Votes
are counted and aggregated in many different ways. In most cases, votes are
counted for the first time at the voting stations on Election Day, after the
close of voting. In other cases, votes are taken to counting centres before
they are counted. In some jurisdictions, these first counts are the only counts
made, and the ballot papers are looked at again only if the election result is
challenged or a recount is requested by a candidate, a party, or a court. In
some jurisdictions, votes counted once at the voting station level are taken to
a counting centre after Election Day, and rechecked and recounted, recognizing
that mistakes are common in the initial count. Votes may be recounted again and
again at several stages in the process, depending on the complexity of the
electoral system, the need for accuracy, and whether the result is challenged.
Publicising
election results is therefore not a simple task, as the EMB must consider all
these variations and factors when developing its publication of results plan.
In addition, as the first results available are usually interim and often only
partial results and may therefore change until certified results are published,
careful consideration needs to be given to how and when results are published.
If not, the release of results could result in violence, undermine the
legitimacy of the results, and the credibility of the EMB itself.
The
most common terms and steps used when planning the publication of election
results are the following:
Unofficial v Official:
As the transparency requirements have increased on
the results- generating process the international praxis often dictates that
EMBs release results at the voting station level as soon as counting is
completed. The presiding officer is often required to post an official copy of
the statement of votes at a public space at the voting station and share
official copies with party agents and observers present. In addition, the
results released and by EMB officials at centralized counting centres and
national results and media centres are also official results, however none of
those results are final. Unofficial election results are often stemming from
exit polls, or quick-counts conducting by survey companies, observer groups or
various media outlets.
“Finality” Spectrum: The
steps making up the results-generating process are numerous and vary somewhat
depending on the legal framework. In many countries the EMB is centrally
releasing provisional (sometimes also called interim) results based on
information transmitted from voting stations and counting centres using various
forms of communications; be it voice,
SMS, or internet. Provisional
results can be made up of a fraction of the voting stations, or include results
from all polling stations.
Once
the legal document underpinning the results - the statement of votes form –
starts arriving at the EMB’s HQ it will begin validating the provisional
results reported by the lower tiers of the EMB organization. Once it has
verified the interim results and made the necessary corrections, the returning
officer will announce the final results. If the EMB is the authority certifying
the election results, it is often required to Gazette the result and the
winners. In some jurisdiction, the EMB is only authorized to announce the final
results and the Supreme Court, Electoral Court, or Constitutional Court charged
with certification of the results.
Release of Results
Considerations
It is
pivotal the EMB makes a realistic assessment of how long it will actually be
before it can start releasing partial results, all preliminary results can be
released and when they can make public the final and verified results. When
deciding on this time line the EMB better err on the side of caution and give
itself a bit of extra time, rather than over promise, as the transmittal
solution chosen might not work as efficiently as planned. The first results
reported might be inconsistent requiring double-checking before being released
to the public. Furthermore, in order to avoid huge swings from one party or
candidate to another during the early release of results and thereby cause
unnecessary speculations and tension, experiences have shown it’s better the
EMB only releases partial interim results once a critical mass of voting
stations have reported. Depending on the society's political fault line, the
EMB might also have to consider including results from a mix of electoral
districts including both strongholds of the ruling party and the main
opposition, urban-rural divide, or regional distributions of early results.
If
Diaspora voting is allowed, special attention need to be paid to the
integration of those results. In some jurisdictions, ballots from voting at
embassies need to be transported to the country in question before counted and
tabulated. This results could be the last to be included in the aggregation of final
results and thereby swing the election in favour of a certain party or
candidate should the margin of victory be very narrow. The perception among the
electorate could therefore become that the winning candidate was elected on a
Diaspora ticket, even though it only constituted a small percentage of the
overall vote. This could affect the acceptance of the results, or the
legitimacy of the elected official. As such, it’s often advisable for the EMB
to hold back some of the results from in-country districts and thereby blend
the Diaspora results with regular voting station results.
Another
sub-group of electorate the EMB sometimes need to be mindful of when planning
release of election results is the security forces. The police, military and
other members of a country's security forces are often engaged to ensure point
and area security, as well as being on a generally heighten alert. As a result,
they are often stationed away from where they would normally vote, thus, to
avoid disenfranchisement, an early voting facility could be offered. Enabling
stakeholders to learn the collective political preference of the security
forces in a transitional or post-conflict society could not only indirectly
politicize the forces, but also cause unnecessary tension. The EMB is therefore
advised to integrate these results with the release of other standard voting stations results, but without jeopardizing the
transparency of the results process.
Irrespective
of what the EMB’s planned release of results timeline and schedule is, its
pivotal this is clearly articulated in advance and made known to all political
stakeholders, observer groups, media and the general public. If not, it would
be extremely difficult for the EMB to manage expectations and convince
political parties and their supporters to stay calm and await the publication
of results. In addition, if parties and candidates are aware of the expected
timeline for the results process, understand the results-generating process,
and have representatives present at every step of the aggregation process, they
are more likely to accept some delays without accusing the EMB of tampering
with the results.
Some
countries still chose to release results for each electoral district only once
all of the voting stations have reported their results to the district
electoral officer. Therefore, the first published interim results will be close
to the final outcome.
With
more complex electoral systems, particularly those that involve distribution of
preferences, counting may take days, weeks, or in extreme cases, months before
the results are certified.
