EMBs are responsible for ensuring that election day is carried off without technical complications. One important precondition for successful voting is proper logistical arrangements. These include the timely and sufficient provision of sensitive and non-sensitive materials to all polling locations, and ensuring that these materials are protected at all times.

Failures or delays in supplying essential electoral materials, poor security and lack of transparency in the handling of them, before or after voting and counting, can have a negative impact on perceptions of the credibility and integrity of elections, and lead to the rejection of election results.[1] This can in turn trigger or contribute to election-related violence. In some cases, even procedurally well-conducted elections may lead to contested outcomes, particularly in countries with long-standing and deep-rooted grievances.

Empirical cases: 

• Nigeria presidential and parliamentary elections 2007. The lack of electoral materials was associated with an alleged attempt to manipulate the electoral process. Voting operations started late and finished early, mainly due to the shortage of electoral materials such as ballot papers and result sheets. Such shortfalls typically occurred in provinces where the ruling party faced a strong challenge. In some polling districts electoral materials were not delivered, and elections did not take place at all. Furthermore, the material was often alleged to have been poorly handled, not counted or not registered, thereby making it easier to manipulate the ballot papers and result sheets.
  
  Security was perceived as inadequate throughout the election: there were several cases of political party-affiliated individuals stuffing ballot boxes with pre-marked ballot papers - allegedly with no resistance from presiding electoral officials. On some occasions the police themselves were allegedly responsible for fraud. Widespread allegations of fraud contributed to outbreaks of violence, resulting in the deaths of 200 people.[2]
  
  Interrelated factors: social and political exclusions (external), provocative and violent actions by political parties (internal). 

• Burundi, communal elections, 2010. Because the May 2010 communal elections in Burundi preceded presidential and legislative elections, they were perceived as a test of the parties’ popularity. These elections were chiefly won by the ruling party. While election day was generally calm and transparent, the Coalition of Civil Society for Electoral Monitoring (COSOME) noted that some polling stations had not fully respected the electoral code. Alleged issues included missing ballot papers for certain parties in some polling stations, party propaganda in the waiting lines, cases of voter intimidation, and some polling stations where secrecy of voting was reported as not fully respected.[3] While these irregularities were not judged sufficient to affect the result of the election by international observers,[4] they nonetheless strengthened opposition claims of significant fraud. The non-publication of the procès-verbaux (minutes) by the Electoral Commission reinforced opposition’s claims in this regard. Another controversy emerged when the opposition claimed to have discovered a ballot box hidden, and full of ballots.[5] Following this a coalition of opposition parties decided to boycott the presidential and legislative elections. The protests that followed these events resulted in electoral violence, and the boycotted elections led in turn to victory for the ruling party.[6]

Interrelated factors: human rights violations (external); poor socio-economic conditions (external); Problematic election day operations (internal); Provocative and violent actions by political parties (internal); Grievances relating to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (external); Poor management of election results (Internal); Poor management of the final round of electoral appeals (Internal).