The Question
This question was posted on behalf of a member of an international organization who wishes to remain anonymous.

I am interested in your thoughts in relation to an election in a majoritarian-two round system and in which Polling Committees represent political parties. Should a second round occur, is it appropriate to replace all Chairpersons so that they represent the two participating parties only? Your comments on the technical, electoral standards and political implications are welcomed, as are any examples where this kind of replacement has taken place. Are there any standards that impede doing this?

 

Summary of responses
It is noted that the appropriateness of replacing polling committee chairpersons depends largely on the basis of their initial appointment and what provisions exist in the electoral code for changing chairpersons. If no formal provisions exist, it is stressed that any changes should be endorsed by all key stakeholders.

One expert sees no reason for a change of chairpersons in a second round, as the stakeholders between the two rounds remain the same. Another view is that there should be at least some persons on committees who are politically impartial and therefore not only representatives of the two competing parties. 

The public perception of any changes and the impact on the overall credibility of the electoral process should also be considered. One practitioner is of the view that “in most contexts last minute political changes are likely to strengthen perceived or actual bias among pollworkers.”

In terms of the technical implications of such a change, sufficient time needs to be allowed for training of any new chairpersons.

The example of Haiti in 2009 is given of such a second round replacement, while in Uganda, polling committee chairpersons can be changed by the electoral commission.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Monitoring by political parties 

Names of contributors
1. Dr. Noor Mohammad
2. David Arabambi
3. Velko Miloev
4. Idi Boina
5. Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni
6. Krishna Murthy
7. Yudaya Nabbale

 

Ideally the stakeholders should be represented. I dont know what incentives the representatives of parties who are not in contest will have!

However, the feasibility of effecting the change will be material as the second round is done immediately after the first.

All the chairpersons who participated as the representatives of each of the political parties in the first round should be allowed to be involved in the second round of the election. This is because some of those who voted for political parties which will not be participating in the second round may wish to express their preference by voting for any of the remaining two political parties. Consequently,to limit the participation of the chairpersons to the two leading political parties is to put in question the credibility of the second round election. The stakeholers during the first round still remain the same in the second,only the realignment of interests of political parties and voters is going to shift temporarily during the second round. All the chairpersons,political parties and voters during the first round still remain stakeholders during the second round.

The main consideration, I think, should be how such replacements would affect the professional performance of the polling committees and, second (or maybe, first?), the public trust in the process. As a matter of principle, members and chairpersons are supposed to act impartially; they also need to get trained, etc.
I personally consider composing electoral commissions from party nominees a necessary evil in some contexts – like in my country, Bulgaria. Here, the legislator had to restrict recently the possibilities for political parties to withdraw and replace their ‘representatives’ at the commissions – but not at the polling committees. Thus, the first concern at the beginning of an election day is who will show up or not and further – how familiar are chairpersons and members with the procedures. I think that in most contexts last minute political changes are likely to strengthen perceived or actual bias among pollworkers.

J'Ai eu  tel Exemple en  Haïti  DANS le  département  du Nord en 2009, et  même chez moi aux  Comores , et pour  eviter  les conflits, Nous Avons  PROCÉDÉ  aux Changement de CES MEMBRES puisque Les Deux Candidats n'avaient plus Confiance à CES membrés, finalement, nous Avions Partager les Postes Des  présidents  , des  Secrétaires  Egal  à  Egal  Aux Deux Candidats. Et le Processus a continué sans incident.

Poling Committees are put in place to ensure regularity with laws and in discharging their duties they confront challenges, most of which is to certify the identity of voters. Some electoral codes provide for polling committee members to vote in a case where a decision could not be reached to resolve a problem. One is forced to ask another question if those voters who do not vote in the first round can do so in the second round. Changing the poll committee may be contextualized as the case in Haiti but I think that the fundamental question is whether there is a provision in the electoral code on this. If not whether the code of conduct (if any) took care of this issue.

If this is not mentioned in either above, then such changes should be based on a consensual agreement with all key stakeholders. Clear roles should be put in place to guide this as changing a committee may entail training. Before arriving at a decision to change the poll committee, an evidenced based argument should be raised by the contestants, International and Domestics observers on the conduct and professional comportment of the poll committee members necessitating a change as the case in Haiti.

 

 

This reply is posted on behalf of Krishna Murthy, former Chief Election Commissioner of India and member of the Malaysian Studies Commonwealth Centre.

I have no experience or exposure to these second round elections. But my view is that when such second rounds take place we should include a few persons without any political loyalty  in the overseeing commiittee. I am aware that in some Asian and African countries these members can be selectively manipulated. But that should not deter. At least it will gradually change with more & more Election Watch Bodies asserting themselves.

Replacement of the chairpersons will depend on how they are selected /appointed to the committees.  Are they appointed constitutionally, by electoral laws or by stake holders?  Is the representation by only parties participating in an election or by all multiparty?   In Uganda the electoral official at the polling centers are temporary employees of the Electoral commission and can be changed accordingly.  They are neutral and impartial.  The parties involved in an election send two representatives to oversee the election.  In this case the chair person will have to be from the parties participating in an election.