Context of Voting Operations

Each election takes place in a context that is affected by political, social, historical and cultural factors. Administrative and cost factors also impact upon the electoral process, and specifications of these will differ depending on electoral systems, countries and geographical regions.

Historical Overview

Public Decision-Making: Public representation has been part of early systems for community decisions making. This took place through choosing persons to represent the views of populations (and later to act as bodies of governance). This public representation relied on simple means, such as a show of hands, in ancient Greece by the dropping of ceramic tiles in assigned positions, and in some Asian and Pacific societies through structured group discussion leading to community consensus.

The viability of this form of public representation is inappropiate in extensive and diverse contemporary societies.

Individual Focus

From the later stages of the nineteenth century societies became increasingly individualist. The gradual spread of the secret ballot, in order to protect the views of individuals in societies, brought about more formalised voting processes and with them needs for more formal, accountable administrative structures for voting and the provision of a wider range of voting materials. This need was heightened by parallel moves towards the gradual widening of eligibility for participation in voting to embrace all sectors of societies.

Mass Voting

Mass voting brought with it a requirement for more complex organisation and administration, not only in the provision of facilities (voting sites, materials, staffing) to enable people to vote, but in the accountability processes required to ensure that voting involving large numbers of voters was managed in a fashion that provided integrity of processes, equitable outcomes, and the opportunity for all eligible persons to participate freely.

Responsibilities

The increasing potential participants in voting processes, complexity of voting processes, and numbers and powers of widely-elected institutions, gradually resulted in a change in perceived responsibilities towards participation in voting.

Voting operations  evolved from a simple community based process into a process that required structured organization, planning, administration and implementation. Consistency of product, product variety and product information availability became paramount needs.

One of the great challenges currently facing voting operations administrators is to ensure that this requirement for consistency does not impede the ability to provide service to voters, recognizing them as individuals, living in widely divergent communities.

Contemporary Voting Concerns

Current concerns of voting operations remain focused on the dual requirements for voting secrecy and providing freedom and opportunity for all persons (subject to reasonable limitations on the basis of such criteria as age and residence) to vote, though in changing contexts.

The gradual introduction of technology into voting processes--through production of up- to-date voters' lists and the use of machines and particularly computers for voting--opens up more efficient and potentially more accountable and accurate ways of recording votes. It brings with it a new set of challenges regarding protection of voting secrecy where votes are recorded by electronic means, possibilities of manipulating systems for recording votes, and making these new technologies accessible to and understandable by all potential voters.

Social and Political Context

Appropriateness for Environment: The social and political environment has a fundamental impact upon the voting operations processes and the electoral system they serve. Effective processes will be specific to the given environment. Migrating procedures or transferring systems or practices that work in one country to another environment, with insufficient analysis of their relevance to or impact on the social environment or their acceptance by local populations, may result in ineffective operations. It is critical that voting operations processes:

• include sufficient control measures for voters and candidates to be assured of the integrity of the election;

• are capable of being understood by all election participants;

• are appropriate for the human skills and technological capacities available.

Physical and social geography conditions, including transport infrastructure, weather, accessibility, size of geographic area, population size and distribution, and skill levels of human resources available will have a large influence on appropriate methods for implementing voting processes.

Political and legal environment

Each society is governed by a regulatory and legal system that determines the limitations and extent of administrative and legal procedures. This applies to electoral processes where each country’s legal system establishes a framework for the conduct of elections and the role and functions of the electoral management body.

Each action or function undertaken by the electoral management body must be conducted in accordance with the regulatory or legal framework. 

Security

Security levels provided both to voters and voting materials must be proportionate to the perceived and actual risks inherent in the electoral process. Each environment needs to be subject to security risk analysis to determine appropriate security strategies.

Fraud Prevention

Appropriate methods for preventing fraud will vary according to the risks in each political environment, and the levels of trust in the society at large. More intensive, costly and cumbersome measures will generally need to be taken to ensure election integrity in societies emerging from civil conflict. But at the very least, the election authorities should:

• ensure the integrity of ballots

• check voters eligibility to vote when they attend a voting station,

• protect election materials in general from theft or manipulation,

• provide effective and appropriate penalties for infringements of electoral legislation, regulations and codes of conduct

Literacy

Literacy levels need to be considered when developing materials, information programmes and recruitment and training processes for staff.

Cultural Differences

Voting operations may be simpler to implement in broadly homogeneous societies with a single standard language and common cultural expectations. Where societies contain a mixture of nationalities, cultures, and particularly language groups, providing a consistent level of service to all voters can become more complex. Materials, procedures and providing services should include information services and materials in different community languages

If cultural practices compete with democratic electoral processes a compromise may need to be established that respects traditional and cultural norms and practices and provides for them within the country’s electoral operations and practices.

Information Base

Voting operations is an information-intensive activity. In societies where administrative records of past electoral activities are not available, or not of good quality, it will be more challenging to target services appropriately and deliver cost-effectiveness in voting processes.

Post-Conflict Environments

Post-conflict environments require specific considerations. Measures to protect the integrity of voting will generally need to be more intensive to ensure that that the public has faith in the transparency, reliability and security of all processes associated with voting.

There are other organisational issues affecting voting operations that may be relevant. The electoral, legal and procedural framework in post-conflict and other transitional environments may still be in a fluid state during the election period and subject to continuing negotiation between political interests.

Development of contingency plans to meet potential framework changes becomes a very important part of voting operations planning in such environments.

Administrative Considerations

A number of important factors will shape the effective administration of voting operations. It is important to recognise that effective responses to these issues will be environment specific.

There is no one model that will be most effective in any situation, for reasons of resource availability, cultural environment, stages of technological development and the like.

Basic administrative considerations include:

• the goals and objectives of each task within the process of voting operations;

• the administrative structures, actions and time frames determined by legal and electoral management system frameworks.

• within any such restraints, a cost-effective administrative structure to ensure election integrity and service delivery;

• a calendar for effective delivery of election services;

• the resources that are required for effective planning and implementation of voting operations services to achieve the objectives within the expected time frames, and how they can best be acquired, managed and maintained;

•which organisations are to be involved in delivering voting operations services and what are their responsibilities.

• how information necessary for provision of voting operations services is best managed;

•how the performance of the administrative structures in implementing voting operations activities is to be administratively monitored and evaluated;

• The contingency structures required in case of management failure or changes in the environment.

There will be special factors relevant to these considerations in developing countries.

Administrative Structures

The focus of voting operations activity is at a local level, and effective administration structures will mirror this by providing focal points at the local level.

What is important under all administrative arrangements is that a core body of voting operations skills and knowledge is maintained and developed. Even where electoral management bodies are not permanent, programmes of regular skill revision and enhancement will give some readiness assurance, and prove more reliable and often less costly than recruiting and training new networks of voting operations administrative staff for each election.

Resource Acquisition and Maintenance

Voting operations is a complex resourcing and administration process; high speed, high volume, geographically dispersed, demanding quality and accuracy and with diverse inputs.  It will require:

• timely arrival of inputs--ballots, forms, and equipment so that processes continue smoothly, yet not so early to create additional costs;

• intensive logistics support;

• careful planning of simultaneous and sequential interdependent tasks;

• a large workforce of varying basic skill levels that needs to be trained to perform specific tasks accurately and quickly;

• a market that has to be "sold" through voter information how and where to use the product and be convinced of the product's consistent quality (integrity, impartiality, service).

Planning of resource acquisition needs across the whole election cycle, commencing with thorough reviews of performance immediately on completion of an election to determine significant needs for the next election, will give greater assurance of readiness.

Time Frames

Major voting operations time frames, such as periods from announcement of election to voting day period for nomination of candidates, will generally be determined by legislation.

Management of Information

An important component of good voting operations administration is effective information management and analysis. This may be aided, or merely complicated, by the use of technology.

Performance Monitoring

Without continual monitoring of the quality and progressive completion of voting operations tasks, it is not possible to determine whether objectives are being met and responsibilities effectively discharged.

There is a particular need for intensive monitoring in the few days before and on voting day as this is a period of critical activity with little time to redress errors. Monitoring programmes should be built into the administration of all voting operations tasks to allow early identification of any deficiencies and their rectification.

At the completion of voting operations, internal and/or independent evaluation of performance of relevant activities is essential if future improvement is to be attained.

Participation History

Participation History as a Planning Tool

An analysis of expected voter participation rates underpins cost-effective and service-oriented implementation of voting operations activities, location of voting sites, effective allocation of all resources, and targeting of voter information services.

Analysis of past trends is a necessary factor in voting operations planning.

In some societies, however, analysis of the past may not be a reliable guide. This would be in situations where:

• there have been significant changes to the electoral system or voter eligibility rules;

• there have been major dislocations of population;

• there is uncertainty about or widespread distaste for the current political environment;

• undemocratic regimes are being disassembled.

• there is an emergence from a conflict situation.

In these cases, supplementation by current research on attitudes to voting in similar situations is useful. However, great emphasis on quantities and flexibility in contingency resources will generally be needed in such circumstances.

Compulsory Systems

Electoral systems with elements of compulsion to participate with regard to registering as a voter (either as a separate registration or de facto from compulsory registration on a civil register) or to attending to vote, will require different methods from voluntary systems both in resourcing of voting operations and voter information focus.

Human Rights

Redressing Past Discrimination

The human rights environment, contemporary and historical, will affect the freedom and fairness of voting processes and the population's willingness to participate in an election.

Societies in which discrimination or intimidation in any form (regarding political belief, nationality, culture, gender, language, religion, physical capacities) has previously been prevalent, present special challenges for the organisation of voting operations, especially regarding the following:

The legal framework: Best practice requires that laws are reviewed and amended to repeal or suspend those that may be discriminatory or impinge on the fairness or freedom of voting processes.

Election administration: May require special action to ensure representation for groups previously excluded from administrative power or positions. Given the large numbers of staff that will generally be required as voting station officials, voting operations employment policies can assist in breaking down past discriminatory employment practices, and promote equal opportunities of employment for women and other previously discriminated against groups.

Voter information: Will need to specifically address groups who may have been denied or discouraged from voting participation.

Election integrity and the professionalism and independence of the electoral management body, where past practice has not given this priority.

Post Conflict Environments

Where elections mark the emergence of societies from periods of conflict or a breakdown in the rule of law, legal frameworks for election processes will need careful attention. Such situations can often give rise to the imposition of states of emergency which, if allowed to stand, may restrict the rights of persons to vote, be nominated as candidates or campaign for election.

To allow free participation, electoral law should generally take precedence over such emergency powers. It is common practice in Bills of Rights that voting rights are considered non-derogable.

Security

Security is important to ensure that human rights are protected in the voting operations environment. Sufficient security to guarantee that voters may vote freely and without fear of current or future intimidation is a basic precept of a free and fair election.

Voting stations should be safe from intimidation of voters by security forces, political candidates, voting station officials, senior bureaucrats, or private employers. Employment of persons with power over local communities as voting station staff is unwise.

Allowing an excessive or intimidating security force presence in voting stations can exacerbate an already tense political situation. An excessive security presence must be weighted against the need for effective protection of all those participating in the electoral process.

Where police and military forces are perceived as aligned with specific political forces, additional strategies (including the use of international forces) may need to be employed to ensure security and integrity of voting material, the safety of voters and candidates, and to ensure that all participants enjoy equal protection.

In cultures where the public bearing of arms is common, measures will need to be taken to keep voting stations and their surrounding areas free of armed persons who mamay intimidate voters and officials.

International Intervention

International intervention in the election process could occur through:

• a request by the host government in situations where financial or operational knowledge resources are insufficient to conduct an election of acceptable quality;

• the negotiated imposition by elements of the international community of an election as a conflict resolution mechanism following internal conflict or international conflict.

Political Context

Voting operations for elections that take place following international intervention will be subject to particular potential environmental considerations:

Heightened international scrutiny: That is likely to be focused on election activity.

The mandate of international bodies: Whether conducting, assisting with or observing election processes, this needs to be clearly defined. Whether the mandate is organisational, supervisory, advisory or observation will impact on how and where decisions are made during voting operations and on the attitudes and cooperation of local election administrators and voting station staff.

The roles, reporting structures, and chains of command of the various international and local organisations need to be clearly understood by all participants. Best practice requires that final decision making rests with the electoral management body, as does control over financial decision-making.

It would generally be preferable if local ownership of voting operations can be maintained, and international assistance used to develop sustainable systems, transfer skills and monitor implementation.

The structure of international assistance: How and where it is recruited and financed, and what particular societal values it attempts to impose in the host country?

The presence of international bodies may create the impression that elections will be free and fair. In many environments it may not be possible to fulfil all societal groups' expectations in this regard, which may create further post-election problems.

Particular care needs to be taken when international organisations with some management role in an election, either through organisation or de facto supervision of election processes, are also charged with passing judgment on the freedom and fairness of these same processes.

Awareness of the limitations of international assistance will assist electoral administrators in ensuring realistic expectations.

International Imposition of Elections

Where international intervention has imposed an election solution, particularly following a period of intense conflict, there are other potential environmental factors that will need to be considered:

• an intense polarisation between elements or communities within the society, often between former powerful elements and newly enfranchised voters or institutions attempting to enhance levels of freedom and fairness in elections (with a potential for active or passive resistance from existing state agencies in preparing an equitable voting environment;

• heightened security risks, to both personal safety and the integrity of voting, that may require intensive precautions;

• an imposition of a new voting system or the extension of the right to vote that will require concentration of resources on information campaigns;

• a resource base that is insufficient for voting requirements either through neglect or devastation.

Legislative and Regulatory Framework

Legislation often determines the service and integrity principles and broad outcomes within which voting operations are to be administered.

It governs the administrative structures and functions which must be implemented during voting operations for an election to retain validity. It goes beyond principles and outcomes and defines minutely (often in regulations) each operation that must be undertaken and each form and system to be used by election administrators.

Such a comprehensive approach can be necessary to ensure that integrity, equity and other voting operations principles (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations) are actually implemented in practice, particularly for transitional elections, or in societies racked by extreme political division.

Incorporating the details of voting operations procedures and practices in legislation may assist in preserving election integrity.

However it comes with some negative factors:

• there can be a lack of flexibility for election administrators to increase the appropriateness or effectiveness of voting operations procedures, forms or systems when these are all determined legislatively;
• conversely, legislatures may continually amend the details of voting operations in legislation and thus make administrators' planning and implementation functions much more difficult.

The greater the integrity, stability and professionalism of the election management body, the less the need for minutely detailed legislation on voting operations procedures and practices.

Electoral System

The electoral system defined in legislation will affect the administrative needs for voting operations.

For example:

• Qualifications and disqualifications for voter registration will affect the total number and distribution of registered voters, and hence voting site numbers and locations;
• Whether the system requires representatives to be elected from individual electoral districts, by proportional representation from a single all-encompassing electoral unit, or some combination, will affect the location and functions of central and regional or local voting operations administrative centres;
• Whether the electoral system requires elections to be held in one round or more than one round, on one day or multiple days affects quantities and time periods for which resources will be required, as will any requirements for support of candidate nominations by large numbers of qualified persons and methods of determining ballot paper positions for candidates;
• Whether voting requires single or multiple ballots, a single voter mark or multiple preferential marks will affect voter throughput and hence voting station staffing, number of voting locations and the types of mechanical or electronic voting systems that could be implemented;
• Legislatively prescribed ballot formats or allowable voting machines will determine paper stock supply needs and potential sources and time frames for ballot printing or equipment sourcing and investment requirements;
• Whether election dates are fixed or irregular will affect voting operations planning cycles, particularly in regard to development and introduction of new systems and procedures.

The electoral system elements of legislation may also affect the administrative structure for voting operations by defining the delegation of powers requiring appointment of specific bodies or persons to undertake certain tasks, such as electoral district managers (returning officers), voting station managers or election committees, and voting dispute resolution tribunals.

Provision of Voting Facilities

If provision for special voting facilities, such as absentee, advance, mail, mobile or out-of-country voting, are mandated by legislation, the complexity of voting operations planning, supply, logistics and training will be intensified. Such extension of accessibility will come at a financial cost.

Planning, supply and training lead times may be longer, the range of materials and logistics requirements will be increased and voting operations administrations will require a higher number of core skilled staff.

Time frames

Deadlines imposed by legislation provide inflexible time frames within which voting operations tasks must be completed. In regard to such issues as candidate nomination, availability of materials for advance voting or hours of voting, they are the focus of voting operations planning and a significant determinant of materials supply deadlines and staffing resource requirements.

Where legislative deadlines are unrealistic, voting operations administrators will need to determine what sacrifices in quality have to be made or additional costs incurred to meet them.

Terms of Legislature

Where representative bodies are not elected for fixed terms, electoral management bodies have to be in a state of readiness at all times to conduct an election. This will have a significant effect on planning cycles and may restrict the ability to introduce new systems or procedures, particularly within the last fifteen months of a government's term.

In fixed term systems, the voting operations planning and implementation cycle can be more secure and is more conducive to continuous improvement of services.

Transitional Elections

While in stable systems minimum time periods between election announcement and voting day are usually properly defined in legislation, in transitional environments this may not be the case. There will often be pressure for fast resolution of conflicts through conducting voting at the earliest possible date. In such circumstances an early election may compromise the ability to hold an election of acceptable integrity.

The time needed to conduct an acceptable election will vary (particularly according to whether new voters' registers have to be compiled). However, in most transitional situations it would be unreasonable to expect election administrators to conduct an election of acceptable quality without a period of at least five to six months between finalisation of the new principles, or legislative framework, for elections and voting day.

Timing of Legislative Change

The legal framework must be settled for voting arrangements to be planned effectively. Lead times for intensive organisation of voting operations (which, depending on the stability and capacities of the environment, could be between three and six months prior to the planned election date) mean that any significant or continuing legislative change during this period can have a negative effect on voting operations performance (see "Readiness" principle in Guiding Principles of Voting Operations).

Administrative Regulations

Generally, setting the more detailed voting operations parameters through administrative regulation will provide greater flexibility and opportunity for input and advice from the electoral management body. Administrative regulations can be seen as translating the principles of voting operations into standards that must be consistently achieved, though methods and detailed procedures may differ, throughout the area in which elections for a representative body are held.

Regulations governing such areas as maximum or minimum size of voting stations, materials required at voting stations, locations of ballot paper counts, and qualifications for electoral officers will set standards that voting operations administrators must adhere to in planning and resourcing.

However, it is important that a balance, appropriate for the environment, is achieved between necessary prescription and allowing sufficient flexibility for the electoral management body to initiate improvements and respond to technological or environmental changes.

For instance, where it is essential that information is collected in exactly the same manner at all voting locations, such as receipting and reconciliation of ballot material, the relevant form content could also be prescribed in regulations.

To extend this prescription of content to form design or method of data collection may unnecessarily inhibit improvements.

The Electoral Management Structure and the Delivery of Voting Operations

The administrative structure for voting operations needs to effectively translate defined accountabilities for election management, which would normally and properly be defined in legislation or regulations, into task and activity management.

The nature of the electoral management body and the specific social and cultural context of the country will have a significant impact on choices of cost-effective measures for conducting voting.

There is typically a very short time frame between election announcement and voting day in which to deliver voting services. The simpler the organisational structure for the management of voting, the more likely the delivery of quality, consistent service to all voters. Some significant organisational structure issues for voting operations are dealt with below.

Independence of Electoral Management Body

Independent electoral management bodies will generally be able to act in a more swift and decisive way in making decisions on matters affecting voting operations. Where electoral management bodies are politically answerable, political interference in the conduct of voting is always a possibility, with the consequent need for careful consideration of potential contingencies and perhaps some restrictions on the choice of cost-effective methods. Where electoral management bodies represent a balance of political forces, there may be time lags in decision-making. These factors need to be considered in developing administrative time tables and work plans for voting.

Permanence and Professionalism

Permanent electoral management bodies will bring corporate experience and a greater basis for professionalism to voting operations than bodies appointed temporarily to conduct voting. While such permanent bodies are a significant ongoing cost, the benefits in reliability and cost-effectiveness of voting operations are significant, including:

• the assembling of a team of professional staff undergoing continuous training to develop their professional knowledge, management and team skills;
• the ability to undertake preparations for voting, both in planning and in acquisition of the required resources, throughout the whole period between elections, rather than this being compressed into a short, pre-voting day period. (This can both improve the cost-effectiveness of resource acquisition, and, through early implementation of functions such as voting site identification, development and planning of staff recruitment and training programmes and materials and logistics planning, can reduce the pressure on staff and control mechanisms during the election period and hence assist quality control);
• continual development and thorough testing of new systems and procedures to improve voter service and cost-effectiveness of operations.

Centralized or Decentralized Operations

While maintaining a core central presence assists in voting operations planning, the implementation of voting is usually at a local level. Maintaining a permanent local network of electoral management body offices, while an ideal for professionalism and service to voters, is generally not justifiable in cost terms. However, both election preparedness and cost-effectiveness may be enhanced by agency arrangements whereby bodies such as local governments assume responsibility, under central electoral management body supervision, for preparations for voting.

Maintaining some local presence will assist in:

• effective local organization of voting processes, through local knowledge of potential voting locations, transport routes, recruitment possibilities, and the characteristics of voters in the area;
• ongoing election preparations at a local level, in developing local budget and materials needs, maintenance of locally stored equipment and pre-packaging of materials;
• providing an experienced network of staff for local management of voting.

While the ability to maintain a local presence will enhance effective preparations for voting, whether it is appropriate for a particular environment will depend on costs, and the permanent capacity of the electoral management body to manage the activities of such a network.

Delegation of Powers: Local or Central Control

There are two basic questions critical to voting operations management:

• Who is responsible for the implementation of the various activities of voting in particular electoral areas?
• Where are the responsible staffs located?

How these questions are resolved will have a very large impact on the appropriate methods of planning and implementing voting operations. The first question would normally be answered in the legal framework. It would be normal, for elections based on electing representatives for small individual electoral districts, that a designated post or posts--whether they are known as returning officers, electoral district managers, local electoral commissions or similar title--be accountable for the conduct of voting within an electoral district. Where, for particular elections, countries, provinces or states form an electoral district as a whole, legislation may also specify the breakdown of this into electoral administrative areas, possibly based on other institutional boundaries such as local government areas, for the purposes of election administration.

The location of administrators may also be specified in the legal framework or subject to state policy, in requiring that an electoral administration office be established, for each electoral district or area, within the boundaries of that district. However, it may be more cost-effective to defer such decisions to administrative discretion.

Depending on such issues as geographic size, voter population and infrastructure of electoral districts, it may well be more effective use of available staff to manage more than one electoral district from a single location.

In determining the location of administration offices and division of powers between local and central election management offices, the following factors need to be considered:

Voting is a localized, dispersed, activity: Management of voting implementation at a local level can provide faster response to incipient problems, provide the benefits of local knowledge of the area, and break voting management tasks down into more easily controllable geographic area responsibilities. Overly centralized management of voting processes can lead to inefficiencies through long and more complex supply and decision-making lines, and concentration of decision-making powers in a single or few areas. Totally centralized management places great reliance on a very high level of performance in a single location in a high stress environment. Systems failures will be more difficult to isolate, communications with a multiplicity of locations more difficult to control, and supervisory and quality control functions will be under pressure.

Administrative efficiency: While direct implementation of all voting activities from a central point is likely to lead to inefficiencies, there may not be a need to have a voting operations administration office in each electoral district. Depending on the quality of local management available, the characteristics of the areas to be served, the ability to maintain service to voters and the efficiencies that can be gained through more effective use of staff, equipment and premises, one local administration office may be able to serve a number of electoral districts. However such situations are more likely to be the exception than the rule. Potential co-locations of local offices each need to be considered on their merits.

The cost-effectiveness, integrity, and enhanced voter service, provided by consistency of procedures: In environments where total control of election management is in the hands of local bodies, inconsistencies in procedures--forms design, methods of voting, voting station equipment, services and layouts--can increase materials and equipment costs, provide wide variations in voter service standards, allow inconsistencies in application of integrity standards, and require more localized, fragmented and expensive voter information campaigns.

Centrally-managed procedural and policy development, overall planning, bulk materials acquisitions and service quality control, combined with local management of implementation of voting operations, will generally provide a mix that best serves voter service and cost-effectiveness of voting operations. 

Communications Structure

Voting operations take place in a fast-moving environment, and generally under very tight deadlines. It is imperative that administrative structures allow, and are equipped to provide swift and accurate transmission of instructions and information from the central electoral management body to regional or local administration offices, and then to voting stations and counting locations. Similarly, feedback and data from election staff in the field needs to be swiftly communicated to the central electoral management body.

In developing administrative structures for voting, chains of command should be kept short and simple to promote effective information flow. Excessive steps--such as from central, to regional, to area, to electoral district to voting station management--should be avoided, as they will slow down information transfer and increase the potential for messages to be distorted. "Flat" management and communication structures that allow direct information flow and control from the central electoral management body to local electoral district/area offices and back would generally improve communication effectiveness.

Administrative and Technical Guidance

Voting operations administrators, no less than workers in voting stations, require guidance in both their general administration role and in the specific actions that they need to undertake to ensure that legislative, policy and procedural requirements are followed, and that voters receive a consistent quality of service.

Responsibility Structure

The cost and technical requirements of maintaining permanent electoral structures capable of internal delivery of all election materials and services is such that this is not generally a viable proposition. Thus electoral management bodies will rely to some extent on other state agencies or commercial or non-commercial contractors for the provision of vital components of voting operations.

The structure of responsibilities for provision of voting operations materials and services will vary according to capacities both within the electoral management body and within the country as a whole. The basic role of the electoral management body in voting operations is to provide effective management and ensure their freedom, fairness and integrity. This may be achievable cost-effectively through strict oversight of, rather than actual implementation of, many voting operations functions, particularly in more developed countries with highly sophisticated and competitive professional sectors.

Where there is a multiplicity of bodies involved in voting operations, accountabilities, responsibilities and inter-organizational dependencies need to be defined in contractual arrangements that contain clear performance standards, which are monitored by the electoral management body and swiftly enforced. The time frames for voting operations and the immutable nature of the voting day deadline do not allow for long-running disputes over responsibilities, or late discovery that required actions have not been undertaken.

Electoral Management Bodies

The nature and composition of the electoral management body will influence the location of voting operations responsibilities:

• permanent or temporary
• independent of or controlled by executive government
• centralized or decentralized
• comprised of independent members or interest representational members

In many cases electoral management bodies may not be free to determine these responsibility structures. Overall public sector policies on service delivery may limit their ability to adopt cost-effective solutions.

In many environments the electoral management body's perceived advantages in providing transparent, impartial, and professional service--where other state agencies or the private sector are compromised by perceptions of bias, lack of professionalism or corruption--means that no matter what the cost or efficiency imperatives, it would be dangerous for election integrity to outsource locally any voting operations functions.

There may be electoral tasks that affect voting operations that, as a matter of state policy, are undertaken by other bodies. Registration of voters and compilation of voters’ lists, for example, may be the function of another state agency whose skills and resources for dealing with population data give them effectiveness advantages in this field. Such arrangements require vigilance on the part of electoral management bodies to ensure that a timely, professional and accurate product is received.

Additionally, where these tasks are undertaken by other bodies they must maintain transparency, with provisions for monitoring and observation, as though they were undertaken by the electoral management body.

While it is not possible to cover in this brief summary all possible responsibility models, it is useful to look at what the core voting operations functions of electoral management bodies might be, and what voting operations responsibilities could, given a neutral social environment, reside elsewhere if cost-effective.

Core Voting Operations Functions

In assessing what the electoral management body's core voting operations functions are, it is necessary to determine how the electoral management body adds value to voting operations processes through expertise, public perceptions of integrity, and resource advantages. These include:

• the active oversight, coordination and quality control of all materials and services required for voting operations;
• development of all voting operations policies and procedures;
• development and monitoring of all voting operations calendars and schedules;
• specifications for design and production of all voting operations material and equipment;
• selection of voting sites;
• liaison with political participants, including advice on administrative requirements;
• liaison with other electoral stakeholders, such as civil society organizations and the media, including advice on administrative procedures
• management of voting stations, including determination of staffing and materials schedules, and managing voting day operations;
• management of ballot counts;
• determination and announcement of election results;
• monitoring of integrity of voting processes.

Other voting operations functions that do not involve an election-specific skill base could be contracted elsewhere, in accordance with the electoral management body's available expertise, resources, relative costs and performance abilities. Such contracting does not abrogate any of the responsibility of the electoral management body to ensure that these functions are completed fully in accordance with the principles of voting operations (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations).

Given the time and quality-critical nature of voting operations, the levels of reliability and quality of service that can be provided are vital factors. In determining whether functions can be outsourced, these factors must outweigh any potential cost savings.

Functions That Could Be Outsourced

Some likely or possible functions that could be undertaken by outside organisations include:

Security: Contracted to specialist regional, national or international policing, or if necessary military agencies 

Procurement: To increase perceptions of transparency, or in line with auditing requirements, procurement may be placed in the hands of official tender boards

Voter information and education: Materials design and production, media placement and information delivery may be better handled by specialist communications agencies, and assisted by using community bodies.

Materials design for forms and ballot papers: This responsibility may be better placed with communications and production specialists, working to strict electoral management body specifications.

Materials production: While low volume forms may be effectively produced in-house, maintaining large scale production facilities for high volume forms and other voting operations equipment and materials is unlikely to be an effective use of electoral management body resources.

Selection of staff for voting stations and ballot counting centres: This is an intensive task at a time of other competing demands on electoral management bodies resources.

Given the dispersed and labour-intensive nature of voting operations, this function may be better left to recruitment experts working to strict, monitored selection standards.

Development of training material and implementation of training sessions for voting station staff: This function may be more cost-effectively handled by utilising existing educational sector resources working to electoral management body specifications.

Electoral officers payroll management: Voting day will see a massive increase in electoral management body staff. To maintain, for these infrequent events, in-house staff payment facilities capable of handling this increase may not be an effective use of electoral management body resources.

Voting site mapping: The census bureau or other agencies with existing geographic information systems (GIS) resources may be highly qualified for mapping.

Out-of-country voting operations: This function may be more effectively handled by contracting existing resources in external diplomatic, trade or other government missions, where these are publicly perceived as providing an impartial service.

Development of computer software and systems: Outside specialist companies can provide this service to electoral management body specifications.

Operation of computer hardware platforms: Given high investment levels required for computer systems that will be used infrequently for elections, use of systems and networks from outside service providers can be a cost effective alternative, as long as reliability, access and integrity can be guaranteed to the required standards.

Logistics and storage: Similarly to materials and equipment production, the maintenance by the electoral management body of permanent in-house transport and warehousing facilities (or even undertaking short-term fleet or storage management) sufficient for voting operations may not to be an effective use of internal resources.

In considering outsourcing of any of these non-core voting operations functions, a longer-term view of how developing any dependency on external service providers will affect the future reliability, quality and costs of voting operations needs to be carefully assessed. The advantages of keeping the following areas in-house, for example, need to be carefully weighed against benefits of external supply:

• internal skill development;
• consistency in service delivery framework (rather than developing fresh relationships with external service suppliers each election);
• the internal ethos of delivery to deadlines.

Development of in-house capabilities within the electoral management body may better meet the longer term needs.

Where voting operations functions are contracted out, it needs to be determined whether these responsibilities could be better undertaken by:

• other government sector bodies 
• private sector commercial contractors 
• non-government community organisations 
• international organisations 

Use of Technology in Voting Operations

 

Basic Considerations

Applications of technology can assist in the administration of voting operations. However these  issues must be borne in mind when considering, specifying, develooping and implementing technology-based systems (See Elections and Technology).  In developing technological systems for voting operations administration or for use in voting it is essential that they be:

• suitable for the environment;

• carefully specified;

• subject to strict quality and cost controls;

• thoroughly tested under operational conditions, including, wherever possible, a period of parallel running, before implementation.

Staff Effectiveness

Operating staff must receive thorough pre-implementation training if the intended benefits of technology-based systems are to be realized.

This is as true for changes to telephone networks and introduction of basic word processing facilities as it is for implementation of large, specialized computer systems. Familiarity with systems will assist performance. For example, recruiting electoral officers who have been used during the voter registration phase accesses a pool of existing knowledge of the basic technologies used during the electoral process.

Confidence

There are issues of confidence that need to be addressed when introducing new technological solutions. The voting public, election administrators and electoral officers need to be confident that the systems implemented are reliable, secure and fulfill their information and service needs. Training and information on these issues is as important as training staff in the actual operation of technology-based systems.

Communications Systems

There are base requirements that voting operations administration offices be linked to each other by communication systems--by phone, radio and, if at all possible, facsimile transmission and electronically--and that these offices have voice communication facilities with voting stations under their control.

Use of computer technology for communications can speed the transfer, ensure comparability and provide automatic monitoring of information. However institution of wide area network (WAN) electronic mail (e-mail) systems between election administration offices has to be carefully considered in terms of cost-effectiveness, comparing the advantages to factors such as:

• what continuing use can be made of the equipment;

• the costs and method of acquisition (purchase or short-term lease);

• the skills upgrades (and their lasting effects) required for effective use;

• reliability and maintenance costs as compared to using other methods such as fax or regular ("snail") mail.

Similarly, computer communications may be effectively utilized in developed societies as an efficient means of communication between voting operations administrators and voters. In areas of high computer ownership and mobile cellular telephone ownership, alternative provision of voter information materials to voters or answers to queries by e-mail or text message has been proven to be cost-effective.

Provisions for lodging administrative requests from voters by e-mail, such as applications for absentee or mail ballots, when secured against misuse can also be a low cost method of improving voter service and increasing accessibility. Electronic lodging of required information from political participants, such as reports on party financing and expenditure, can also enhance administrative effectiveness.

Voting Methods

Introduction of technology-based methods of voting has significant implications for the administration of voting operations. Important management issues will include:

Administrative structure effects: Decisions will be required on whether centralized or distributed systems provide better guarantees of system performance, and management structures reflecting the system architecture implemented.

Communications liaison: Where voting information is electronically linked from voting stations or individual voters to central or regional hubs for amalgamation, ensuring communications reliability and security is essential.

Ability to provide system support: Implementing technology-based voting methods will require high levels of either in-house or contracted technical support.

Training: For both voters and voting station staff in the operation of technology-based voting methods.

Management Systems

Ranging from simple single-function spreadsheets to large coordinated or integrated databases that manage all aspects of voting station administration, there are numerous applications for computer technology in voting operations management. Even the simplest systems can improve management capacities. Some sample applications are:

Automated payroll systems for electoral officers: However, given the large staff volumes on a single pay run, and the fact that payroll management is not a core business of election administrations, it may not be effective for such systems to be developed in-house.

Contracting payroll services to other organizations may run the risk of swamping them with volumes that they are unlikely to manage. In some environments, locally-drawn cash or cheques may still be the most effective payroll method.

Materials acquisition and inventory records: Maintenance of computerized inventory records can simplify ordering processes. It can also simplify much of the packaging and preparation for dispatch of materials for voting stations, not only in accurately calculating materials requisitions, but in automatically printing packing lists and labels, dispatch schedules and acknowledgment receipts, and reconciliation of materials schedules for use both in voting stations and on return of material.

Monitoring systems: Computerized monitoring programs allow easy analysis of the state of readiness and progress of voting operations preparations. Simple spreadsheet-based or database systems of this type can be of great use where there are large numbers of geographically dispersed administrative offices responsible for local voting operations preparations.

Staffing and training records: Maintaining simple computer based lists of electoral officers, showing updated (where possible) contact information, experience, training received and an assessment of their performance can simplify the massive task of electoral officer recruitment.

Geographic information systems (GIS): GIS software showing voting sites can assist in determining voting site locations and planning voting site logistics.

Budgets and expenditure control: Simple computer based resource costing worksheets can allow comparability of resource bids and use in various locations and prompt identification of areas of inefficiency, or probable insufficient resources.

Maintaining computer based global budget and expenditure records allows faster manipulation of available funding and expenditure trend analysis.

 

 

Sustainability Considerations

It is useful to consolidate some of the factors that are of particular importance for organizing cost-effective voting operations in developing countries.

Many of these are concerned with how best to attain voting operations’ principles and objectives (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations) with lower levels of local resources and in environments where there is limited experience in managing accessible and transparent voting operations.

In developing societies, there are likely to be a number of factors that will require greater attention during voting operations planning and implementation than in developed societies. These would include:

• less in-house resources within the electoral management body, and a potential need to ensure transparency and integrity issues where other resources of other state organizations are required for voting operations tasks. (See Transparency and Integrity below);

• ensuring that voting operations methods and procedures provide sustainable solutions. (See Sustainability below);

• taking advantage of opportunities for development provided by materials production, staff training, introduction of technology. (for voting operation purposes,See Sustainability below);

• developing voting operations strategies that are appropriate for the literacy levels in the community. (See Literacy below);

• ensuring that local resource capacities, in terms of infrastructure and skills available, are carefully considered in voting operations planning. (See Infrastructure and skills base below);

• ensuring that procedures, materials and equipment used are suitable for the local environment. (See Procedures, materials and equipment below).

Traditional Societies

In more traditional societies there may be specific issues to be addressed--in training staff, revealing voting processes and in voting site layout and management - that require a balance between cultural sensitivity and maintaining the democratic model of a transparent voting process that protects the secrecy of the vote.

The integration of traditional leaders into voting operations processes, perhaps through accommodation within the system of representation or accessing their skills in information or administration roles, may be important for the success of voting operations.

In societies where the notion of individual secret decision-making (voting) has not been the norm, or where voting is traditionally a male preserve, enhanced measures may be required in relation to issues such as:

• promoting the employment of women in information, training and voting station staffing or voter assistance roles;

• voting station layouts that ensure and protect secret individual voting;

• creation of special voting locations and/or time schedules for particular community groups.

Transparency and Integrity

In less developed communities, effective use of available local resources for voting operations may require considerable sharing of responsibilities and resources with other state agencies.

In such cases care needs to be taken that the management of voting operations, is distinct from politically controlled civil service bodies. Wherever possible there should be a separation of premises, reporting systems, management control, and financial appropriations used for voting operations.

It is highly preferable that State agencies whose resources are used for voting operations are under formal, performance-oriented contract to the electoral management body for their services, and are bound by the electoral management body's administrative code of conduct.

Good practice requires that electoral management bodies are able to terminate the contracts or suspend the assistance from State agencies if the performance level agreement or administrative code of conduct is not adhered to. (For further discussion of voting operations responsibilities. See The Electoral Management Structure and the Delivery of Voting Operations)

Sustainability

Role for International Assistance: With regard to elections it emphasizes the key issue of sustainability, that is, how best to use local resources and any available international assistance to develop a voting operations fabric that is self-regenerating for future elections.

Many sustainability issues are as relevant to countries at a higher stage of development emerging from less-democratic regimes as they are to developing countries.

International political agendas may lead to an election, particularly where a transition to democracy is involved and the society has emerged from a protracted conflict receiving international assistance and extensive media attention, with no guarantee of future assistance due to changing priorities for donor communities and donor neglect.

Typically such elections will involve extensive monetary and technical assistance in a relatively short and unrealistic voting operations timetable.

This is often the result of using an election as the primary conflict resolution mechanism and where an election is deemed to be an effective indicator of democracy. The short period involved will often lead to the imposition of high-cost solutions not locally sustainable.

It may lead to raised expectations from the community for all state operations that cannot be met, as well as opportunities for corruption.

Rather than imposing high-cost and unsustainable "perfect" solutions from external environments or organizations, the key to developing longer-term effective voting operations solutions in lesser developed or transitional societies is in :

• providing assistance suitable to the local environment's needs and which promotes the growth of local capabilities;

• accepting that these may not initially produce a flawless election.

Opportunities for Development

Voting operations offer a number of opportunities for increasing local capacities in developing countries. Implementation of voting operations systems and methods without considering whether a local skill base has been developed to allow them to be maintained and operated for other functions or future elections is a wasteful use of scarce resources.

There are some basic guidelines that, if followed, can maximize sustainable benefits:

Use any available technical assistance programmes for voting operations in longer term skills transfer projects: rather than as short term operational staff substitutes. Without such skill transfer, there will be a continuing need for assistance at future elections.

Skills transfer should aim at covering a broader area: than just election technical matters. The inclusion of staff at local levels in generic skills training in general management, basic accounting and finance, equipment maintenance and operation, ethical conduct --all integral to voting operations--is of continual community benefit.

Less technologically intensive methods: particularly if aimed at inclusion of previously excluded members of society, can produce broader based positive effects.

Only where necessary for election integrity or performance should methods, other than those that are simple, easily trainable and able to be applied under conditions of lower technology and resource bases, be used.

Consider whether equipment and systems introduced for voting operations can have continued community use: Can communications systems be operated on a continuing basis for the benefit of the community? Is the investment in technological equipment and methods justified by its being suitable for integration with or augmentation of existing systems? Can the technology be used for implementation of other social programmes?

Acquiring equipment and technology for sole and infrequent use at elections can be a poor investment when resources in general are very limited.

When considering appropriate equipment and technologies,

Consider how much of a technological leap is involved: Local maintenance expertise (either existing or specifically trained) must be available for effective future use.

Consider carefully the benefits of foreign procurement: Are any immediate technological, cost or quality benefits sufficient to outweigh the resource-building effects of developing local facilities and capabilities?

When implementing voting operations methods, first have a skills maintenance plan: If equipment is not used between elections, skills gained, and the use of the equipment for other functions, will be lost.

If staffs employed in voting operations have no continuing framework in which to practice their skills, or communication with voting operations management, the expense of training will be of limited benefit to the community at large.

Literacy

Considerations for Semi-literate or Illiterate Communities: Population literacy levels will have a important impact on the design of voting operations materials, voting station procedures, voter information communication strategies, and staff recruitment and training methods. In areas of lower literacy the emphasis needs to be on direct and practical communication methods, which need not come at a high cost.

Voting material needs to take into account people who are unable to mark ballot papers and who are unable to complete and sign documentation and allow alternative methods of attesting information on voter identity cards, candidate nomination forms, challenges to voters, provisional or early voting documents, receipts of materials and similar official documents.

For lower literacy communities ballot design requires communication of the voters' choices through:

• uncluttered layout;

• design that visually emphasizes where to place any required voting marks;

• use of images rather than words.

Use of distinctive party symbols (reinforced during community voter information campaigning) is generally more cost effective than reproducing candidate photographs or photographs of the leaders of political parties on ballots.

The election system itself can assist successful voting operations in semi-literate or illiterate communities by adopting simple systems requiring only one mark (list or First Past The Post) on the ballot, or by using differentiated separate voting papers or tokens for different candidates. If simultaneous elections for more than one representative body are being held, use of distinctively colored or different sized ballots will enable voters to comprehend them.

For semi-literate and illiterate communities, assisted voting procedures and voter training in voting stations through practice runs and simulation need careful consideration. In such communities, voting station staff may also need to be increased in relation to the number of voters.

Visual aids to voting--illustrated guides to how to obtain a ballot paper, mark it, and deposit it in the ballot box--prominently displayed around the voting station assists semi-literate and illiterate voters to understand the voting process. The use of a single ballot box, rather than multiple boxes, for any simultaneous elections will also simplify voting for the illiterate people. Voter information should emphasis material that is not written. This can be accomplished, for example, through:

• grass roots community activity, involving community leaders in transmitting voting information through local public meetings; use of street theatre, music and radio;

• conducting voting simulations (perhaps as an adjunct to local voting station staff training sessions) where voters can practise for voting day)

Staff Training

While literacy and numeracy would be basic requirements for recruitment of electoral officers, there may be communities where the need to use local electoral officers is important, yet literacy levels are not high.

In such cases election forms must have clear, simply illustrated instructions for use, and training should be based on simulation exercises of the roles of the different staff in voting operations. Emphasis must be placed on the completion of any necessary forms.

Providing all staff with a simple cue card, with clear visual representations of the functions that they have to undertake is an effective training mechanism

Infrastructure and Skills Base

Limited local transport and insufficient production infrastructure may require earlier production or acquisition of materials and equipment, requiring care in developing realistic voting operations time lines and calendars.

Basic decisions need to be made on whether lower technology levels and possibly longer production lead times available locally provide acceptable solutions to voting operations needs.

In considering external sourcing, potentially negative impact could result from:

• long supply lines;

• little opportunity to oversee production;

• lack of internal resource building;

• establishing possible future external dependence;

• perhaps using scarce foreign currency.

An objective appraisal needs to be undertaken of the benefit external outsourcing would add to voting operations effectiveness, compared to alternatives that could be provided by current local facilities or with external technical assistance to local producers.

Transport

Where transport equipment stock is poor or transport routes are in bad condition, using armed forces transport capacities can be an efficient, and in some cases the only, solution to supplying all voting sites.

However where armed forces have had a historic or current political role, using them for transport of voting material can lead to perceptions or suspicions of them manipulating the process. These can be partially overcome by instituting strict dispatch and receipt checks on voting materials by the electoral management body and independent or political participant monitoring of these activities.

Voting Premises

The use of temporary structures or mobile voting stations may also need to be considered if the building stock, particularly in rural areas, is not sufficiently developed for use as voting stations, where distances are vast or where decision-making is traditionally an open air activity.

Depending on resources available these could be a simple as shade cloth strung between trees; in environments where armed forces are assisting with logistics more complex or elaborate solutions can provide secure, sturdy temporary voting sites.

This might include airlift or road transport of large containers with all voting station equipment and material. Additionally, upgrading existing buildings for voting operations purposes may provide opportunities, through the security and facilities needs of voting station or warehouse sites, to improve their general usefulness to the community.

Communications

Due to the dispersed nature of voting sites, communications for voting operations can be a problem in lesser-developed communities without extensive communications networks.

Installing new networks that provide communication with all voting sites can be expensive. The accessibility of required communication will be very much determined by security risk assessments and reporting speed requirements.

This is one area where cooperative ventures between electoral management bodies and other agencies may be necessary, for example in;

• using existing national communications networks and sitting voting locations accordingly;

• developing networks flexibly to allow joint financing and satisfaction of common needs.

In many developing countries armed forces communications networks have the greatest capacity; flexibility and coverage.  Similar reservations about their use, however, may exist as for logistical assistance. Enhancing communications may be a useful priority for international electoral aid funding.

Provision of viable civilian communications networks, which will have continuing usefulness, is a more positive contribution to sustainable development than using external voting operations assistance funds for functions such as producing multi-colour print ballot papers on high quality security print paper.

Many of those using communication systems in voting stations or in voting operations communications centres may never have had to use similar systems previously for formal communication. There may be a need to train people in such techniques as telephone or fax use.

Professional Skills

The increase in volume and range of workloads during voting operations may require enlistment of professional staff either from other sectors of the local economy (which may place strains on goal achievement in these areas), or external technical assistance.

The more complex the voting operations system and procedures, the more likely that the additional professional skills required may not be found locally.

In developing countries it is important that engagement of additional professional skills is used as an opportunity for management skills transfer to develop the voting operations capacities of the electoral management body, rather than being treated simply as a dispersal of functions.

Staff Recruitment

The use of existing disciplined and skilled workforces for some vital voting operations tasks can provide greater assurances of quality, and be cost-effective. Some areas where this can be considered are the use of:

• teachers, both for training voting station staff and as managers of voting stations;

• senior students as voting station staff;

• state employees such as warders for packing election materials;

• penal institution workshops for production of equipment such as ballot boxes, locks and seals.

The use of such state institutions and employees in voting operations roles may be problematic where they are generally perceived to be biased towards the state.

Even in these situations, it can be as effective, and less costly, to ensure that their actions are monitored by political participants and independent observers (for which some external training assistance may be necessary), and an effective redress system is in place, rather than initiate new administrative and production structures.

Management Skills Training

The overall management of voting operations is a skilled function in both the technical and general management areas.

Training of voting operations managers in general management skills is a widely applicable and important part of using external technical assistance for local resource building. This can occur through exposure to:

• management planning

• staff recruitment and management

• resource mobilization methods

• materials handling

• accounting principles and practices

• procurement practices

• accountability principles

• conflict resolution

Such transferred skills are portable across most public and commercial sectors.

General Skill Development

The large volume of staff required for voting operations at local levels provides opportunities for empowerment, both through general development of skill levels and use of recruitment strategies to assist in redressing gender or minority imbalances.

Many of the base level skills required at the voting operations and voting station level are highly transportable, such as, materials management, conflict resolution, maintenance of accurate records, and use of telecommunications or radio equipment. Training of local voting operations staff can assist local development in general.

Training programmes for voting operations staff, particularly in areas of low literacy, need careful attention in both goals and methods. Breaking down voting station staff roles into discrete work units, and training staff for a limited number of these, can be more effective.

Training methodology can be more effective if role playing and simulation are used, with illustrated reference cards and posters retained by voting station staff, rather than relying on written materials and lectures, especially in areas of illiteracy or semi- literacy.

Procedures, Materials and Equipment

Functionality: It is important that materials and equipment are functional in the environments in which they are to be used, simple in construction, easily maintained, and readily understood both by staff and voters. High-cost materials and equipment may provide only marginal, if any, improvement over lower-cost items, even though they may promote a more exclusive image for the electoral management body and international donors.

Use of technology should be appropriate for the level of training and equipment maintenance that can be achieved in lower-technology environments. The following issues require careful consideration.

Physical and Political Conditions

The physical and political conditions to be endured will significantly impact the development of viable procedures. Whether voting sites are enclosed or in the open, whether materials are likely to be subject to humidity, dust, cold, or rain, whether security risks have been found, all will determine the durability and security required for voting equipment and materials.

In rural areas such condition will have particular impact as back-up facilities and skills may not be available.

Examples would include:

• Cardboard ballot boxes over time may be less costly than metal or rigid plastic, but may be destroyed or affected under conditions of high humidity or rain--high strength plastic bags may be a better, cheap option.

• In dusty or humid conditions, smart adhesive labels can be both more costly and less-effective than old-fashioned writing directly on materials containers.

Availability of Power and Lighting

Where reliable power is not available, the comparative costs of alternative solutions--both monetary as well as in terms of integrity--need careful assessment in each environment. Solutions may entail:

• limiting voting operations to daylight hours, which may entail additional costs in providing more voting locations or multi-day voting;

• provision of mobile generators to voting sites, if they are available and can be maintained during voting;

• provision of emergency lighting equipment (candles, gas lamps), which may entail additional safety or training requirements.

In such circumstances the reliance that can be placed on reporting systems based on electronic equipment, and whether counting is better done at central locations, also needs careful consideration.

Monitoring Capacities

The skills and availability of independent observers and party or candidate representatives will influence the intensity of voting operations security and accountability mechanisms, as well as the materials design for these.

Form Numbers and Design

The numbers and design of forms and other documents that have to be completed by voting station staff and other officials can be a crucial issue, particularly in societies with lower literacy See Literacy above.

A proliferation of forms can test both the patience and skill of less experienced voting station staff, and incorrect or incomplete documents can affect perceptions of election validity. And as the complexity and volume of forms increase, so do election costs. Minimal form requirements relate to:

• accountability for voting materials (receipt, use during voting, unused)

• financial accountability (staff attendance and reporting, petty expenditure) and

• recording of complaints, objections and disputes.

Voting operations systems that require more complex recording at the voting station may not be as appropriate in developing societies.

Cost Considerations

What is a reasonable cost to pay for democracy? This is not a question that can be answered by accountants and financial managers. There are too many difficult-to-price values inherent in voting operations. This is not to say that cost-effectiveness is not a major guiding principle of voting operations. However, conditions over which administrators of voting operations may have little, if any, control may include:

• the confidence of the community in the stability and flexibility of the political environment;

• satisfaction of the varying needs of different sectors of the population to enable equity of access to voting processes;

• risks of manipulation of voting processes by vested political interests.

Any of these factors can limit the ability of voting operations administrators to provide lower cost, or even locally affordable, solutions that will provide operational integrity.

The emphasis has to be on cost-effectiveness for the environment, on achieving a level of voting operation’s integrity and equity that enables the acceptance of election outcomes by participants and the public, and the elimination of waste and redundant costs, rather than on lowest possible costs.

Narrow comparisons between jurisdictions of such indicators as cost per voter, without considering how effectively the expenditure dealt with achieving an acceptable balance among all the guiding principles of voting operations (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations), may not be at all useful.

Budget Preparation

In preparing for voting operations, decisions have to be made about when and in what manner budgets are to be prepared, and purchases and other expenditure monitored to ensure that all expenditure effectively adds value to the process. 

Specific financial provisions required for voting operations, the optimal timing of expenditure and effective structures for financial management will be dependent on:

• the electoral management system, particularly its temporary or permanent nature, its local, regional or central focus, and the degree of its independence from other organs of the state;

• the general processes for public authority funding.

Guidelines

In considering costs of voting operations there are some general guidelines to consider:

Proposed expenditures should be subject to rigorous cost/benefit analysis: What do they add to the achievement of voting operations objectives; how does this compare with alternative methods; does any incremental achievement justify increased costs?

For example, is expensive special security paper required for ballots, or could the same or acceptable similar fraud prevention be achieved by using simpler and cheaper authentication methods such as use of seals or voting station official marks in voting stations?

Additionally, what non-financial costs need to be considered for alternative methods? In the above example, are there additional factors of delivery times for ballot paper stock; is there any affect on voter service by giving voting station officials an additional task?

Variations in regional or local estimated costs of voting operations require careful scrutiny to ensure that these variations are supported by valid reasons: Higher-than or lower-than average costs in particular regions or local areas need not be a cause for alarm, as long as such variations are the result of an effective response to providing equitable and consistent service to voters.

To enable a reasonable level of accessibility, voting operations costs may well be considerably higher in rural areas, or in areas with language or literacy challenges.

Wherever possible use existing capital and equipment resources or acquire equipment that can be jointly used with other bodies, or that can be used in future elections: As elections are infrequent events, this will generally be a more effective overall use of available funds. In considering these issues, attention also needs to be paid to non-financial cost factors, particularly political environment issues.

For example, use of facilities provided at low cost or free of charge by other agencies of the state--such as use of state communications systems or state premises for voting stations--may affect perception of the independence of voting operations or even dissuade voters from participating.

It is generally more effective to hire or lease than purchase major equipment: Given the high additional volumes required for only a short period, unless valid continuing uses for the equipment can be justified.

Ensure the reliability, appropriateness and affordability of methods and equipment chosen for each particular environment.

Voting operations are to some extent a showcase. However, this should not be allowed to override sound judgment about necessary expenditure. Simpler methods may not look as impressive, but can deliver a more reliable, auditable, transparent and less costly outcome.

In developing countries where the currency may not be stable, consideration needs to be given to the foreign exchange situation: Even where foreign purchases are less costly and more appropriate, their use of scarce foreign exchange and development of external dependence may make local solutions preferable.

Offers of international funding for elections need also to be carefully scrutinized for the benefits and costs of any requirements to use equipment of particular type and source. 

And lastly, a question that should be given careful consideration: Are there aspects of voting operations that can be delivered as effectively, with sufficient integrity guarantees, yet with cheaper current and overhead costs, by contracting other organizations rather than by the electoral management body? 

Budgeting and Planning Cycle

Cost effective budgeting relies on planning that takes into account the ongoing work of the electoral management body and its expected legislated outputs. Effective budgeting is better achieved if done in the wider context of financial management. The permanency or non-permanency of the electoral management body affects the efficacy of the financial planning cycle.

Developing estimates of the financial and other resource needs of voting operations is more effectively implemented within the context of an overall financial management plan than as an ad hoc exercise. Where electoral management bodies are permanent bodies, the establishment of a budget planning cycle, linked to a legislative timetable for funds approval (see Funds Assurance and Timing of Electoral Funds), with regular reviews and updates of needs for voting operations expenditures, will assist in the readiness for implementing voting operations processes.

Budget panning for permanent electoral management bodies can be continuous and more accurate as its ongoing expenses are easier to predicate adequately.

Even where elections are held at irregular terms, the introduction of such a cycle can be based on historical data on average length between elections.  Longer term financial planning can bring with it substantial cost -efficiencies in the staged and tested acquisition and introduction of new systems and technologies at a pace that the organization can digest.

It will also provide a reasonable time frame in which to develop "bottom up" estimates detailing accurately financial and other resource needs and allow more rigorous scrutiny of these. For that reason temporary electoral management bodies can be at a disadvantage in two respects when preparing budgets for voting operations:

1. Often there will be insufficient time to develop more accurate "bottom up" budgets based on actual local conditions in each local administrative area (see Budgeting Systems). This may lead to budgets being calculated more on the basis of the costs of the last election, adjusted for any broad changes in the overall election environment, than on objective current data.
2. The lack of continuity can mean that systems, voting arrangements, materials and staff have to be developed and implemented, and purchases made, in a brief time frame. This can limit the ability to purchase in the most cost-effective manner. The compressed time frame for implementation of the necessary arrangements can result in higher overheads.

Budgeting Systems

Effective budgeting and expenditure control and monitoring systems are significant to the successful management of voting operations. The compressed time frame of large expenditures on and around voting day means that there is little room for error in planning allocations of funds and having effective controls over expenditure.

Styles of budget formats vary, but there are some that are better suited to providing useful frameworks and information, and to identifying where improvements can be made to the cost-effectiveness of voting operations.

Format of Budgets

What should a voting operations budget do?

First, it should be a recording mechanism for allocations and expenditures.

It should be a control mechanism for;

• what funds can be made available, and

• progressively comparing the rate at which financial resources are used against operational functions or objectives achieved,

• so as to predict possible funding shortfalls or over funding

Finally, it should provide an evaluative mechanism through which costs of the various components of voting operations can be compared and assessed, historically and across components.

In conjunction with performance and workload data, such budget information can be used to determine areas of efficiency or inefficiency, trends in cost-effectiveness, and identify cost effective components.

For effective financial control of voting operations, budgets should separate out its various components, both within a voting operations structure and from other election cost elements.

Under different electoral systems and organizational models for electoral management bodies the fine detail of these separations can rightly vary, but internal consistency of treatment and maintaining inter-component comparability is important. This has particular importance where different organizations or agencies contribute resources to voting operations.

If different ways are used to estimate, authorize and record election-related expenditures, both between jurisdictions and over time, meaningful comparative analysis of voting operations financial data can be difficult.

This can also affect the ability to exercise prudent financial control and make it more difficult to identify, both locally and internationally, which are the more cost-effective ways of undertaking voting operations tasks. (Further discussion of this issue can be found in Inclusiveness and Comparability of Budgets.)

Budget Models

What models are available? Broadly speaking, budgets could be devised on several different models:

One is the functional model in which costs are estimated and expenditure monitored against broad type-of-expenditure headings. This model would include broad components such as Staffing, Forms, Material, Computer equipment, Transport, etc. In such models there may be little indication as to what tasks--amongst the many in voting operations, or the election as a whole--are specifically related to particular estimated costs and actual expenditures. This type of model does not reflect specifics in budget detail.

In programme or individual project models estimated costs of and expenditures on individual tasks, or logically grouped tasks, are shown separately. Funding and expenditure for various expenditure types as above can be allocated, monitored and evaluated against the specific tasks for which they are relevant.

If more sophisticated manual or computer systems are available, a model combining the features of both the above frameworks can be implemented with allocations and expenditure broken down both by expenditure type across the whole election, or individually by programme or project. Such models also provide for more reliable tracking of expenditure per item.

Programme and Project Basis

Budget frameworks incorporating a programme and project basis are most effective for both estimating funding needs and controlling expenditure for voting operations.

They ensure that more minor projects, such as processing of candidate nominations, are not lost or overlooked in the overall voting station operations budgets. By separating out expenditures, they enable more rigorous control of costs in each aspect of voting operations.

By aligning budgets to targets or objectives of specific voting operations projects they encourage a widened circle of management responsibility and accountability, and allow more effective evaluation of achievements.

Public budgets for voting operations, due to overall government budgetary policies or legislative requirements or the requirements of external funders, may not be able to take this form. In such cases potential efficiencies and information quality make it still generally worth devoting the additional resources to compiling project budgets for internal management control.

In developing budgets, either a "top down" approach, with funds requirements estimated at an aggregate level and later split, or a "bottom up" approach, with initial estimates compiled at the work unit level and later aggregated, could be taken. (Further discussion of these approaches can be found in Budgeting and Historical Data)

Funding Sources explore further under Electoral Management

Within the above frameworks it is also useful to identify the sources from which funding is to be acquired. This is generally required where international financial assistance for voting operations is being provided or sought.

Often international assistance would stipulate its own accounting and budgeting procedures. Also international assistance may be project specific and may not have an impact on other aspects of the budget.

Such a split would generally show the overall sources of funds, as well as funding sources for specific projects, in a manner similar to the following:

• funds appropriated by the state to the electoral management body;

• other local government agencies' funding;

• donations in kind from other government agencies (possibly security services, computer or communication system use, seconded staff and the like);

• internally funded services provided by local civic/non-government organizations;

• international funding--depending on the type, perhaps broken down into components such as trust funding, parallel financing and cost sharing.

Flexibility

Budgets should be viewed as guides to an efficient expenditure pattern, given that the conditions forecast for the election are consistent, and not as unchangeable documents to be fulfilled no matter what the future circumstances.

An important part of the budgeting system is the definition of review points, triggered either on the basis of elapse of time or proportion of budget expended, where the continued viability of the voting operations budgets is carefully assessed, and decisions on re-allocation of funds, the need to seek additional funding, or identifying savings are made.

Such reviews may not need to be frequent early in the voting operations time line. However, as voting day approaches and expenditure rates accelerate as funds remaining decrease, their frequency will generally need to be increased. Perhaps daily review may become necessary.

Contingencies

Flexibility mechanisms include the development of contingency budgets. Just as contingency procedures or supplies are planned for the possibility of failure of planned voting operations functions, so should contingency budgets for these measures be prepared.

Without these there is no way of determining which may be the more cost-effective means of meeting specific contingencies. 

Budgeting and Historical Data

The most appropriate methodologies for constructing voting operations budgets will vary according to the structure of the electoral management body (national, regional or local or a combination of these), whether a sole body is responsible for all voting operations activities or whether these are divided among different organizations on either a geographic or functional basis, and the public sector budgeting cycle.

"Global" budgets are required to establish overall funding needs and to identify areas where donor or other organization’s resources may be required to fill shortfalls in funding. Budgets for different geographic and functional administrative units and project budgets assist the efficient and effective allocation of funds to specific areas of voting operations.

There are two general approaches that could be taken in constructing voting operations budgets:

• a top-down approach: where an estimate is made on a global level and then split into project or functional and geographic locality budgets;

• a bottom-up approach: where the particular needs of individual geographic localities, projects and functions are determined, reviewed for validity and if necessary revised, then amalgamated into an overall global budget.

(These are of necessity simplifications of perhaps two extremes of the budget construction process).

Top-Down Budgeting

Examples of a top-down budget approach include:

• determining voting operations budgets on the basis of global expenditure at the last election (perhaps expanded for price data increases, or government policies on movements in agency budget allocations);

• determining from historic or other data an overall estimated cost per voter and deriving the global budget from that figure.

Individual projects, functions, localities are then allocated portions of the global amount according to standard criteria. Generally, this is not the most effective means of voting operations budget determination.

It does not necessarily allow for local variations, for changes in systems, procedures and conditions, or allow a proper prioritizing of voting operations needs.

By denying initial input to project and locality or regional managers, it removes one of the key factors in developing financial management capacities and any ownership of budgeting processes. It has the advantage of being a quick and relatively straightforward solution to the need for a budget.

Bottom-Up Approach

The bottom-up alternative is likely to produce a more realistic outcome, if combined with requirements for rigorous justification and review on objective output achievement grounds. Budgets are built up by estimating by defined cost categories (which ideally would go as low as staffing in individual voting stations, costs of each election form's design and production, and the like) the costs of each voting operations project, at a local geographic management unit level where feasible. 

Advantages of this method are:

• takes full account of current and projected systems, procedures and local conditions;

• allows a proper prioritizing of funding needs, and thus more rational decisions if activities have to be curtailed to meet available funding

• encourages ownership of budget processes throughout different levels the organization;

• allows identification of potential areas of both management efficiency and inefficiency;

• provides a solid, supportable basis for bids for funding.

Its disadvantages are that it is a slower, iterative process, and that project and locally based budgets need to be rigorously examined to eliminate any duplication and excessive bids for funds compared to outputs. Defining global budgets through this bottom up process is highly preferable, even if it cannot be developed to its fullest extent due to time constraints.

Inclusiveness and Comparability of Budgets

Reliability of Voting Operations Financial Records

It is still relatively rare to find budgets and expenditure records for voting operations that show an accurate representation of actual costs.

Many public sector accounting practices are such that expenditure on voting operations functions outside the election period, or by bodies other than the electoral management body, may not be included in current election costs.

Inclusiveness

All components of voting operations costs should be recognised when developing election and voting operations budgets. They are no less real because they are borne at a different time or are not charged direct to the electoral management body.

Such expenditures may include items such as:

• costs of other state agencies in providing security for voting operations;

• costs for training and voter information campaigns internally funded by non-government organisations (NGOs), civic and religious organisations;

• established communication technology

• administrative overheads for permanent electoral management bodies;

• use of other agencies' computing or communications equipment;

• longer term training of voting station staff.

What should the electoral management body's voting operations budget include? In terms of funding needs during the election, it is essential that it include its direct outlays during the election period.

If no overall budget is prepared, coordination with other bodies providing their own sources of funds for voting operations activities is also essential, so that all participants have sufficient funding to undertake their required roles.

In addition to direct outlays during the election period itself, financial requirements for other items may also need to be included in voting operations budget preparations over the election cycle, including:

• durable equipment acquisition and maintenance;

• system development;

• longer term staff training and public information programs;

• early purchase of materials;

• continuing election-related administration.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

For proper evaluation of effectiveness of expenditure, an overall budget/expenditure format for voting operations is necessary. It is best practice that this budget/expenditure format includes all costs relevant to the election. Difficulties with this may occur where public agencies operate on year-by-year cash funding principles.

Set-up costs for administrative structures and major equipment needs are expensive, and budgeting for these against a single election can provide misleading data. Similarly where permanent electoral management bodies are in place their relevant running costs may not be included at all in any election's expenditures, resulting in a skewered reflection of election costs.

Currently, such inconsistencies on both national and international levels make it difficult to identify cost-effective voting operations systems and practices.

Funds Assurance and Timing of Electoral Funds

For the electoral management body to be able to plan the implementation of voting operations on a sound basis there must be an assurance that the funds required for voting operations will be made available. Uncertainty as to funding availability will lead to inefficiencies in operations, constrained leadership and a potential loss of integrity.

It is the responsibility of election administrators to ensure that requests for funding have been rigorously examined internally to ensure that they represent cost effective solutions to the legislative and service requirements for voting and that funding provided is spent wisely. This does not necessarily mean that voting is conducted in the cheapest possible manner, but rather that the electoral management body provides "value for money" in the level of voting operations services implemented.

Timing of Funds Release

Not only certainty of funding, but also appropriate timing of release to the electoral management body of approved funding for voting operations is critical for ensuring effective operations.

Certainty of Funding

To ensure certainty of operations and the integrity of the electoral process election administrators must be assured in advance of the funding that will be available for voting operations. This requires that:

• known and preferably public mechanisms for submission of estimates to and approval of funds by the relevant legislatures are in place;

• election administrators ensure that voting operations budgets are developed and integrated into the normal governmental budgetary approval cycle;

• mechanisms for approval of additional voting operations funding by legislatures exist to cover unforeseen contingencies, such as late changes to legislative frameworks, and in systems where elections are not held at fixed intervals, are available and effective.

Governmental funds for voting operations should be part of funding specifically allocated for election purposes. This may be easier where a separate body is responsible for the conduct of elections, rather than elections being one responsibility of a state or local government department or agency.

In the latter case, particularly in environments where general accountability controls are weak, tight audit mechanisms may be required to ensure that funding intended for voting operations purposes is used as intended.

Services Provided By Other Organizations

There will be specific additional considerations where funding for voting operations activities is derived from sources outside budgets controlled by the electoral management body. This situation requires vigilance by the electoral management body to ensure that funding expected for voting operations materializes.

Where other state organizations provide voting operations services at no charge to the electoral management body, it must be ensured that these bodies have the capacity to fund these services from within their own budgets to the level required by the electoral management body.

It would generally be preferable for the costs of providing these inter-agency services to be budgeted for and paid by the electoral management body. This tends to promote efficiency, may allow more direct control of processes, and provides a sounder basis for comparing activity costs. However, this may not always happen. Examples of this could be where:

• premises for voting stations or temporary election management local offices are provided by other state agencies free of direct charge, e.g. schools or town halls;

• security forces (police and/or military) provide voting operations security free of direct charge;

• use is made of other state agencies' communication networks for communication with voting stations;

• computer networks operated by other state agencies are used for processing voting operations data free of direct charge;

• staffs of other government agencies are made available for duty as voting station officers or for election administration but are paid for these duties within their normal salary arrangements with their usual employer.

Funding for Additional Costs Incurred

There may be significant additional costs incurred by other agencies in providing these services--particularly in overtime or other additional staffing costs. Additional materials, equipment maintenance and possibly acquisition of additional equipment, to meet the service levels required for voting operations support, may also result in additional costs.

Some costs of free-of-charge services provided may not be immediately apparent. Staff of other agencies engaged in voting operations support duties may not incur additional costs at the time, but the normal work foregone may require additional expenditure at a later date to be completed on schedule.

It would be preferable that funds to be used for voting operations support by other state agencies were a specifically appropriated item within their budgets, rather than relying on sufficient excess from normal operating budgets being available to meet voting operations needs.

NGOs and International Assistance

Where essential voting operations activities are being provided and funded by international organizations or local non-government organizations (NGOs), the electoral management body must be sure that commitments to provide services are solidly supported by the funds available to such organizations.

Governmental Funding Responsibility

Voting operations, in common with other electoral expenditures, would generally be funded through the particular level of representative government for which the election is being conducted. However, there will be circumstances where inter-governmental transfers of funds may be necessary to ensure consistency, equity and integrity in voting operations processes, such as:

• when new tiers of representative government are being introduced;

• where local or provincial administrations are responsible for conduct of elections for higher tiers of representative government;

• in developing environments;

• where there are gross inequalities in the funding base available to the various governments at provincial or local levels within a country.

Care should be taken in implementing mechanisms for such funds transfers to ensure that:

• accountability and audit mechanisms are in place to prevent inefficiencies through duplicate expenditure for voting operations funds from sources at different levels of government;

• where such funds transfers take place they are on an acquitted advance, rather than a reimbursement of voting operations expenditure basis.

Using the latter method generally will not assist, and may exacerbate, funding deficiencies in specific administrative areas. This issue can be particularly pertinent for elections at lower tiers of government in developing societies.

Justification of Voting Operations Funding Needs

Despite the importance of voting operation, it is one of many competing programmes for limited public financial resources. Voting operations is competing not only with other election-related expenditures--voter registration, voter education, and the like--but also within the wide sphere of services to be provided by governments.

In order to obtain the proposed budgeted funding for voting operations, election administrators will need to convince controllers of the public purse strings that proposed expenditures are:

• cost-effective in delivering the services required by the legislative framework for voting operations;

• necessary to maintain the integrity and service levels appropriate for the election.

Generally is it is preferable to have the legislature determining the amount and release of the required budget to the electoral management body.

The legislature can vote on the release date of the funding, whereas if the ministry has control over the release of funding delays may occur through bureaucratic inefficiency.

Use of Project Costing

Justification of proposed expenditures, and assurance of necessary funding, will be considerably easier where a budgeting model that provides activity or project costing has been adopted (see Budgeting Systems). Advantages of using this method in providing justifications for proposed expenditures include:

• it allows clear demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of the voting operations activities proposed through development of unit cost data;

• the impacts of the various activities on voting operations processes can be more easily shown. This shows in budget proposal supporting papers the effects of any cuts to proposed expenditures, and a prioritization of services that will be reduced or eliminated in order to reconcile activities with any funding shortfalls;

• if approved funding is less than the proposed budget, it provides a clearer framework for speedy revision by the electoral management body of proposed expenditures in order to reconcile these with approved funding.

Critical Time Frames and Funds Availability

It is critical to ensure effective preparation for voting operations that not only an adequate level of financial resources is received, but that the timing of the availability of funds is compatible with the critical intervals in the election preparation calendar. There are two basic issues to be addressed:

1. The electoral management body's internal voting operations estimates system must be organized on a schedule that allows early identification of the funding requirements.  The more complex the administrative structure of the electoral management body and the greater the number of different agencies involved in voting operations service provisions, the longer voting operations estimates are likely to take to prepare. This must be taken into account in internal budget planning timetables.
2. Where legislatures approve and revise state budgets at infrequent, fixed intervals, provision needs to be made in environments where elections are not also at regular intervals for examination and approval, at relatively short notice, of the release of funds for voting operations purposes.  Methods will differ according to the state budget management strategies. Preferably, the approved budget for voting operations will already be known by the time of formal announcement of an election date.

Approval of Emergency Funding

Mechanisms for state approval of additional emergency voting operations funding need to be in place and capable of functioning to allow a timely release of additional funds. Additional emergency funding may be required due to changed circumstances (often the result of changes to election legal frameworks close to voting day), or cost overruns prior to voting day, While it is the responsibility of election managers to keep within allocated funding, in changing environments perfect estimation of requirements may not be possible.

Inability to provide certainty of any additional emergency funding required to achieve a quality election is more likely to punish the legislature, through the potential doubts about election legitimacy, rather than the election managers.

Forward Purchases

Many vital components for successful voting operations, such as development of computer systems and acquisition of equipment and supplies, can be undertaken well in advance of the actual period for voting. In particular, there is a need for sufficient time for proper bidding and tender processes and adjudication of bids to allow cost-effective purchasing.

Where permanent electoral management bodies are in place the costs of such forward work may be accounted for by proposals within their normal operation budgets. When temporary bodies are appointed, it is essential that immediate funding for election preparations be released, possibly as an advance pending the submission of a detailed budget for approval.

International Bodies

The role of international bodies or other governments in providing financial assistance for an election also needs to be determined by the effective time for release of funds. This may become a more complex issue, as international bodies will be driven by approval processes for their own funding, that may not be in synchronization with the election funding time frames in the recipient country.

Also in developing countries, emerging from conflict situations, the release of donor funding for electoral operations may be determined by inter and external political considerations.

Late release of international assistance funding has the potential to cause damage rather than aid effective election operations, particularly where it is for complex systems which then have to be implemented in a highly compressed time frame - for example, to provide funds for a computerized vote counting system a few days before voting day.

Budget Line Item Considerations

When developing budgets and cost guidelines for voting operation projects, election administrators need to carefully identify the following:

• all the relevant cost components--failure to identify and budget for all of these can result in funds shortages during the election period;

• the most cost-effective manner for procuring these relevant cost components--wherever possible, lower cost solutions that utilize simple systems, existing infrastructure, and continuity of resources should be pursued.

Basis of Cost Estimates

The common denominator in estimating costs and acquiring election resources is the number of voters to be serviced. Definition of what percentage of voters is expected to vote is critical for establishing cost-effective operations.

Where election administrators are confident, from comprehensive past records and their analysis of the current environment that the turnout figure will be in a particular range, cost efficiencies can be gained by estimating and acquiring resources on this basis. It is preferable to base budgets and resource needs on a close to 100 percent turnout, which will allow additional capacity to deal with any contingencies.

Cost effective measures will be environment specific, depending on such issues as the level of security required for public confidence and the relative costs of labor-intensive to automated or higher-tech methods. (For further discussion of these issues, see Cost Considerations, Budgeting and Planning Cycle)

Specific Costs

The following sections cover the relevant specific costs:

• Staffing and training, see Staffing and Training Costs.

• Equipment, materials and premises (including security), see Equipment Materials and Premises Costs.

• Communications and postage, see Communications and Postage Costs

• Transport and freight, see Transport and Freight Costs

• Other costs (including voter information, overheads, insurance, challenges/legal), see Other Costs

Contingencies

Provision for contingencies will need to address issues of:

• excess levels of materials, equipment and staff for emergency re-supply;

• disaster recovery, such as where voting has to be adjourned to another day, or offices relocated due to natural disaster or disturbance, or there are major failures in computer systems;

• potential changes to election frameworks during the election period that may lead to additional workloads and resource requirements.

• provision for the payment of voting staff on a day other than election day/s. Voting staff payment becomes an activity on its own requiring a budget for personnel, transport and communications.

For reserve quantities of materials, it would be normal to maintain a 10 percent reserve over estimated requirements. Reserve quantities for relevant items will generally need to be higher where new systems or procedures are being introduced, or where there is reliance on external bodies (e.g. for the provision of transport or mail services) of unproven or historically poor performance.

Contingency estimates for disaster recovery will need to be guided by risk assessments in each specific environment. Factors of infrastructure, development and literacy levels impact upon the estimated contingency requirement plan for voting operations.

Funding for actions resulting from possible changes to election frameworks would not generally be sought in formal budget proposals. It is preferable to provide for these potential costs upfront. However, for transitional elections, where negotiations on election frameworks may continue well into the election period, the preparation of formal cost estimates for the effects of potential framework changes can be very useful.

Post Election Activity

Provision may need to be made for activities following the conclusion of the election, such as for additional resources to conduct evaluations of voting operations processes or research into voting issues or exit polls.

In some systems, such as those with a permanent voter's list or where voting is compulsory, provision will need to be made for follow-up of some voters, e.g. for those whose voter registration entries were found to be incorrect, or, in compulsory voting systems, who did not vote.

Staffing and Training Costs

Except in societies where voting station staff are undertaking a civic duty and are not compensated, the major item of voting operations expenditure is likely to be staffing costs. Hence efficiencies that can be made here will generally impact greatly on overall election cost-effectiveness. Specific costs that will need to be considered include:

• permanent electoral management body staff salaries and associated costs for overtime, travel and meal allowances;

• wages for temporary election administration staff, in field offices and at electoral management body headquarters, salaries and associated payments for training, overtime, travel and meal allowances;

• voting station staff wages, and any associated payments for training, travel allowances, and meal allowances or food supplies;

• any special facilities to be provided to voting station officials or administration staff, such as vehicles and temporary accommodation in remote areas;

• any additional recruitment costs for temporary staff.

Measures that may be taken to enhance cost effectiveness in relation to these resources include:

• use of electoral staff or voting station officials who can be employed free of charge, either by seconding from other government agencies or by working on a voluntary basis;

• retention of staff from past elections, which can reduce both recruitment costs and training costs as well as increase overall efficiency of operations and voter service;

• use of an effective standard system, based on tested workload capacities, for allocating numbers of voting station officials to each voting station.

Equipment, Materials and Premises Costs

Major voting equipment is voting compartments and ballot boxes. The style and construction of these items will have a considerable impact on their costs.

Cost comparisons will need to be made to determine whether it is more cost effective to use durable wooden, plastic or metal equipment or to use disposable ballot boxes and voting compartments.

The more durable or permanent equipment will have greater transport, repair and storage costs, but it can be used for subsequent elections. Disposable equipment may not give a sufficient image of security in some environments, or may be unusable under some weather conditions.

Other voting equipment needs will include seals or locks for ballot boxes, and any special security devices, such as ink applicators and special lighting, required for voter eligibility controls.

Automated voting will require provisions for hardware acquisition and maintenance, emergency system support, set-up and testing of machines and installation of ancillary communications equipment.

Voting material for temporary voting stations needs to be budgeted for. Due to enhanced security considerations of voting material at temporary voting stations budget requirements may be additional to those of permanent or fixed voting stations. Budget provisions for temporary voting stations should also address storage facilities for the voting material.

Office Equipment

Voting stations and temporary office facilities may need to be provided with additional office equipment, though it would be preferable to arrange for the use of fully equipped facilities (this latter course may have not only basic cost advantages but will decrease transport costs).

In general, it would be more cost- effective to lease, rather than purchase, additional office equipment. This will depend on opportunities for their future use and comparison of the rental cost for the period required against the purchase cost. For temporary local offices equipment requirements that may need to be covered in voting operations budgets include:

• Furniture, such as tables, chairs, stands, filing cabinets.

• Photocopying facilities.

• Fax machines.

For voting stations, costs of additional furniture requirements (tables, chairs, secure cabinets for storage, barriers for crowd control, and facilities), additional lighting, portable power supply generators, portable toilets, and water supply to bring voting station layouts and facilities up to required standards may also need to be estimated.

Minor office equipment items, such as calculators and box files, for voting station managers and local election administrators may also need to be included.

Disposable alternatives, such as cardboard tables and queue control barriers for use in voting stations, should also be investigated to determine their cost-effectiveness compared to the leasing of durable equipment.

Computer Software and Hardware

Costs incurred in developing, implementing and maintaining computer systems for voting operations purposes will need to be covered.These may be:

• General management systems, such as for election staffing records and payments or financial management, or

• Systems directly concerned with voting, such as systems for voting station resource allocation and control, computerized voting, candidate nominations processing, election information services or ballot counts and result calculation.

Whether all such costs are estimated against and paid from funding for a specific election will depend on accounting policies and what other sources of development funding are available to the electoral management body. Systems costing will need to take into account:

• costs of hardware (computers, monitors, printers, other peripherals and any installation costs) and additional power supplies;

• any network costs, for line or link installation and/or lease and data transfer costs;

• development, testing and implementation costs for software, and any purchase or license fees payable for externally developed software;

• maintenance and technical support costs.

• training of operators on specialized electronic electoral operations knowledge.

Operational support costs will also need to be included for any additional staff, transport, supplies, office furniture or premises required.

Materials

Estimates of costs of materials for voting operations would include:

• ballots, and, where required, ballot envelopes;

• reference and training materials for use by staff and trainers, such as manuals and workbooks, training aids (audio-visual materials), checklists, copies of election legislation and regulations;

• reference and information materials for use by candidates, parties and other external participants in the election such as security forces;

• election forms for use by voters, candidates, parties and for the maintenance of official election records;

• Election administration forms and labels for the control of recruitment, training, resources allocations, finance, assets control;

• copies of voters' lists for use in voting stations;

• information posters and pamphlets;

• general stationery items such as packaging tape, string, notebooks, pens, pencils, glue, envelopes, rulers, and rubber bands, as well as any specific needs defined in the election legal framework, such as authentication stamps for ballots;

• signage for use in or outside voting stations;

• voting station border markings;

• packaging materials, such as heavy duty envelopes or bags, boxes or other containers for transport of election materials.

Comparisons of the effectiveness of different alternatives for materials needs can produce significant cost savings. Some examples include:

• investigating ballot printing alternatives--use of special papers and security print techniques may not be necessary in all environments, e.g. where ballots can be authenticated by voting station staff when issued;

• whether the additional value added by higher technology and expensive processes, such as production of audio-visual materials, is sufficient to justify their use over simpler and less costly formats;

• comparing costs of different locations (local or centralizes) of production, taking freight into account;

• producing reference materials in sectioned, loose leaf format that can be returned, amended if necessary and reused in future elections

• investigating different forms of production methods to determine which is most cost-effective for the required print runs, and minimizing more expensive design features such as colored papers and print--lower volumes of forms may be produced more cheaply in-house by photocopying;

• using general government bulk supply contracts for stationery items or other common use items.

Premises Rental

Premises may need to be rented for local election administration offices, special voting locations, voting stations and vote counting centres. Rental for such premises will only have to be provided for if there is insufficient or no government supplied premises.

In considering the rental costs, the following factors should be taken into account:

• base rent of the building;

• any bonds to be paid;

• any additional service costs, such as electricity, lighting, communications, heating, and cleaning.

It would generally be preferable to secure premises that already contain the furniture and facilities required.

Security

The level of security that is required will vary widely in different election environments and should be determined through risk assessments. Where security is provided by the police or military, this may be provided for out of their own budgets, or could be transferred by the electoral management body from its election funds.

Cost calculations will need to encompass any requirements for security during the whole election period, not only voting day and the count, and recognize any associated costs that may be relevant, such as for police overtime, vehicle maintenance, fuel, and temporary accommodations. Additional security costs may be impacted upon for the safeguarding of voting materials for temporary voting stations.

Communications and Postage Costs

Before communications costs can be accurately budgeted for the electoral management body needs to determine the extent of communications coverage in the country. These would include fixed line operators, mobile telephone coverage, Wide Area Network, satellite facilities and radio handsets.

Communications costs will need to include:

• cost of calls made over telecommunications networks;

• costs of any additional communication equipment, such as fixed phone lines, telephone handsets, mobile phones, personal radios and base stations;

• any additional mobile or radio network facilities required.

The type of equipment that is most suitable and cost-effective will depend on the environment. Best practice would require that each voting station should be provided with some method of voice communication with its election administration office.

Wherever available and reliable, fixed telephone lines generally will be less costly and therefore preferable.

Election administration offices will generally need to augment their voice communication capacities for the election period, to deal with both administration and voter inquiries.

For the voting period, there should be sufficient capacity for voice contact with all voting stations in the office's areas of responsibility, with no significant delay.

Postage

Postage costs may be incurred for general communications with voters, parties and candidates, particularly for the provision of information sheets, manuals and election documentation. Postage costs may be substantially increased if courier services are used.

Situations may require immediate postings that are adequately facilitated by courier services only. There may also be postage costs associated with the recruitment of voting station officers.

Additional postage costs may include:

• in systems where voting by mail is available, costs of dispatch of mail ballots (and their return where reply paid returns are used);

• where applications for mail ballots are mailed to voters, these costs may double;

• mail delivery of voter information guides.

It would generally be possible, if the electoral management body pre-sorts its outgoing mail by area, to obtain substantial discounts on mail costs from postal authorities. This will usually only be advantageous for large scale mailings, such as voter information guides, mail ballots and the like.

Transport and Freight Costs

Overall Requirements

Transport and freight arrangements for voting materials and equipment will need to cover:

• post-production distribution of equipment/materials to the electoral management body (in lower risk security situations, often organised more cost-effectively by the manufacturer and included in product costs);

• any distribution required from central to regional electoral management body storage facilities, and from regional electoral management body storage facilities to local election administration offices;

• distribution of equipment and materials to voting stations and other voting locations;

• emergency voting day transport contingencies;

• transport of voting material to counting centres (where regional or central counting centres, rather than voting stations, are used for the count);

• return of election equipment and materials to the electoral management body for sorting and storage;

• disposal of any election material that is not to be retained;

• courier services between electoral management body's central/regional and local offices.

• insurance for transportation

Logistical planning should take into account the most cost-effective transport routes and means, considering local infrastructure conditions, time constraints and security assessments. Transportation of materials and equipment may require special security arrangements

It will be more difficult to service remote areas at low cost; use of aeroplane or helicopter air transport, boats and similar high cost conveyance may be necessary. Similarly service of voting locations in foreign countries will generally require high cost urgent air freight.

Contracting Out

It is generally not cost-effective for the electoral management body to maintain its own permanent transport fleet.

A combination of electoral management body owned transport and hired transport during high activity election periods may be best practice. There may be advantages in the hiring of some transport vehicles and drivers in urban areas for peak periods of materials delivery and pick up.

This may be necessary where other suitable transport operators or other government agencies' vehicles are not available. Where vehicles are hired, costing must include all associated costs, such as drivers, fuel and insurance.

Transport Security

Election materials and equipment must be transported by means that provide adequate security.

The level of security required will depend on assessed security risks. In low risk environments normal commercial transport systems or even private vehicles can be used; in higher risk environments, special arrangements for protected convoys or transport using military, police, or private or international security agencies resources may be required.

Costs in such situations may be high - however adequate security of the material is the overriding consideration.

Voting Station Staff Needs

There may also be a need to provide transport for voting station staff and, in some situations of high risk, secure convoys for voters. With regard to voting station staff, vehicle leasing may be necessary to provide:

• the required mobility for roving voting station staff (see Other Voting Operations Staff);

• a transport service for voting station staff, where they are working out of their local area, or where public transport facilities are poor (use of buses rather than smaller vehicles would be more cost-effective);

• transport for mobile voting stations, both in urban areas servicing institutions and in remote areas.

• Transport for replacement voting station staff

Potential Efficiencies

There can be opportunities for efficiencies in transport costs by using, wherever possible:

• transport resources of other government agencies or the military for equipment and materials distribution and return (a less attractive option where "user pays" systems for inter-agency services is used);

• in low security risk areas, voting station managers' private vehicles for pick up and return of voting materials and staff to and from voting stations, paying a vehicle allowance as a more cost-effective alternative to hiring transport vehicles or contractors;

• distributing voting equipment and furniture from regional locations rather than from a central hub;

• ensuring that available furniture and facilities in voting sites are used, to avoid the transport of additional furniture or equipment;

• in rural and remote areas, using voting sites that have facilities for free storage of bulky equipment, such as voting compartments or booths, between elections.

Other Costs

Voter information campaign costs are often covered under voter education or communications’ budgets. This would include materials and other product design, production of printed and audio-visual materials, training and wages to temporary voter information staff (including those working on enquiry services), costs of media space or time for advertising.

Overheads

Patterns of work during the election period may give rise to increases in overhead costs. The electoral management body's permanent offices may be in use for longer hours, incurring additional expense for electricity, heating, cooling or normal building security services.

There are also likely to be significant additional quantities of normal office supplies required. Estimates of these costs will need to be included in budgets.

Insurance

Depending on the general legal frameworks for the insurance liability of agencies of the state, there may be a need for the electoral management body to take out insurance coverage, particularly for voters, voter education providers and voting station staff within voting sites.

Legal responsibilities for insurance coverage need to be carefully reviewed and the appropriate budget provisions made.

Challenges and Legal Costs

Where electoral management bodies do not have in-house legal counsel, or do not receive legal advice and representation free of charge from other government agencies, some provision should be made for costs of:

• legal advice required for any clarification of the legal framework;

• legal representation as a party to any court challenges regarding voting operations processes or election results.

• legal costs for alternative dispute resolution or conflict management.

Provision for costs of investigations of challenges and of any alleged electoral offences may also need to be made.

Minor Costs

Some provision should be made for petty cash requirements to cover small or emergency purchases by local election administration offices or voting station managers.

Technology Costs

When considering the appropriate level of technology to be used for various voting operations processes, cost factors must be a major consideration. Considerations for expenditure on technology include:

• operational and public image considerations,

• the services and reliability that are claimed for the systems,

The enhanced effiency that new technology provides for the electoral management body may be persuasive, but without rigorous cost-benefit analysis of new technology proposals, resources may not be used in the most effective manner.

Key Issues In Assessing Technology Cost-Effectiveness

Key questions to be addressed in relation to the cost-effectiveness of implementation of technology-based solutions include:

How much value will be added by implementation of the technology?: How much more will it provide in achieving any or all of the guiding principles for voting operations (see Guiding Principles of Voting Operations), compared to simpler, lower technology solutions?

How do the benefits compare to any additional expenditures required?

Is the level of start-up expenditure justifiable, given available total election funding?

Technology based systems typically do not produce cost benefits immediately, due the level of equipment, capital, training and other start-up expenditures. Given the rate of change in technologies, and potential trends towards decreasing costs for many automated solutions, picking the right time to acquire technology is also important for cost-effectiveness.

What are the ongoing costs: Careful consideration needs to be given to future costs of maintaining automated solutions, in terms of equipment or software maintenance, training, upgrades, license fees and the like.

If technological solutions are to be introduced, is it better to develop and implement them in-house, or to contract this out to specialists?: The lower initial costs of contracting out on a fee basis may be attractive, but there may be disadvantages. Reliance on an outside contractor for time-critical technology-based voting operations functions may leave the electoral management body open to problems of reliability. Careful consideration needs to be given to cost versus control and reliability issues.

What other alternatives are available for the use of the funds that would be required?: This is not a question just limited to alternative uses within the election budget. Funds used for elections in general are not available for other social expenditure.