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.
