The Question

This question was posted on behalf of Emad Yousef, member of the Practitioners' Network.

Egypt will vote tomorrow in a referendum to approve its post-Mubarak constitution. The referendum is scheduled to take place in two phases, on December 15 and December 22.
My question: Are there other examples of a referendum being held in more than one phase?

Summary of responses
Two examples are given of referenda being held in more than one phase: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and South Sudan. In the case of DRC, heavy rains on polling day resulted in the authorities extending voting for an additional day in a 2005 referendum. The 2011 referendum in South Sudan was not strictly speaking held in more than one phase, but rather over seven consecutive days. There may, however, be valuable lessons for Egypt in terms of securing cast ballots and not tabulating votes until the entire process is completed. Indeed, the majority of replies stress the importance of not counting votes between phases, and sees the divulgence of any results before the end of all voting as a grave threat to the integrity of the referendum (by influencing those who have yet to vote). It is noted, however, that the above presupposes trust in those with custody of the ballots in the interim period.

While it is seen as far from ideal to hold a referendum in more than one phase, one practitioner notes that if conditions require it, then “it’s better to have a trusted process split over two separate days, than a dubious process completed in one.”

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Referendums

• Design and Political Issues of Referendums
• Multi-Day Voting 

Names of contributors
1. King Norman Rudi
2. Alimeti Kitutu Nonhon
3. Benjamin Osei-Bugyei
4. Mavis Kambadza
5. Sam Rwakoojo
6. Ernesto R. del Rosario
7. Ossama Kamel
8. Robert Marsh
9. Liberata Irambona
10. Charles Winfree

May be for us to contribute well on the topic, we need to understand the rationale behind having the refrenda on those two separate dates. Even if there are example countries which I am not aware of, the reasoning behind may differ. The acceptability should be localised. So, the problem the referendum intends to resolve should form the basis. 

En decembre 2005 lors de l'organisation du referendum constitutionnel en République Démocratique du Congo, la loi referendaire en son article 1er avait prévu la tenu de cette élection à un seul jour sur l'ensemble du territoire national (une superficie de 2.345 000 Km carré) cependant, le jour du vote une forte pluie qui a durée plus de six heures, avait empeché les electeurs de se presenter au bureau de vote, cette situation a poussé les autorités de la CEI de prolonger le vote d'un jour de plus.

Pour ce qui est de l'Egypte, Nous ne maitrisons pas les elements qui ont poussés les autorités de ce pays d'organiser en deux phases leur referendum.

Or sur le plan technique, les elements qui peuvent conduire à etendre une élection referendaire dans deux ou trois jours sont:

 - le nombre élévé des électeurs c'est le cas en INDE;

- le manque d'infrastructure de base;

- les condition climatiques du pays pendant la periode de l'organisation du referendum;

- les conditions socio politique du pays.

My understanding is that the questioner wants to know if referendum has ever been held in more than one phase. A little more information would have been much useful for a clearer understanding of holding referendum in phases. This notwithstanding, I assume that the referendum is on a single issue but the voting will be in two phases. In this case my thoughts are as follows.

Ideally, holding referendum on a single day is preferable but if operational challenges demand that it is held on two different days it could as well be done. What is critical is that the credibility of the process must be preserved. The South Sudan referendum was held from the 9th to 15th January 2011. I will not call this a referendum held in phases but rather a one phase process with an extended voting period. In this case, although voting spanned 7 consecutive days, sorting and counting of ballots only began after close of polls on the 7th day. The operational challenge was how to secure the ballots cast each day until the last day of voting but this was well managed by the Referendum Security Committees.

In the case of Egypt, if holding referendum in phases means that one part of the country will vote on the 15th of December and the other part voting on 22nd December then the question will be whether ballots cast on the 15th will be counted and the results made public before the second phase of voting. If ballots are counted and results known after the first phase then it is likely to influence the voting pattern of the second phase. But if counting will not be done until the close of voting in the second phase then I believe it could be done provided the security of the first phase ballots could be guaranteed.

In my own opinion, I think if the Egyptians understands what it all entails and are agreeing to such an arrangement, then they can proceed with their plans. My problem will be on how they are to manage the casted votes. If they are to be counted, definitely the results may be influenced in one way or the other. My fears are on the waiting period from 15 to 22 December Speculations and the eager to hear the outcome may trigger conflict. Otherwise if it is being done from a consensus point of view, all will go on well.

I have not been following the referendum matters in Egypt and I apologise, however the partinent question is whether such referendum can be held on two seperate phases. I dont know of any place that has done that though that might due to my own limited knowledge.

While its possible, and there's no known reason why it shouldn't, if the questions intended to be ressolved by the referendum are related then the lapse of time after the first phase is bound to affect what happens in the 2nd phase. For example if the question was a "yes" or "no" and the results or exit polls indict a win in the first phase, some pple might view coming back futile. On the other hand if qns are not related then all that does not matter.

To me, this is a no-brainer in the context of truely clean and honest public elections, referenda or plebiscites and similar.  Unless, the rule is that a certain threshold (in terms of percentage of the votes cast) need be reached by a candidate or a referendum, such exercise must be done in one phase and in a single day to assure that the chance of results manipulation is reduced to a minimum.

But I support King Norman Rudi's suggestion that:

"May be for us to contribute well on the topic, we need to understand the rationale behind having the referenda on those two separate dates. 

I was going to post the same question about the referendum in Egypt, after reading your replies I wish to explain few things. The referendum was originally planned to be held on one day (December 15, 2012) under full judicial supervision i.e. judges are physically inside the polling stations overseeing up to 4 ballot boxes as the law states in Egypt. But many of the judges refused to participate in the referendum for different reasons, mainly the articles regulating the judicial power in the constitution and certain decrees issued by the newly elected president. Faced by the small number of judges taking part in supervising this referendum, the EMB decided to run it over 2 days, half the country on Dec 15 and the other half on Dec 22. 

One way for still ensuring that the chance of manipulating the results is prevented/minimized in a two-phase/two dates referendum is NOT to count (and ensure that it is not counted) the first phase until the second phase is done and then counting the two phases together.  This means nothing will be counted until after the close of polling on Dec 22.  In an automated referendum this is very easy to implement.

Given Ossama Kamel's clarification above, it seems to me that the EMB is doing the best it can with a bad situation.  If judicial oversight is expected and trusted by the Egyptian people and the only way to achieve this is to split the dates, then the EMB has done the right thing. 
It's better to have a trusted process split over two separate days, than a dubious process completed in one.

As others have said, it would probably be preferable if the votes from the first round were not counted until after the second round of voting, but that too depends on whether whoever has custody of the ballots in the interim is trustworthy and trusted by the Egyptian people.

Dear colleagues,

Maybe the EMBs know very well the consequences of those elections helded in 2 phases. It is not simple. For me if they one party of voters may vote on 15 and the last one may vote on 22. Let them try. Their country has been in a special crises so i think they have their own reasons. But if they choose to have 2 phases the most thing to do is to count the votes when all the 2 phases are over.

So as my conclusion, if the Egyptian people  accept the issue and the results, we have no right to make criticism on that. "WAIT AND SEE" as the British says. 

Considero que el asunto principal es la pureza del proceso de referéndum. Es decir, si el proceso electoral cumple con las garantías mínimas para asegurar su validez, legitimidad y legalidad.

En este sentido, no es más importante los momentos en que los ciudadanos acuden a votar; que puede ser en varias fechas dependiendo del contexto normativo y político del país. En cambio, lo más importante es que no se anticipen resultados para no influir en la decisión de los electores.

En este tipo de procesos, lo recomendable es tener control del acopio de votos; que no se anticipen los resultados y que exista una veeduría permanente de las organizaciones políticas y de la sociedad civil para que ninguna fuerza extraña interfiera en el proceso.