The Question
This question is posted on behalf of an academic in Portugal

I would like to know what the implications are of a long polling exercise for international election observation procedures and observers' presence. Researching on the Sudan referendum experience (where polling took place over seven consecutive days) it seems that this could have opened an unprecedented situation for electoral observation. Would this perception be correct?

Summary of responses
It is noted that there is a difference between conducting an election observation mission where it is known beforehand that voting will take place over more than one day and one where voting is unexpectedly prolonged. In the former scenario, observation can at least be planned and budgeted for accordingly, whereas the latter can pose both logistical and financial challenges for observation missions.

Another issue to bear in mind is that the longer the polling period, the greater the window for electoral fraud. This is coupled with the increased likelihood that observers become less alert with prolonged polling. One expert emphasises that multi-day polling should be avoided if at all possible, seeing it as poor practice which “breaks the chain of observation required to ensure transparency and credibility, and opens the door to all sorts of malpractice.”

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Multi-day voting

Support and Advice:
• Election Observation

Names of contributors
1. Staffan Darnolf
2. Monte McMurchy
3. Carl Dundas
4. Susana Dione Ngole Epie
5. Tim Meisburger

If the 7-day voting period was known from the outset I would assume observer missions planned (and budgeted) for accordingly. of course, they needed to tweak their check-lists to accommodate the daily storage of sensitive material and re-opening of the PS the next day. More complicated is, of course, when an electoral process runs into logistical problems, or for any other reasons, is forced to extend voting by an unplanned extra day. That can sometimes prove to be a logistical challenge for missions, especially as it could also have financial ramifications too.

The prolonged polling period of several days poses many problems for international and indeed domestic observers. The cost of maintaining a group of observers for several days will exhaust the election observation budget of many organizations. But budget apart, if the polling period is known before hand, it can be planned for and cost-effective measures can be put in place. There are instances where the polling and counting processes are prolonged either by disruption or other unforeseen circumstances, such as strike by polling officers on polling or counting days, or sudden boycott of polling (as took place halfway through polling on the first day of a two-day poll in Mozambique in 1994). In the Mozambique case, many domestic observers went without meals on night of the second polling day in order to watch the ballot boxes, because the poll was extended into a third day to make up for the time lost through the boycott which lasted for a few hours on the first polling day. Some NGOs offered meals to some of the observers, but there was considerable hardship experienced by many observers. Yes, your perception is correct, but where this polling period in known before hand it can be planned for and measures taken to mitigate adverse effects.

That is why when a team is going out on an election observation mission many things should be taken into consideration. Except the EOM is not well equiped, I don't think they have any problems. As Monte rightly said, Logistics, if well taken care of, then there should be no major problem. Provided the elections are being organised under a free and fair atmosphere. The only people who should have a bit of problem here should be the Short Term Observers (STOs), but if they can't support it, then the Long Term Observers (LTOs) should continue in their job, provided their allowance is taken into consideration. While this is goining on, report should be made by the Observer Coordinator.

Multi-day polling is poor practice, as it breaks the chain of observation required to ensure transparency and credibility, and opens the door to all sorts of malpractice, and perceptions of malpractice(ballot box stuffing, multiple voting, manipulation in aggregation, etc.). Best practice is to poll in public on a single day, count the ballots after polling in public, and post the results for the station immediately. This is the most transparent process, and thus strengthens the credibility and public acceptance of the poll.