of individual candidates in the political system as a whole. Different kinds of electoral systems result in different relationships between individual candidates and their supporters. In general, systems which make use of single-member electoral districts are seen as encouraging individual candidates to see themselves as the delegates of particular geographical areas and beholden to the interests of their local electorate. By contrast, systems which use large multi-member districts, such as most PR systems, are more likely to deliver representatives whose primary loyalty lies with their party on national issues.

The electoral system design can influence the way a party campaigns and the way political elites behave. Proportional representation list systems, where voters choose between parties and policy programmes, are said to foster campaign centralization. Proportional representation systems also encourage parties to campaign beyond the districts in which they are strong, because the political parties aim to increase their overall votes regardless where the votes come from. In Plurality/Majority Systems, on the other hand, voters tend to choose between candidates rather than among political parties and programmes. In a single-member-district system, the campaigning would focus on that particular candidate.

Additionally, under a Plurality/Majority system, a party may practically abandon its campaign in a district where it sees no chance of winning.

District Magnitude and Political Parties

The district magnitude refers to the number of legislative seats assigned to a district, ranging anywhere from the exclusive use of single-member districts to a system where the entire country functions as a single district. District magnitude is the primary determinant of an electoral system’s ability to translate votes cast into seats won proportionally.

The district magnitude also has an impact on political parties, candidates, and campaigning. Small district magnitude, for example, fosters stronger links between individual candidates and their local constituencies. On the other hand, large districts give a stronger proportionality, and when more persons are elected from one district, they are more likely to represent various points of view, so more voters will feel that their opinion is represented in the legislature. District magnitude thus has an effect on the extent to which voters feel that their views are represented.

Large districts (together with a relatively small number of parties) increase party magnitude, the number of representatives from one political party elected from the district. This tends to affect candidate selection by political parties, since if the party magnitude is large, it is more likely that the legislature will consist of members from different ethnic and social groups, both sexes, etc. since parties will feel that they can win the most seats by presenting a wider variety of candidates.

The district magnitude also has implications for campaigning. If the district is small and the party magnitude less than one, political parties may decide to spend their campaign resources elsewhere instead of “wasting” them in districts where they are not likely to win any seat.

Because of this, there has been a lively debate about the best district magnitude. The systems which want to achieve the greatest degree of proportionality will use very large districts, because such districts are able to ensure that even very small parties are represented in the legislature. In smaller districts, the effective threshold is higher.

The problem is that as districts are made larger—both in terms of the number of seats and often, as a consequence, in terms of their geographic size as well—the linkage between an elected member and his or her constituency grows weaker.

Large districts can have serious consequences in societies where local factors play a strong role in politics or where voters expect their members to maintain strong links with the electorate and act as their ‘delegate’ in the legislature. Accountability can be diminished and people can become disengaged from politics if they cannot clearly see who represents their region or district in the legislature.

Party Magnitude and Candidate Selection

Party magnitude can be defined as the number of seats a party wins in a specific electoral district.

The party magnitude is an important factor in determining who will be elected. If only one candidate from a party is elected in a district, political parties will seek to field a candidate that they are relatively certain will win. This often means that the candidates fielded in electoral districts where the party magnitude is one will often be from the dominant ethnic and social group of the district, and will in most cases be a man since their chances of winning the seat are perceived to be greater. If, on the other hand, the political party believes that more than one of their candidates will be elected from the district (i.e. that the party magnitude is greater than one), they have the opportunity to put together what they think will be a “winning team” or a “balanced ticket”. Women, youth, and persons from other ethic and social groups than the majority are more likely to get a place on such a candidate list. The further down the party goes on their candidate list in the specific district, the more likely it is that the elected candidates will be a diverse group, more representative of the overall population of the district.

There is generally a strong positive correlation between average district magnitude (i.e. the total number of seats distributed to all parties in an electoral district) and average party magnitude. As the number of seats per district increases, parties will go further down their lists (that is, win more seats), and more parties will have multi-member delegations. Larger districts (seven or more seats in size) and a relatively small number of parties will increase the party magnitude.

The Effect of Electoral System on Party System

Some electoral systems encourage the evolution of political parties more than others. Also, the type of party system that evolves is greatly influenced by the electoral system in place.

The FPTP (First-Past-the Post) system, as the simplest example of Plurality/Majority systems, generally provides voters in a district a clear choice between two parties, often gravitating towards a party on the left and one on the right, alternating in power. This can be explained by the inherent disadvantages faced by smaller parties under FPTP. Typically, FPTP gives rise to a single-party government and to a coherent opposition party. The FPTP system advantages broadly based political parties that try to encompass many elements of the society and thus disadvantages extremist parties and those that focus on a single issue. On the other hand, the FPTP system excludes smaller parties and minorities from fair representation.

Proportional Representation Systems, on the other hand, encourage the formation of several political parties that generally reflect policy, ideology, or leadership differences within society. Also, minority parties gain easier access to representation. Under certain conditions, PR Systems can result in stability and continuity in government and public policy decision-making. Having said that, the greater number of parties that PR systems tend to give rise to may, at the worst, lead to a destabilizing of the political system in general.

For instance, in an extreme pluralistic system, the need for coalition governments sometimes forces parties to cooperate with tiny extremist parties in order to form a majority. PR systems can also offer an opening to extremist parties, because they, as all small parties, get a disproportionately large amount of power when larger parties need their support in order to form a government.

Other impacts of different types of electoral systems on political parties and party systems in democratic societies can be summarized as follows:

• Highly centralized political systems using closed-list PR are the most likely to encourage strong party organisations; conversely, decentralized, district-based systems like FPTP may have the opposite effect.
• Not only the shape of a party system but also the internal cohesion and discipline of parties may be affected by the electoral system design. Some electoral systems encourage more factionalism than others. This often leads to internal party disputes where one wing is constantly at odds with another wing. Other systems, in contrast, tend to foster the unity of a party, e.g. to speak with one voice.
• Besides the electoral system design, there are many other electoral variables that can be used to influence the development of party systems. For example, new democracies like Russia and Indonesia have attempted to shape the development of their nascent party systems by providing institutional incentives for the formation of national rather than regional political parties. Other countries, such as Ecuador and Papua New Guinea, have used party registration and funding requirements to achieve similar objectives.
• Access to public and/or private funding is a key issue that cuts across electoral system design, and is often the single biggest constraint on the emergence of viable new parties.

Just as electoral system choice will affect the way in which the political party system develops, the political party system in place affects the evolution of the electoral system. Existing parties are unlikely to support changes that are likely to seriously disadvantage them, or changes that open the possibility of new, rival parties gaining entry to the political party system, unless there is a strong political imperative. The range of options for electoral system change may thus be constrained in practice.

The Effect of Electoral System on Candidates

One should keep in mind that the different kinds of electoral systems result in different relationships between candidates and their supporters.

In general, systems which make use of single-member electoral districts, such as most plurality/majority systems, especially the FPTP system, are seen as encouraging individual candidates to consider themselves as the delegates of particular geographical areas and beholden to the interests of their local electorate.

The FPTP System tends to encourage voters to make their choice rather among the individual candidates than between the different political parties and programmes. A popular independent candidate has therefore much better chances to gain support than in PR systems. This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolve more around extended ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong political party organisation. Additionally, plurality/majority systems are said to maximize the ability of the electorate to throw out unsatisfactory individual representatives.

By contrast, systems which use large multi-member districts, such as most PR systems, are more likely to deliver representatives whose primary loyalty lies with their party on national issues. Both approaches have their merits, which is one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of mixed systems that combine both local and national-level representatives.

Holding individual representatives accountable The question of accountability is often raised in discussions of political parties and electoral systems, especially in relation to individual elected members. Accountability at the individual level is the ability of the electorate to effectively check on those who, once elected, betray the promises they made during the campaign or demonstrate incompetence or idleness in office and to ‘throw the rascals out’.

The relationships between electors, elected members, and political parties are affected not only by the electoral system but also by other provisions of the political legislative framework such as term limits, provisions regulating the relationship between parties and their members who are also elected representatives, or provisions barring elected members from changing parties without resigning from the legislature. The freedom for voters to choose between candidates as opposed to parties is another aspect of accountability.

By-Elections

Due to death, resignation, or expulsion of elected representatives from a party, parliamentary seats sometimes become vacant between elections. How often vacancies arise largely depends on the term of the office: the shorter the term, the less frequently there are likely to be vacancies.

Related to this is the question of whether or not elected representatives can keep their seats if they leave or are expelled from their political party, which can be dealt with in different ways in legislation. If they are allowed to keep their seat, there is no need for a by-election. For more information about this, read the file about Floor-Crossing.

How to fill the vacant seat

If a seat becomes vacant between elections, List PR systems often simply fill it with the next candidate on the list of the party of the former representative, thus eliminating the need to hold another election.

However, plurality/majority systems often have provisions for filling vacant seats through a by-election. A by-election offers the opportunity to fill the vacant seat with a fresh candidate, and it allows the voters to express their will again. Voters may vote differently and thereby express discontent with the government. In a FPTP, single-member district system, by-elections are held in the constituency with the same rules applying as at general elections but often with other types of candidates, e.g., more publicity-seeking individuals who gain more attention in by-elections than they would in a countrywide general election.

Effects of by-elections

By-elections are smaller and therefore less costly than normal elections, but in some countries they will nevertheless put a significant burden on the budget, and seats are sometimes left vacant for long periods because of a lack of capacity to arrange by-elections. This is an especially salient problem in some countries in Africa, where the HIV/AIDS epidemic often leads to a large number of vacant seats between elections.

Since it usually takes time to hold and organise by-elections, the seat remains vacant for a while. This may cause problems for party groups in parliament, if they need every single member to vote for passing or rejecting legislation.

In some circumstances, by-elections can have a wider political impact than merely replacing individual members, and are seen as a mid-term test of the performance of the government. If the number of vacancies to be filled during a parliamentary term is large, this can lead to a change in the composition of the legislature and an altered power base for the government, or even a change in government.

Voting in by-elections generally differs from that at a general election, in that voters tend to express discontent with the current government in by-elections. The more the by-election is in the middle of the legislative term, the more losses a government usually has to expect. Furthermore, since only one member of the legislature is being elected in the by-elections, voters sometimes feel encouraged to vote for parties that would not gain a lot of support in a general election. Another difference between by-elections and general elections is the fact that by-elections usually receive less publicity and therefore voter turnout rate is mostly lower.

It is possible to avoid by-elections by electing substitutes at the same time as the ordinary representatives. If a member of parliament needs to leave the seat, the elected substitute simply replaces her/him. These substitutes may also replace the elected representative and therefore participate in voting and parliamentary work if the principal suffers from a sickness, travels, or is on parental leave.

Relationship between Parties and Candidates and the Electoral Management Body

This section deals with the relationship between the Electoral Management Bodies (EMB) and the political parties and candidates as key stakeholders in the electoral process. Since the parties and candidates are involved in every step of the electoral process, it is in the interest of both the EMB and the parties and candidates to maintain close relations and regular meetings throughout the process.

The section "Parties and Candidates as Stakeholders" will discuss how political parties may perform their function as key stakeholders in the electoral process, depending on how intense their involvement in the electoral management is. The type of relationship between political parties and candidates and the EMB differs between countries. In some, parties may be important parts of the election commission itself, while in other cases they are only involved through consultation mechanisms. For more information on the types of involvement of parties and candidates in the EMB, read the section "Types of Involvement".

Consultative meetings can be formalized through Party Liaison Committees or similar bodies.

Parties and Candidates as Stakeholders

When the Electoral Management Body (EMB) designs and implements its policies and activities, it needs to take into account the concerns and needs of political parties and candidates. Parties and candidates are key stakeholders in the elections – they are the ones carrying out campaigns, monitoring the process, and ultimately gaining or loosing elected office. It is in the interest of both the EMB and the parties and candidates to maintain good relations throughout the process. Unless the EMB has an open-door policy and treats all parties and candidates equally, its policies and programs will attract opposition and criticism that will make it difficult for the EMB to enjoy widespread support. Regular joint meetings with political parties – at least one per month and perhaps more frequently during an election period – can provide a framework for this mutual communication.

It is important that political parties be involved in consultations about setting the EMB’s strategic objectives and in evaluations of its performance. As a key customer, political parties’ and candidates’ opinions on the EMB’s focus, priorities, and service provided are a useful ingredient in improving electoral management. During election periods, regular consultation with political parties and candidates can promote agreement on the EMB’s timetables, processes, and outputs, as well as ensure that parties and candidates remain fully informed of all aspects of the electoral process. After each election, it is useful for the EMB to include political parties in general consultations with stakeholders on how to improve the electoral framework.

The type of relationship that the political parties and candidates may have with the EMB differs between countries. At times, parties form part of the election commission itself, while in other cases, there are even few consultation mechanisms.

Types of Involvement

Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) can legitimately be constituted in a non-partisan way, in a multi-partisan way, or through a mixture of both. The same holds true for boundary delimitation committees. The type chosen determines the extent to which political parties and candidates are involved.

• Non-partisan Electoral Management Bodies

In non-partisan EMBs, political parties and candidates have no representation. The persons on the board are there in their capacity as election administrators, trusted public figures, election experts, or other professionals seen as impartial and independent of political powers.

• Multi-partisan Electoral Management Bodies

Many countries, especially those that experienced difficult transitions from authoritarian rule to multiparty democracy, have opted to use what are called multiparty-based or partisan EMBs. The fight against authoritarianism in these countries may have polarised society to the extent that it is difficult to find public figures widely accepted as ‘independent’ to serve on the EMB for a transitional election. Multiparty EMBs comprise a mixture of political party nominees and may also include some technocrats, such as judges, academics, and career public servants.

There is a belief among some electoral analysts that having political party representatives on the EMB engenders consensus among actors in the electoral contest and contributes to enhanced transparency, all of which lead to improved confidence in the electoral process. On the other hand, a political party-based EMB can imperil or cripple decision-making, especially in situations where vital party interests are at stake and members are unwilling to reach workable compromises. The presence of politicians on the EMB may undermine confidentiality in matters such as the security of balloting materials. Multiparty-based EMBs also tend to generate dissatisfaction, especially among minority parties which might be excluded from sitting on the EMB, either because they are not represented in parliament or they did not participate in the negotiation leading to the initial appointments of EMB members.

• Mixed Electoral Management Bodies

Some electoral legal frameworks specify that the EMB’s members should be partly drawn from independent experts and partly from appointments by political parties. This may merge advantages from both models, producing even-handed bodies that have both political party buy-in and transparency in operations.

This ‘mixed’ model can be implemented in various ways. For instance, a standing EMB made up of 5 members of the legal profession could be augmented for election periods by 3 members of each of the majority and opposition blocs in parliament, all with equal voting rights. Thus only if opposing political tendencies agree can the independent members be outvoted. Another option could be that the EMB is a permanent body comprising 8 expert members, with a representative of each parliamentary group in the legislature and of each national political party as non-voting members.

Political Parties Liaison Committee

The organisation of elections necessarily requires the EMB to be in contact with political parties through their organisational structure, their candidates, agents, and other party volunteers. The EMB plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the election process, but it must be remembered that political parties have a similar role to play in ensuring fairness of the process and engendering confidence in the system by playing by the rules and, in particular, the acceptance of results. The EMB should establish a process whereby there is a regular contact with political parties. During non-election periods, communication may be in the form of letters, briefing notes, newsletters, or circulars supplemented by quarterly meetings.

Once an election is called, party representatives should be invited to attend a pre-election briefing where such issues as:

• election timetable
• allocation of broadcasting time
• media monitoring arrangements
• polling place allocation
• party rally arrangements
• nomination process
• election day arrangements
• counting of the votes

can be discussed.

Agreement among the political parties to any code of conduct or, in the absence of such a code, agreement to play by the rules, may be a useful tool for the EMB to use to demonstrate a public commitment to fair elections. Whether or not parties play a role in any aspect of election implementation, there is a strong argument to be made for weekly or regular meetings at all levels between election administrators and party representatives and those of independent candidates to ensure that the parties and candidates have a clear understanding of the process and are generally satisfied with the process. This becomes particularly important when last minute changes, however justified, are made (for example, the late addition of polling stations, voters list alterations, or revised boundary delimitation). Meetings of this type also provide the parties with the opportunity to make comments and suggestions, air complaints and concerns, and “let off steam”. This can serve to resolve situations before they become major issues as well as to develop mutual sensitivity and understanding between parties and electoral officials.

An “advisory” or “consultative” committee can be provided for in the electoral law. Such provisions would stipulate the establishment of the group, comprising one or more representatives from each party or independent candidate, require regular meetings with the commission or at least a dedicated subcommittee, and give them certain rights (such as the inspection of documents).

Media in Election Campaigns

Political parties and candidates tend to find the media, and in particular television, more and more important for campaigning and seek to appear as much as possible on the television. Television is widely regarded as the most important instrument for campaigning and communication to the voters in countries with widespread coverage and audience.

If there is to be some regulation of what the media may or may not do during an election, then logically this is likely to apply to a specified campaign period. There is usually a period of official campaigning during which the regulations will apply, while otherwise normal practice will prevail.

The official campaign period is a period just before an election. Nevertheless, campaigning for public office usually takes place for a longer period of time than the "official" campaign period specified in the electoral calendar.

In some countries, there are also regulations specifying a period of “campaign silence”, a time frame or a certain number of days immediately before the elections during which no campaigning at all is permitted and there are strict limitations on what the media may write or broadcast.

Role of Media in Elections Campaign

The media has a role to inform the citizens about the competing political parties and their programmes and candidates, and to contribute to the formation of opinion of the electorate. This may include formal voter education material provided by the electoral management body; alternatively or additionally, the media themselves may produce their own voter education materials.

The overall aim of media coverage during elections campaigns in democracies is fair and objective reporting and information dissemination. This can, for instance, be achieved through measures such as a just allocation of broadcasting time between all the competing parties and candidates, (voluntary) agreements on fair news programmes, reports, and non-news programmes, or debates between party leaders. It is crucial in the first instance to ensure that every party and/or independent candidate has access to the media, in particular radio and / or television, since most voters gain their knowledge about politics via the media. That means that a broadcaster is not entitled to influence the public opinion by different treatment of one or another candidate or party. But still it is often the broadcaster who decides who is gaining access to the debates and discussion programmes.

Media is sometimes manipulated by the governing party (especially if the media is state-owned) to report in their favour. Manipulation can take place during the designing of the programmes, reports and news, discussion programmes, and even non-news programmes, such as pure entertainment shows and movies. Propaganda may be disseminated under the guise of objective public information by the government. The danger of misuse of government power for campaigning purposes can be limited if laws and regulations are in place to regulate the role of the media in the elections campaign.

Laws and Regulations concerning the media in elections campaign may define:

• If parties and candidates are allowed free political advertisement
• How time or space will be allocated to candidates and political parties
• Whether paid political advertising is to be permitted
• If election expenditures that affect advertising campaigns are limited
• Whether time and content of electoral broadcasts is to be restricted
• What duty the media has to carry voter education material (Link to Regulation of Content of Direct Access Material)
• Whether there is to be a right of reply to factual misrepresentation in the media
• If opinion poll findings are to be published.
• What the regulations should be about policies on "hate speech" and defamation.

The public media are thought to have a special duty to publish or broadcast election statements by competing parties. It is generally accepted that the publicly funded media have some obligation to allow parties and candidates to communicate directly with the electorate on an equal basis, whereas the private media have the right to publish or broadcast more often statements of the parties and candidates they prefer.

Campaigning

Electoral campaigning is the process by which a campaign organisation (be it a party, candidate, or special interest organisation) seeks electoral support in a bid to win political office (see Farrell 1996, Kavanagh 2000:29 and Nelson 1999).

The campaign period is the period just before an election. Many countries choose to define a set campaign period during which special rules apply to parties, candidates, and media. In reality, campaigning for public office is usually done for a longer period of time than the "official" campaign period specified in the electoral calendar. In other countries, there are no laws or regulations at all to define a clear electoral campaign period.

In some countries, there are also regulations specifying a period of “campaign silence”, a time frame or a certain number of days right before the elections in which no campaigning at all is permitted. This regulation may be restricted only to the visual media, like television or cinemas.

There are several campaign issues that can affect the fairness and integrity of the election. These include the timing of the campaign, ability to campaign freely, the neutrality of electoral officials during the campaign, security for participants, and free access to media.

Factors influencing Electoral Campaigning

Electoral campaigns can be very different in different countries and between elections. Many factors influence the nature of the campaign, including the type of office the election is for; the legislative framework for electoral campaigning (such as electoral laws), cultural habits, and media outreach; the electoral and party systems, etc. Campaign strategies are on the one hand influenced by the political context in which they occur, and on the other hand affected by the political parties who conduct the electoral campaign. (Kavanagh 2000)

Electoral campaigning varies heavily depending on the type of political system. A presidential system tends to promote candidate-centred campaigns, while parliamentary systems favour political parties (see Farrell 1996). In general terms, federalism tends to promote decentralized campaigns, whereas a centralized political system leads to a national electoral campaign.

The electoral system design can influence the way a party campaigns and the way political elites behave. The type of the electoral system may, for instance, determine the broader political climate, encourage rough competitiveness between parties, or promote the building of alliances between parties. Electoral system design may also encourage parties to be broadly based and accommodate widely varying perspectives. Proportional representation list systems, where voters choose between parties and policy programmes, are said to foster campaign centralization. They encourage parties to campaign beyond the districts in which they are strong, because the political parties aim to increase their overall vote totals regardless where the votes come from.

In Plurality/Majority Systems, on the other hand, voters tend to choose between candidates rather than among political parties and programmes. In a single-member-district system, the campaigning tends to focus on the particular candidate and his or her electoral campaign and issues relevant to that particular district.

The type of the party system may also influence the campaigning strategies of the political parties. In two-party systems, which often evolve out of Majority/Plurality Systems, the campaign is often heavily competitive, and the parties compete for the marginal votes to gain a majority (see Farrell 1996). In multiparty systems, on the other hand (which often emerge out of proportional representation systems), parties don’t necessarily compete for the marginal votes, because theses usually aren’t crucial for the parties’ seats in parliament. But still, the major parties may compete very intensively against each other in PR Systems, especially if the parties are forming opposing blocks and pre-election alliances.

The availability of campaign finance partly determines the nature of the campaign, especially the professionalisation of campaigns.

Coalitions and Elections Alliances

Political parties form a pre-electoral coalition by publicly stating that they intend to form a government with each other if they receive enough votes in the up-coming elections. In many cases, however, political parties contest the elections completely independently, and voters therefore do not have any opportunity to accept or reject the post-election discussions leading to a new governing coalition.

By coordinating their campaigning strategies and sometimes even by harmonizing their political programmes, parties try to improve their chances to win as many seats as possible in the legislature. Sometimes, a political party may even give their supporters tactical recommendations to vote for the potential coalition partner, in order to ensure that all the political parties that are part of the pre-electoral coalition will gain enough votes to be represented in parliament. This is especially done in electoral systems where voters can cast two votes on one ballot and have the possibility to split their votes and may therefore support two different parties with the one ballot cast. If, for instance, supporters of a major party cast one of their votes in favour of the potential coalition partner, this may help both parties to gain representation in parliament.

Pre-election alliances are a common phenomenon in liberal democracies. Only in Western Europe, almost 200 pre-election coalitions were formed between 1946 and 2002. The forms of pre-electoral coalitions vary from party to party and from country to country, ranging from a loose promise to govern together to shared manifestos and voting recommendations.

One can classify pre-electoral agreements between political parties by the clarity of the commitment to govern together.

According to Carroll and Cox, the weakest form would be the pure announcement to work together, the second would be that parties announce a joint platform, the third that the partners would run joint district lists or a joint national list, and the strongest form would be that the coalitions negotiate mutual withdrawals, i.e. a candidate of one party in one district and a candidate of the other party in another district so that the two partners are not competing against each other in any district. In addition to these forms, the authors stress that looser forms of electoral cooperation between parties, i.e., as running just a few joint candidates or encouraging voters to vote for an ally, may occur (ibid).

Effect on representative nature of government

If a party receives the majority of vote shares and forms the government by itself, the voters may demand the government be accountable to them. Voters then have a direct influence over government policy. If, on the other hand, parties have to seek a coalition partner in order to gain a majority of seats, voter preferences are not necessarily reflected in the final coalition government.

Pre-election coalitions are said to be helpful in these cases, as they enable the voters to identify possible government alternatives even before the votes are cast. The voters may directly support one of the proposed coalitions and therefore furnish the new government with more legitimacy.

Conditions of forming pre-electoral alliances

Although the conditions of forming pre-electoral coalitions have not been explored systematically, one can find two major hypotheses about the factors influencing coalition formation.

The so-called disproportionality hypothesis states that pre-election alliances are more likely to arise in disproportional electoral systems if there are many or at least more than two parties. The basic assumption would be that the electoral system may have a considerable effect on coalition forming and alliances in the pre-election period.

Majority/plurality electoral systems usually advantage larger parties. If there are more than two competing parties in the party system, the major parties would tend to seek pre-election alliances in order to enlarge their chances of achieving a majority in the legislature and thus being part of the government. In these kinds of electoral systems, parties may for instance share their votes or even systematically transfer votes within their electoral alliances.

Another approach to explain the formation of pre-election arrangements would be the so-called signalling-device theory .The formation of party coalitions before elections is interpreted as a signal or a clear demonstration to the electorate that the party would be able to govern the country in a stable coalition. This can be especially valid in cases where opposition parties manage to form electoral coalitions against the ruling one-party government. If a major party has ruled for a very long time, the opposition parties may want to move closer together (i.e. ideologically), and to form alliances in order to try to replace the government.

Resignation, Removal, Death of a Candidate Before an Election

If a candidate dies, withdraws, or leaves his or her political party after the ballots are printed but before the election is held, there are different ways in which legislation can deal with the problem. It is useful to define in legislation or regulations for the election the administrative actions to be taken on the death or withdrawal (due to resignation or expulsion) of a candidate, whether as an individual candidate or a member of a party or group list for election.

It is good practice that whatever administrative or legal actions are taken following the death or withdrawal of a candidate are formally communicated by the election administration to all other candidates, groups, or parties whose candidature has been accepted for the affected election.

The administrative actions taken would generally be of greater sensitivity where the candidate has been nominated for an election in which each candidate appears individually on the ballot, as any replacement candidate would ideally have to go through the same nomination process the original candidate went through – e.g., collecting signatures, public inspection of nominating petitions, etc. – which would be very time consuming. Where only party or group list names appear on the ballot, equitable election systems would contain mechanisms for substitution of another candidate from the list, or another party or group nominee, were the candidate to be elected.

Sometimes a candidate wants to withdraw his consent to nomination. It is generally not practicable, and may invite intimidation of candidates, for systems to allow withdrawal after the closing time for nominations (however, this is allowed, within a short period after close of nominations, in some jurisdictions, particularly at the local government level).

Countries often require that a request for withdrawal of candidacy be in the form of a signed, witnessed statement by the candidate.

Parties as Election Monitors

An important responsibility of political parties is to act as watchdogs during the election process, to protect the party’s interests by closely monitoring the correctness of the procedures used during the elections. The crucial role of party representatives is to witness the entire procedure and to check for irregularities that might constitute fraud. This requires the presence of the parties during the registration process, when the ballot boxes are sealed, during the voting process, when the ballot boxes are opened, when votes are counted, and when ballot boxes are transported.

Advantages of the involvement of party and candidate agents monitoring the election include that they contribute to the legitimacy and trust of the process. Political parties that have observed the electoral process are less likely to oppose the official results unless they have evidence of fraud. It can also reduce the cost of the elections by employing voluntary observers during, for example, the transportation of votes, instead of relying on costly security and expensive material. The risks of such an approach, on the other hand, may be that the party and candidate agents dominate the process and intimidate voters and candidates.

Countries have different ways of registering voters. A task normally expected of parties in countries where registration is voluntary and not automatic, is to ensure that their supporters are included on the voter’s roll. They may also have the task of objecting to the registration of those they feel are not entitled to be on the register. In many counties, the public authorities leave it to the rival parties to conduct the policing of the register (voter’s list) on the assumption that their local organisations will have local knowledge and that it will be in their self-interest to object to the inclusion of ineligible individuals placed on the register by their political opponents. In order to allow this “policing by party”, the system in many countries is to publish a draft or provisional register; followed by a period of complaints and objections, only after which the final register comes into force.

The presence of agents of candidates and parties during the voting is a strong anti-fraud device. However, this depends on the ability of each party to recruit and train the necessary number of local representatives. It has proven difficult for parties in some countries to recruit poll watchers in areas where they were politically weak. The opposite problem can also occur, i.e., the polling stations become overcrowded with dozens of agents. Monitoring the transport of ballots and sensitive election equipment can be done by party monitors or independent observers. In many cases, police or other security personnel accompany the transported material. In established democracies, sometimes a high trust level results in no monitoring of the transport whatsoever. Polling station staff might transport the votes themselves. One of the most difficult and yet essential parts of the process to monitor is the vote count. Mechanisation, or a complex count, may lead to suspicion on the part of the party monitors. A clear understanding of procedures is essential to present proper challenges to inaccuracies or unfairness at the count.