Infirm and aged persons too ill or frail to leave their homes may be unable to visit a voting station to vote. Equitable voting systems would contain provisions to allow such people the opportunity to vote without having to leave their homes.
Reasonable questions will arise as to how strict any criteria should be for allowing voting from home, particularly where such methods involve additional costs or may be seen as more likely to be vulnerable to abuse than attendance at a normal voting station.
For this reason prior registration may be required or applications to vote according to legislatively-defined criteria, either as part of the voter registration process or as separate exercise, for those wishing to vote from home.
Particularly if homebound voters are to be serviced by a visit from voting station staff--either as part of a special mobile voting station or by staff visiting from a normal voting station--it is imperative for planning purposes that the number and location of such voters be known prior to the commencement of voting to allow effective resource planning and scheduling.
Facilities Provided
Voting facilities provided could take the form of:
• voting by mail (see Early voting);
• being visited by a special mobile voting station (see Other special voting arrangements), either during any period allowed for early voting (see Early voting), or on the general voting day;
• being visited on voting day by voting station staff from the voting station at which they are registered to vote;
• appointing an agent to collect and return their voting material, either from the voting station at which they are registered to vote, or, if general absentee voting facilities are available, from an electoral management body office or other voting station;
• appointing a proxy to vote, in person, at the voting station at which they are registered to vote (see Proxy voting).
In environments with advanced technology developments in the fields of voting by phone and direct computer links may also make such home-based methods of voting generally feasible.
Each of these methods has particular cost or integrity factors which will need to be carefully considered in determining the appropriate method, or combination of methods, in the specific election environment.
Allowable methods should be legislatively defined. Whatever methods are implemented should be consistently applied. To make services available only in some areas, such as mobile voting for urban households, without some complementary method being made available in rural or peri-urban areas, will arouse suspicions that access is being manipulated to favour particular voters.
Mail Voting
Where vote by mail systems are generally in use (see Early voting), including confinement to the home through infirmity or age as eligibility criteria, this method caters to the homebound within the usual voting systems. Where permanent voters’ registers are maintained, enabling the aged or ill to register permanently as a mail voter, this too can allow access to voting material, at their home address. However, this must be accompanied by regular review.
As with mail voting in general, there may be doubts as to whether this voting method allows influence over voting behaviour by other residents at that address, particularly for the aged. Where such concerns are likely to lead to questioning of election outcomes, methods other than mail voting should be considered.
For this reason, in some jurisdictions attempts are made to provide voting facilities in care institutions through the more costly method of mobile voting stations, which can provide more direct control over voting integrity. However, mail voting may be the practicable, cost-effective solution in less densely settled rural areas.
Mobile Voting Stations
Use of special mobile voting stations in care institutions can provide both integrity and effectiveness in servicing hospital patients and residents of care institutions (for a general discussion of mobile voting station frameworks, see Other special voting arrangements). There are some issues that need to be particularly considered in relation to mobile voting in care institutions:
• Mobile voting stations in care institutions would be preferably under the administration of a local office of the electoral management body office, i.e., the electoral district manager or local electoral commission for the electoral district;
• The locations to be serviced by mobile voting stations and the hours during which they will operate should be formally determined and publicised by the electoral management body, in a similar manner to normal voting station locations;
• Liaison with management of institutions is necessary, to arrange suitable times for mobile voting station visits that will not disrupt institutional routine or disturb patients and to determine resource needs.
Some categories of patients may require more time to complete their voting than others, depending on age and physical condition. Where complicated full preferential marking voting systems are in place, in some cases these voters could take up to fifteen minutes to complete their vote. Equitable systems would allow for this and not impose any limitation on the time taken by voters to complete their vote. When mobile voting stations are moving from bed to bed, ward to ward, it would be normal to only service between five to ten voters per hour. Both the mix of patients and the layout of institutions (how many levels, access methods, overall area of the institution) will affect the rate at which mobile voting teams can service voters in institutions, and thus the staffing resources required;
• Examine the workloads in care institutions when determining how many mobile voting stations are required and their staffing make-up. For smaller institutions, it may not be necessary to assign a separate mobile voting station to cover each institution. For larger institutions, more than one mobile voting station may be necessary (or several separate mobile voting station staff teams operating from a single mobile voting station) to service all voters. Depending on the numbers of voters involved, it may be more practicable and less costly to operate the mobile voting stations during any period allowed for early voting, thus allowing a smaller number of mobile voting stations to operate at different locations on successive days rather than attempting to cover all care institutions on the general voting day. Using the latter timing may require the engagement, training and equipping of an excessive number of officials.
Multiple Voting Controls
Where both mails voting and voting at a mobile voting station is available to patients in institutions, systems for control of issue and particularly processing of ballots for the count need to be sufficiently rigorous to prevent multiple voting.
While production of special voter’ lists for mobile voting stations may seem an effective method, it may negate the accessibility advantages provided by a mobile voting station: many patients in hospitals may not know that they will be there on voting day. Using systems incorporating enveloped ballots, with the voter's identity information being included with the ballot for later eligibility checking (see Absentee voting), may be the most effective method of maximising both accessibility and control.
Voting Stations Located at Care Institutions
In systems that provide for absentee voting, there may be advantages in establishing a normal voting station with absentee voting facilities within larger hospitals, to service staff and patients able to walk, with additional mobile voting station staff attached to provide service to wards or areas of patients who are confined to their beds.
Consistent size criteria should be applied when determining whether such facilities are warranted based on the number of potential patients and staff voters at the institution (determined either through use of special registration for such voters or close liaison with institution management).
Proxy Voting
Proxy voting is both the cheapest and simplest method to administer. However, integrity may be affected as there may be a perception that proxy votes cast in the names of patients in institutions, and particularly aged patients, do not accurately reflect their wishes, (For a discussion of integrity issues surrounding proxy voting in general, see Proxy voting)
Appointment of Agent for Voter
Provisions could allow staff on duty or patients at care institutions to appoint someone as their agent to pick up voting material and documentation to authenticate the vote from a voting station or electoral management body office, bring this to the voter, and return it, in person by the agent, or mailed to the electoral management body.
Where early voting in person is available, such a service could be integrated with early voting facilities, as well as in normal voting stations. This method can have some advantages over using a normal mail vote, particularly in areas where mail services are not reliable. It suffers from the same integrity problems as mail voting, however, in that it is not possible to ensure that there is no influence brought to bear on voters when they cast their vote.
Prisons
Eligibility to Vote
In countries where the right to vote is maintained for all or certain classes of prisoners during the period of incarceration , facilities must be provided for eligible prisoners to vote. The following issues arise:
• at which address do they register to vote--at the address of the prison, which if large, may affect voting patterns, or at their last or some other address that have are associated with?
• how are prisoners provided with the opportunity to register to vote and do they appear on special or normal voters’ lists?
• where there are complicated legislative provisions for the classes of prisoners and convicted persons who remain qualified to vote, how can accurate data on these prisoners be obtained?
Planning Issues
The most effective way to provide voting opportunities for prisoners will depend on whether there are special voting facilities available within the election system, such as early voting, mail voting, absentee voting, or use of mobile voting stations. Where voting facilities can be made available to prisoners, there are some planning considerations that will require specific responses, including:
• assessing the number of prisoners in prison locations who are eligible and may wish to vote, through consultation with justice system officials and prison management;
• using prisoners aid and welfare groups and prison authorities to inform prisoners of voting procedures and facilities that will be available--relying solely on prison authorities is not recommended as they may have some resistance to disseminating information on prisoner’s rights to vote.
Best practice would require the electoral management body to develop a working relationship with a combination of government officials responsible for the management and administration of justice and prisons, to ensure that the most effective procedures for providing voting opportunities to eligible voters is undertaken.
In-Person Voting
For larger prisons, it may be effective to establish a special voting station at the prison on voting day, or have a mobile voting station visit the prison either during any early voting period or on voting day (see Other special voting arrangements for general discussion of mobile voting stations).
Voting station staff needs to be carefully chosen to ensure that they are suitable to work in a prison environment. Clear arrangements will need to be made with prison authorities for such methods:
• to ensure access for all prisoners wishing to vote;
• to ensure that adequate security for voting station officials can be provided by prison authorities;
• to organise voting times in line with established prison routines.
Where in-person voting takes place in prisons it may be difficult to arrange for observation by party or candidate representatives. Using an absentee voting style enveloped ballot for all votes (see Absentee voting), with the ballot sealed in an envelope and accompanied by voter's identity verification so that eligibility to vote can later be established in the presence of observers, may be the preferable method.
Mail Voting
Alternatively, prisoners could apply to be provided with ballots by mail, which they would complete and return to the relevant electoral management body office. There may be significant problems with this method, such as:
• prisoners may be easily subject to intimidation in the manner in which they vote, and voting by mail, with no independent voting station staff, party or candidate representatives or observers present might allow such intimidation to occur unnoticed;
• mail entering and leaving prisons is often inspected by prison authorities, and unless arrangements can be made to ensure that ballot envelopes are not opened during this process, there is no guarantee that prisoners' mail votes will remain secret.
Voting by mail may be the only way of dealing cost-effectively with small eligible voter populations in prisons. Liaison with prison authorities in providing prisoners with whatever application forms may be needed for mail ballots, and ensuring that voting material is swiftly processed through prison postal systems, will also be necessary.
