This question was posted by Albert Kisimba, member of the Practitioners' Network.

NB: This question has been translated from French. See below for the original version.

During the mapping of polling stations, several problems are often raised by traditional leaders and political and administrative authorities, e.g. trying to ensure as many polling stations as possible in their constituencies, even if the electoral density is low and the geographical area is large.

Taking into account that the context is not the same in every country, in this case I am referring to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Therefore, I would like to ask the following questions, to which your answers would be of significant contribution:

- Should the number of polling stations be standardised for constituencies left to be added, as appropriate?

- Would it be possible that voters have access to nearest polling stations, so that they will not have to travel more than 50 km?

- Given the poor rural road infrastructure, which other mechanisms could be implemented in order to facilitate access to polling stations by vulnerable voters, in lack of mobile polling stations?

                                                     -------------------------- 

Durant la cartographie des bureaux de vote plusieurs problèmes sont souvent soulevé et par les chefs coutumiers et pars autorité politico-administrative, soit parce que chacun veut tirer le plus possible de bureau de vote dans sa circonscription et même quant la densité électorale est faible en dépit de l’étendue du territoire qu’il couvre.

Le contexte n’étant pas les même dans tous les pays, je parle ici de la RD Congo, je me pose quant même plusieurs questions auxquelles vos contributions m’aideront grandement :

- Faut-il standardiser les nombre de bureau de vote pour les circonscriptions électorales quitte à ajouter selon les cas ?

- Est-il possible que les électeurs soient orientés vers bureau de vote plus proche avec espoir qu’ils ne feront pas plus de cinquante km à la ronde ?

- Les infrastructures routières rurales n’existant presque pas, quels autres mécanismes mettre en place pour faciliter le rapprochement des bureaux de vote vers les électeurs vulnérables à défaut des bureaux de vote ambulant ? 

Summary of responses
Several replies note the difficulty of standardising the number of polling stations per constituency, due to the wide variety in geography and population density. Furthermore, the possibility of adding new polling stations “largely depends on the independence of the EMB and the governing legislation.” When mapping polling stations, the total financial cost of stations and the electoral budget must always be borne in mind. It is advised that mapping should be conducted in a transparent manner and with stakeholder support, but not be unduly influenced by politically motivated parties or local leaders.

Fifty kilometres is seen as too far to expect any voter to travel to cast their vote. Two replies advocate trying to achieve a distance of no more than five kilometres for voters to travel. Consideration should also be given to natural barriers (e.g. rivers and mountains) and the methods and time needed to overcome them.

Other possible mechanisms for facilitating access to polling stations include providing suitable transport to the most needy and voting by proxy.

It is pointed out that the rules surrounding voting and registration also have an impact upon polling stations, e.g. larger polling stations closer together will be required if voting takes place on a single day compared to it being spread out over several days, and the more accurate a voter register is, the more accurately the number of eligible voters can be estimated.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Voting sites 
• Demographic analysis

• Locations of voting sites 

Names of contributors
1. Kout Sene
2. Reuben Chemitei
3. Carl Dundas
4. Atem Oben Henry Ekpeni
5. Anne Calcagni
6.  Louis Lohlé-tart
7. Robert Marsh
8. Pamela Mapondera

Standardizing of polling station is not feasible since there are many  variabilities in any given country with regard to electoral districts. Some areas are vast and sparsely populated while others have large populations.

In most cases, members of the electorate would want as many polling stations as they can. Whereas it is a concern, the restricting factor is the guidelines postulated by the local EMB that need to be implemented by election managers at the field level. These guidelines to creating new polling stations or merging some largely depends on the independence of the EMB and the gorvening legislation. For instance in countries where EMB have exercised autonomy, they have increased the polling stations with ease and in some cases reduced the numbers of voters to vote in any polling station or stream. Therefore, effort should progressively be made to attain the least distance to a polling station, say within 5 km.

Of course yes, other mechanisms like providing transport to vulnerable groups may be initiated. Also voting by proxy may be a way out for the same group, however this may be controversial.

The issue of location of polling/voting stations or polling units (as they are called in Nigeria) and the proximity of stations to voters is a great challenge for large territories with sparse rural population. Even where the rural areas are not sparsely populated like in Nigeria there are challenges in locating polling stations within reasonable distances from voters residences. Some countries aim to limit a polling station to 500 voters, but often that manageable number is unattainable. In Nigeria in the 2011 elections, polling units that should have had 500 voters were found at the last moments before the polling to have far exceeded that figure. This is some times due to informal settlements springing up "over night", or housing schemes mushrooming without proper planning. No voter, no matter how dedicated should be expected to trudge 50km and more to cast his/her vote. Mobile polling station, with motor vehicle, small planes, speedboats, as well as donkeys, camels and even elephants have been known to be used in some jurisdictions. These means of movement also provide ways of overcoming difficult terrain and poor infrastructure in some countries.

This has always been a challenge to EMBs especially in large rural communities lack the needed infrastructures. If there is a standardize number of voters per polling station as in Cameroon, then the number of polling stations will normally increase from one election to the other. I suggest standard principles should be put in place and a participatory approach used to evaluate the need for new polling stations. Local Chiefs have often use the number of polling stations in their villages for political gains and so the pressure is usually evident.

The challenge is even more with large village having limited number of eligible voters. But as Monte rightly puts with elections, one must compromise but not to extremes that may have an impact on the final result especially in FPTP systems. The best way to address such a challenge is to ensure the key stakeholders understand the condition for creating new polling stations, the logistical and financial cost associated with it.

Bonjour

Pour avoir participé à un audit des communes de Lubumbashi concernant l'état civil durant un projet de recherche, je peux ô combien comprendre combien le problème que vous soulevez représenterait l'équivalent de la résolution de la quadrature du cercle et combien cela pose la question de comment conduire une politique de ses moyens quand on n'a pas toujours les moyens de sa politique....

Est il possible de reconnaître que dans un pays immense comme le congo RDC avec une infrastrucure routière et des voies de communication déficientes il sera extrêmement difficile d'être exhaustif?

Et dans ce cas,  puisqu'il y aura des inégalités et des asymétries en fonction des régions est il possible de mettre en place une gestion éclairée de celles-ci?

Peut-être les auditer et repérer les priorités des différents besoin des régions?

Lancer une réflexion commune où participeraient des représentants des différents secteurs concernés (administrations,  responsables financiers et partis politiques) concernant un objectif acceptable par tous en terme de : quel budget accordé et à quoi pour optimiser l'organisation électorale?

Quand on s'est mis d'accord AVANT il est moins facile ensuite de créer le conflit.

Bonne soirée

A.Calcagni

Je rejoins la précédente intervention comme celle du collègue Sene. Pour pouvoir discuter avec des éléments objectivables, il faut tenter de donner des valeurs aux paramètres.

Par exemple :

1/ fixer une limite maximum à la distance entre bureau de vote et électeur -- par hypothèse dans un pays aux infrastructures virtuellement inexistantes, ce sont des distances à parcourir à pied et éventuellement, lorsque des moyens de déplacement comme la pirogue s'imposent, fixer la limite en termes d'heures de déplacement. Cela permet de connaître approximativement une superficie maximum à couvrir par bureau et de cartographier les découpages (en tenant compte de la remarque sur les obstacles naturels).

2/ fixer un nombre maximum d'électeurs par bureau

3/ déterminer le nombre maximum de bureaux que permettront les moyens matériels, financiers et humains mis à disposition.

4/ Une arithmétique simple permet de confronter le produit du nombre maximum par bureau et du nombre maximum d'électeurs par bureau avec la population à couvrir (en tenant compte des concentrations urbaines), ou la superficie maximum que l'on peut couvrir avec la superficie que l'on doit couvrir.

La simplicité du raisonnement ainsi "objectivé" doit pouvoir être comprise et acceptée par chacun car elle paraît indiscutable.

Ceux qui revendiquent -- légitimement -- un accès au vote peuvent-ils accepter un assouplissement des paramètres qui étaient en leur faveur (élargir les rayons autour d'un bureau)?

Ceux qui sont "sur le front", qui organisent le travail et en subissent la charge peuvent-ils accepter un assouplissement des paramètres qui étaient en leur faveur (augmenter la charge des bureaux en nombre d'électeurs)?

Les responsables politiques et les bailleurs de fonds peuvent-ils accepter un assouplissement des paramètres qui étaient en leur faveur (plus de moyens pour plus de centres)?

Certes, cela ne résoudra pas la quadrature du cercle mais permettrait de diminuer le problème en optimisant la situation ... si chacun y met du sien.

Et cela aiderait à reconnaître que la réalité du terrain ne rejoint pas toujours la théorie démocratique -- n'est-ce pas là la nature du "en voie de developpement"?

As well as the issues of accessibility and polling station size which are well canvassed above, your voting and registration rules have an impact as well.

For example, if you have a single polling day you will need larger polling stations closer together than if polling is conducted over the course of a week.

If your voter register is accurate and up-to-date you can allow a smaller margin for error than if you don't have a clear idea of how many people are actually eligible to vote in a given area.

If voters must vote in person then polling stations must be more carefully placed than if other options, such as postal voting and remote electronic voting are allowed.

If voters are assigned to particular voting stations (precinct voting) then access needs to be more carefully planned than if voters can vote at any nearby polling station.  On the other hand, precinct voting means you generally won't need to overstock polling stations as much as you would if access was more flexible.

Polling station management and staff structures may limit the minimum and maximum size of polling stations and this may impact on where they can be placed.

In New Zealand, a minimum number of polling stations must be provided in each electoral district (districts are roughly equivalent in population).  The actual number of polling stations differs widely from barely above the minimum in some urban districts to nearly ten times that number in sparsely populated rural districts.  Of course this also means that polling stations differ considerably in the number of voters they serve and therefore in size and number of staff. 

Mapping of polling stations requires stakeholder consultation in order to avoid misunderstandings which might disrupt the process or mistrust on the part of the EMB. There is need to come up with a criteria which suits your situation. However, I think that a radius of 50 km is too much for voters to walk unless there is reliable transport and good roads. For walking distances, a maximum distance of 5km would be more ideal as that would enable voters to reach any polling station, cast their vote and go back in time if that is complemented with a reasonable number of registered voters. In Zimbwabwe we also consider physical barriers like rivers and mountains, so that voters do not find difficulties in accessing polling stations. There is need to consider a number of factors. Where there are large voter populations, there would be need to consider putting what are called voting streams at such polling stations, e.g a polling station at a school could have the voter population divided evenly to have groups of voters voting from different classrooms so that you reduce the time of waiting of voters in queques.

Pamela Mapondera (Mrs.)