The significance in both the international and
domestic public eye of the elections, following as they did 32 years of
elections with a high degree of coercion, and low degrees of freedom and transparency
make a case study of the count especially relevant. Mechanisms were chosen to
highlight the transparency and correctness of these elections that could serve
as a model for other transitional elections.
On the other hand, the notorious problems of the
consolidation of the results, will be brought up as a cautionary reminder of
the importance of planning and training as carefully for the count and results
process, as for the polling process.
The 1999 Indonesian transitional elections do not
reflect procedurally the conduct of earlier elections, nor do they reflect
necessarily the conduct of subsequent elections.
The
main differences with previous elections were the increase in political
participation (48 parties compared with 3 the 32 previous years), and the
transparency built into the procedures. Accredited national and international
observers were permitted, in unlimited numbers, to watch both the voting and
the count. In addition, party agents (maximum one per party), were not only
free to observe, but also to challenge elements of the polling or count.
The 7
June 1999 elections were for 3 levels - district, provincial, and regional
legislatures. For the national elections, a total of 462 seats were at stake
(with 38 reserved for the military and police, making a total of 500). These
462 seats were apportioned to the provinces on the basis of population, but
with some favouring of the more sparsely populated outer islands over the
densely populated Java.
Polling
was conducted from 8 am to 2 pm in approximately 300,000 polling stations
across the country - no mean logistical feat in a country of 17,000 islands,
some mountainous, some densely forested.
Following
the closing of the polls, votes were counted at the polling station, by the
polling station officials. As 80% of Indonesia ́s polling stations were
outdoors, there was ample opportunity for not only the observers and party
agents, but also the general public to watch (which they did! - the count
across the country was characterised by a carnival like enthusiasm on the part
of the onlookers).
The Voting Station Count
For the
sake of this case study, a random sample polling station count is used to
exemplify certain stages of the counting process, in this a village polling
station in Sorkom Sub-District, North Sumatra.
Before
opening the ballot boxes, the polling station officials prefilled the Official
Reconciliation Forms to the extent possible (see example model C1 form). These
forms were in the form of rather unwieldy, large books, a necessity considering
that there were not only 48 parties times three elections, but also that all
the polling station officials, as well as all the party agents present were to
sign, endorsing the correctness of the documents. The C1 book/forms were to be
filled out in 3 copies for the station, as well, each party agent had a copy.
The
first entry on the form Ballots Received should have been filled out already at
the opening of the polls. The ballot papers for the polling station were sealed
in inside the ballot boxes upon receipt, and were to be opened, counted, and
recorded as part of polling station opening procedures, in full view of all
present, including the first voters the day.
The
ballots received total should equal the amount of registered voters at the
polling station, plus a 3% contingency (for spoiled ballots, or for persons
added to the register with valid registration cards, or for persons registered
elsewhere with a special authorisation form). The first ballot box, for
national elections, was then opened, and ballots counted. The Indonesian 1999
ballots was small-poster size, and folded in a special way to ensure secrecy of
the ballot. An official ballot was one signed by the
polling station chairman, the vice-chairman, and a third polling station member
as well as affixed with an official hologram sticker.
The
three levels of ballots had three different colours for differentiation; the
ballot boxes were in corresponding colours. When the first ballot box was
opened, a number of wrong colour ballots had crept in - a common problem for
the count when several elections are held at the same time. With the approval
of all the party agents present, the misplaced ballots were placed in the
correct boxes. The expectation would be of course that any missing ballots for this
count would be found in the boxes to be opened subsequently.
For
this reason, the official reconciliation form results at each polling station
were not to be filled in until the end of the count of all three boxes. Back to
the opening of the ballot box - the first task upon opening was to sort out the
most obvious invalid ballots, that is the unofficial lines, that were missing
the three signatures or the official hologram, fake ballots, photocopies
ballots, ballots larger or smaller than the official ballots, or ballots in a
different colour, which were to be removed and not counted, should any exist.
The
official ballots were then counted, the total noted, hopefully matching the
amount received, minus unused and minus spoiled, and minus unofficial/invalid.
If the numbers did not reconcile, chances are that this was because ballots for
this election were still in the other boxes, and yet to be counted. One by one,
in front of all party agents, observers, and the general public, the ballots
were unfolded, held up in full view, and the party called out by the chairman,
and tallied on a large visible boards.
The
party agents, and observers if they so wished, had forms to do a parallel tally
at the same time. Interestingly for the Indonesian elections, ballots were
punched with a hole rather than marked. Because of this, the back of the
ballots was shown to all present, so that the hole would be clearly visible. As
the ballot papers were thin, translucent, and the party symbols bright and
easily visible from the back of the paper, this was fine except had there been
worse lighting, (mostly the count was done in the daytime, between 2-6 pm, but
in some places delayed materials resulted in delayed counts, meaning the count
was conducted in poor lighting) this could have been a problem.
When
voters had not properly punched the cards, but rather just made a dent in the
paper, these were considered valid if so approved by all the representatives present.
Ballots marked with a pen, punched more than once, unclearly punched (i.e. on
the line between two parties), or punched were considered invalid, were set
aside along with the unofficial ballots already removed.
The
chairman made special effort with the invalid ballots to make sure that the
invalidity was approved by all. This strengthened the sense of transparency,
good will, and participation. Valid votes were both tallied during the count,
and the ballots divided into piles, subsequently counted and checked against
the large tally board. The parallel count by the party agents and observers
present served as a triple check for accuracy.
Following
the tally, and the determination of votes per party, the ballots were rubber banded
together on a party basis, and placed into an official envelope that was then
sealed. Invalid ballots, were placed into another
envelope, recorded and sealed. These two envelopes, plus the envelope with the
spoiled ballots were placed in a plastic bag. This procedure was repeated for
the provincial and district level ballots.
After
the ballots were tallied for each election, the polling station chair asked the
vice chair to count the number of votes for each party, for each election, on
each tally sheet. The chair announced the total number of votes for each party
so that party agents and observers could hear. The vice chair and another
polling station member then record the number of votes for each party on the
official reconciliation form (3 copies). Another polling station member
recorded the numbers at the same time on a large, visible form on the board.
The
three copies were signed by all polling station officials and all party agents
present. One form was to be kept sealed, with the other election material,
another to be posted publicly at the polling station, and the third to be given
to the village level election committee for the consolidation of the results.
The
sealed envelopes were locked inside one of the ballot boxes, other materials
placed in a second, and all the materials accompanied by the polling officials,
party agents, observers, and general public, to the location designated by the
village level election committee for safekeeping overnight.
The Consolidation of the Results
The
village election committees, known as the PPS, were each responsible for 2 to 9
polling stations, depending on the population of the area. The Indonesian
elections were organised based on a hierarchy of 6 (!) levels: (1) the national election committee and
commission (KPU/PPI), (2) Provincial (PPD1), (3) Regency/Municipality (PPD2), (4)
District (PPK), (5) Sub-district/Village (PPS) and (6) polling station levels.
Official
reconciliation forms were consolidated at each level - that is, the PPS
(Village) consolidated its polling station results, which were sent to the
Sub-district (PPK) level. The District level consolidated and sent official
forms to the next level up (Municipality), but also sent the results directly
to an electronic parallel counting centre in Jakarta, run largely by
internationals (Australia). The official manual results, following consolidation
at the provincial and national levels was scheduled to take approximately 2
weeks, followed by a legalization process and official announcement. The
computerised count, though unofficial, provided considerably quicker results.
Certain observer groups also conducted parallel tallies.
Under
the current electoral law, candidates are assigned seats on a constituency
basis (the constituency, but within a proportional representation system). List
of candidates for each party/constituency are posted in advance.
The use
of reconciliation of numbers is a very important feature to consider on the
election forms, and yet one area that many election officials seemed to have
difficulty with during the election. Using the sample polling station as an
example, the results were spread over 11 parties, with 2 parties neck in neck,
resulting in a marginal victory for Golkar, the party that only a few years before had earned over 90% of the vote. This gives an indication
of the changes that a new electoral law, free campaigning, and clear and
transparent procedures can bring to a small village.
