The Question

This question was posted by ACE. 

The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network is interested in drafting a comprehensive review of instruments (qualitative and quantitative) used to measure election quality.

• Currently we are using the term ‘election quality’ in the broad sense, which can range from assessments an EMBs’ management of a single election or the electoral cycle, to measurements on the quality of political processes beyond elections. For example, the latter may include attempts to measure aspects of democracy.  
• We are interested in instruments aiming to measure electoral quality by capturing the perceptions of a range of political stakeholders, which may include electoral experts, academics, civil society, and the public.
• Variables for comparison we are interested in comparing include: whether the assessment is qualitative v. quantitative, examining processes v. institutions, self-assessed v. externally assessed, and whether the assessment is explicitly based on international obligations or not.

We therefore encourage PN members to:

1. List instruments they are familiar with that aim to assess all or specific aspects of the above;
2. Share views on the variables we have proposed to compare measurements;
3. Suggest other possible analytical approaches, thoughts on specific instruments, the merits of one instrument over another, or share any other thoughts on measuring electoral quality;
4. Suggest relevant case studies of countries/regions where different measurements have been used and if/how/why they were useful or not.

 

For members’ reference, here is a working list of measurement tools and analytical frameworks we have compiled so far:

• Electoral Integrity project (EIP)
• CSES reports
• IFES Electoral Integrity Assessments
• Electoral Observation
• Post-election reviews by bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS), African Union, etc.
• EASI
• Quality Management Standards (QMS) implemented in EMBs  by the OAS
• Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
• State of Democracy (IDEA)Democracy Barometer
• Afrobarometer (for specific questions on democracy)
• A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality (Jorgen Elklit and Andrew Reynolds)
• Electoral Malpractice (Sarah Birch)
• Democratic Election Standards (The Carter Center)

 

Members may respond to this question in the thread, or send feedback to [email protected]. Contributors will be acknowledged.

 

Summary of Responses

Practitioners’ Network members responded to the question citing a range of instruments—qualitative and quantitative—used for measuring electoral quality.  Furthermore, members weighed in on the advantages and disadvantages of various tools.

Several members suggested aspects of the electoral process that should be measured. In sum, these include:

• Respect for the law
• Proper planning of activities
• Electoral and civic education
• Good financing
• The professionalism of the staff
• Basic ethical principles
• Equipment and material
• Publication of results
• Rapid management of electoral disputes
• Fairness and peacefulness during campaigns
• Voter registration
• Counting 

One member specifically mentioned two quantitative indicators of electoral quality: the percentage of voters accepting the results, and the percentage of voters satisfied with the results. In line with this, another member added that The Electoral Integrity Project at the University of Sydney and Harvard University proposes 49 criteria to measure the quality of elections.

Several members also shared examples of assessments or measurements implemented in different country contexts. These include:

• Rwanda: Post-election evaluation, analyzing the electoral process with the stakeholders, from local to national level. Furthermore, they are going to develop a survey titled ‘ON PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS, AWARENESS, SATISFACTION AND CONFIDENCE IN THE RWANDA ELECTION PROCESS SINCE 2008’.
• Nigeria: Useful to refer to the report of the ‘Registration and Election Review Committee’ on the 2011 Nigerian elections.
• Botswana: The country’s electoral commission carries out routine election audits after each general election.
• Cameroon: The law establishes the necessity of consultations in order to improve the electoral process between the Electoral Council and the different stakeholders (administration, justice, political parties and civil society). 

In addition, members suggested new approaches to measuring electoral quality, and they shared considerations for successful assessments. These include:

• Evaluating the procurement of IT systems, performance of vendors in the delivery of these systems, and the performance of these systems during elections. Moreover, it is important to measure the value IT systems bring to an election.  It would also be useful to compare implementations across different country contexts (e.g. Zambia and South Africa v. Malawi).  Lastly, countries implementing new electronic solutions should look at factors of success after the first major implementation. These may include:
1. Pre and post implementation voter register audits to verify improvements in the voter register
2. Analysis of duplicate voter fraud in previous elections with the new election
3. Analysis of queue times and voter times at the polling station to measure improvement
• Developing an Election Quality Index (EQI), ranging from 0 (no quality at all) to 100 (highest possible quality). This index would comprise the minimal standards summarized in the book Free and Fair Elections, by Goodwin-Gill (2006).
• Having objective international evaluators, the media, civil society, political parties, electoral commission, administrative authorities, police, voters, diplomatic missions.
• Assessments taking into account all the activities of the electoral cycle, not only focused on Election Day.
• Developing compiled indexes across different elections.

 

Finally, it is important to note that after taking into account members’ suggestions ACE published a Focus On piece in the Encyclopedia entitled ‘Measuring Electoral Quality,’ authored by David S. Pottie with support from IFES.

 

External Resources:

• The Election Administration Systems Index (EASI). In Bland, Gary, Andrew Green, and Toby Moore. "Measuring the Quality of Election Administration."Democratization 20, no. 2 (2013) : Pp 358-377.
• The World Values Survey: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp
• Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martinez i Coma. “Assessing the Quality of Elections.” Journal of Democracy 24, no.4 (2013): 124-135.

• Kriegler, Johann. “Electoral Dispute Resolution: A Personal Perspective,” in David Gillies (ed.), Democracy in Dangerous Places (2011): Pp. 194.
• UN document A/66/314, para. 54
• UN document A/68/301, para. 45
• UN document A/68/301, para. 30
• Elklit, Jorgen and Andrew Reynolds. ‘A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality.’ Democratization 12, no. 2 (2005): Pp.147-162.
• Anderson, Christopher J. et al. (2005). : Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Birch, Sarah. “Electoral Institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes.”Electoral Studies 27, no. 2 (2008): Pp. 305-320.

• Electoral Malpractice Primer: http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/ace-workspace/questions/open-questions/531723839/52093951/Creative-Electoral-Integrity-Framework-Project.pdf
• ELESQUAL: http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/ace-workspace/questions/open-questions/531723839/955190360/Measuring-Election-Quality-ELESQUAL.doc
• “La Democracia en América Latina”: http://es.scribd.com/doc/39482121/PNUD-Informe-La-Democracia-en-America-Latina-descargar
• ACE Topic Area on Electoral Integrity by Dr. Daniel Finn, and supported by UNEAD
• Specifications of ISO Standard/Technical Specifications 17582: Quality Management Requirements for Electoral Bodies.

 

Contributing Members:

• Max Grömping
• Liberata Irambona
• Carl Dundas
• Roger Thord-Gray
• Vasil Vashchanka
• Francisco Barrera
• Michel Sabubwa
• Nchimunya Michelo Silenga
• Norbert Masson
• Passou Essohanam
• Christine Ndayishimiye
• Sadou Lady Bawa
• Augustin Habonayo
• Arsene Brice Bado
• Amin S. Wasike Yusuf
• Rushdi Nackerdien
• Maarten Halff
• Jesús Antonio Castellanos Vásquez
• Orock Princely-Jerry Eyongakpa

qualitatively one should assess the level of acceptance of the results by the opposition parties.

The sixth wave of the World Value Survey (WVS 2010-2014) has just been released the end of April. It includes a battery of I believe eight questions on electoral integrity. These are the same in wording as the ones in the Electoral Integrity Project's PEI survey.    This thus allows an assessment of mass perceptions of election quality in the surveyed countries.  The data is freely available at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp

Of course, one needs to keep in mind, that these public perceptions are about elections in that country in general, not about a specific election.

 

 

"Election quality", that quality will based on how citizen are happy with their elections, when they accept the result for me the quality is there. But I suggest that the EMBs should plan for a survey and know the public perceptions on election, haw citizens are confident on the electoral process. For example in Rwanda, after election we do an evaluation, we meet all our stakeholders from the local to national level, we analyze together from A t Z how was the electoral process, they challenged us on different points and if their conclusion is positive, we know that the quality was perfect. Now we are planning for a survey "ON PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS,AWARENESS,SATISFACTION AND CONFIDENCE IN THE RWANDA ELECTION PROCESS SINCE 2008". This will be done at the begging of 2015.The result of this survey will be useful for NEC to preform in our upcoming elections (2016-2019). 

I think for the purposes of this exercise, it would be useful to get hold of the report of the Registration and Election Review Committee (RERC) on the 2011 Nigerian elections. I believe there is a published version which could be had through the courtesies of the INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria). 

Many reports and documents have been published regarding electoral integrity, electoral fraud, and the monitoring of these aspects.

Not a lot is said about another aspect of electoral quality - the procurement of IT systems, the performance of the vendors in the delivery of these systems, the performance of these systems during the elections and, most importantly, the value they brought to the election.

In most cases, IT systems include aspects such as voter registration, possibly voter identification at the polling station, and results managementment. The stated reasons for installing these systems are usually to improve the quality of the voter register register, to speed up voter identification and to reduce fraud. There is seldom any follow-up to determine whether the technology has achieved these objectives.

In some countries (eg South Africa, Zambia) the technology has has 'bedded down', and is being used on a continuous basis. In other countries, implmentations have not been as successful, and components have been have been discarded (Malawi's implementation of 2008, biometrics not operational).

Countries implementing new electronic solutions, especially costly biometric solutions, should look at success factors for the new solution as part of the election quality of the first major election after implementation. These could include
- pre and post implementation voter register audits to verify improvements in the voter register
- analysis in duplicate voter fraud in previous elections with the new election
- analysis of queue times and voter times at the polling station to show improved identification

Finally, the value of the system should be looked at .. if it is not going to be properly maintained, and only used once, its long term value to the country is limited.

Another addition to your list could be the Election Administration Systems Index (EASI) by Bland, Green and Moore:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13510347.2011.651352

This response is posted by ACE on behalf of PN member Daniel Finn.

This topic is of course closely related to that of electoral integrity, although overall quality would extend to additional administrative areas such as efficiency, operational smoothness and cost-effectiveness.

On the subject of electoral integrity a good place to begin is the relevant topic area in the ACE Online Electoral Encyclopedia.  That was updated and expanded in the third version of this topic released during 2013 by the ACE Encyclopedia consortium.  It was supported by UNDPA/EAD.

 

Dr Daniel Finn

Consultant, International Law & Public Affairs

Author, ACE Encyclopedia Topic Area Electoral Integrity, 3rd Version

Primero que todo debe ser tratado como un proceso metódologico y sistemático dirigido a la solución de los problemas electorales o politicos, estratificado por regiones, lo que produce los nuevos conocimientos, sobre cada uno de los macro procesos, sus tareas en cada etapa y lo principal la percepcion de transparencia, eficiencia y eficacia por parte de todos los actores electorales.

En cuanto a la “medicion”, en terminos cuantitativos, se deben establecer los indicadores de cada cuestion que se desea medir y posteriormente comparar (confrontacion historica), Ejm: cantidad de jurados capacitados durante el primer mes de trabajo, inclusiones y errores en el padron etc. Este mecanismo de definicion en las mediciones se debe hacer para desempeño humano, tiempos de produccion, medicion de planes, definicion de las variables de control, rendimiento o eficacia de equipos y comunicaciones y la calidad de los resultados electorales y la produccion de estadisticas factibles de comparacion.

En cuanto al termino cualitativos , como no hay factores de medicion, se deben establecer escalas de satisfaccion de cada salida del proceso, no solamente de los resultados electorales y su oportunidad y la observacion del comportamiento humano en el desarrollo de las elecciones

 Le test de la qualité des élection peut notamment provenir du degré d'acceptation des acteurs électoraux surtout des compétiteurs et de la population électorale donc des citoyens ayant participé effectivement aux scrutins. une des préparations à ce climat est une éducation civique et électorale bien préparée et réalisée.

un autre indicateur de la qualité des élections est le contenu des rapports des observateurs électoraux ainsi que les contenus des rapports des évaluations des élections par les OGEs. En effet, étant donné que ce genre d' activités  de réalise dans un climat apaisé i.e après l'annone des résultats, les partenaires ont le temps d'y apposer des observations sur la qualité des résultats desdites élections.

Election quality is difficult to define as in my view, I think elections are a matter of perception. "The beauty of an election lies in the eyes of the beholder, in this case a nation's citizens".In a country like mine where we were under 1 party rule for a period of 27years, the 1991 election that brought a new party to power was viewed as a quality election. Similarly, the 2011 election that ushered another party into office after 20years of being with the same party was viewed as quality. However, the elections that had taken place in between 1991 and 2011 were viewed with suspicion and the party in power was suspected of "engineering" the elections. Election quality falls under integrity, fraud corruption etc.. and should be viewed from a broader sence throughout the electoral cycle eg if people do not have access to voter registration that defeats the whole purpose of conducting a quality election.

 

A possible instrument for measuring election quality is an Election Quality Index (EQI) by which democratic countries could be rated: zero (0) on the scale for absence of any quality at all, and one hundred (100) for the highest.  Taking a cue from multivariate statistical methodology, it may be assumed that the principal components of the elements in the index being proposed would comprise the minimal standards applicable to elections as summarised by Goodwin-Gill in his work Free and Fair Elections.  Again, assuming that every democratic state is governed on the basis of the goals and objectives set by International Law, these minimal standards could be fashioned from the parameters listed under “The Rights and Responsibilities and Political Parties” and the “Rights and Responsibilities of Government” in Free and Fair Elections.  “Weights” could then be attached to each of them on the basis of international consensus perhaps.  Thus, a score for a country on the EQI scale could be worked out.  Another method of estimating electoral quality is compliance with the specifications of ISO Standard/Technical Specification 17582: Quality Management Requirements for Electoral Bodies.

 

N. J. Masson

 

Chairman, Elections & Boundaries Commission

Il est une force qualité de prendre les électeurs, après chaque élection, comme un baromètre pour mesurer le degré de fiabilité et d'acceptation des résultats. Encore faut-il recourir à un bon échantillonnage. Mais il se fait que sous d'autres tropiques,les résultats de toute élection est contestée, parce que une des parties prenantes s'est sentie offusquée par un score dans un coin estimé fief. Ainsi quelque soit l'outil d'appréciation à implémenter, il faudra associer le facteur historique et culturel du sujet mis en appréciation. Ce serait un bon facteur pour choisir le meilleur outil. Au regard du fait que souvent les résultats ne reflètent pas les aspirations et les engouements exprimés lors des campagnes électorales, chaque pays ayant une histoire en matière des élections, donc une spécificité à prendre en compte par pays, le recours à cette lecture croisée ne saura qu'orienter en mieux le degré d'acceptation et de recevabilité du processus électoral par diagnostic auprès des électeurs. Charles PASSOU

 

Christine NDAYISHIMIYE du Burundi

 Les élections doivent être évaluées à base des critères objectifs comme la transparence, l'intégrité, l'inclusivité, le taux de participation, la qualité du matériel électoral, le cadre légal, le professionnalisme du personnel électoral,  l'indépendance des média, la sécurité, la gestion du contentieux électoral, le degré d'acceptation des résultats par tous les partenaires...Mais le grand problème qui se pose est de savoir qui est habilité à mener cette évaluation car en effet, les gagnants s'empressent souvent de déclarer que tout s'est bien passé (auto glorification) alors que les perdants disent  que le processus a été caractérisé par plusieurs irrégularités( expression de la déception). Je pense donc que l'évaluation doit être menée par des observateurs étrangers, ceux ci doivent être les plus objectifs possibles en se basant sur un échantillon le plus représentatif possible. Si possible plusieurs équipes  d'évaluation indépendantes les unes les autres seraient invitées à faire ce travail d'évaluation pour, au bout du compte, pouvoir comparer les résultats de leurs appréciations. Si, en définitive, deux ou trois équipes d'évaluateurs sont d'accord sur chaque résultat en se basant sur chaque critère d'évaluation, on peut conclure que le processus électoral est de qualité.

Au lendemain de l'organisation d'une élection celle-ci est évaluée par plusieurs intervenants : les observateurs nationaux et internationaux; les médias, la société civile , les états majors des partis politiques, la commission électorale, les autorités administratives, les autorités de police, les électeurs, les missions diplomatiques, les organisations internationales etc. La qualité d'une élection devrait se mesurer en prenant en compte toutes les activités du cycle électoral mais l'on constate que généralement les évaluateurs se focalisent seulement sur le jour de l’élection ou alors quelques jours avant la tenue de celle-ci.

Au Cameroun la loi électorale prévoit la tenue de concertations entre le Conseil Électoral de Elecam et les autres acteurs au processus électoral a savoir : l'administration,  la justice, les partis politiques et éventuellement la société civile. Les concertations permettent de gérer  ensemble le processus électoral en vue de son amélioration. Des concertations sont organisées au niveau national, régional et parfois départemental.

L'organisation d'une élection de qualité repose sur :

-le respect de la loi,

- la bonne programmation des activités,

- une bonne information et une bonne éducation électorale

- un bon financement,

- une bonne sensibilisation des électeurs,

- le professionnalisme des personnels (bonne formation et serviabilité),

- le respect des principes d’indépendance, d’impartialité, d’universalité, d'inclusion, d’accessibilité, de reddition des comptes, de transparence, de sincérité, de secret du vote, d’égalité,

- un matériel de qualité en quantité suffisante et mis a disposition a temps,

- la sécurité du matériel,des personnes et du processus,

- la proclamation des résultats dans des délais raisonnables,

- la gestion rapide du contentieux électoral.

Re Measuring the quality of election

Habonayo Augustin

Les outils d'appréciationde la qualité d'une élection sont bien connus. On peut citer notamment le respect des principes directeurs retifs aux organisateurs qui sont entre autres l'indépendance, l'apolitisme, le professionalisme, l'intégrité , l'inclusivité etc

D'autres outils d'appréciation sont entre autres la qualité du matériel et en quantité suffisante, le cadre légal (la loi ) non biaisé et rigoureusement appliqué. La bonne préparation des des parties premenantes en l'occurrence les électeurs et sur les partis politiques est très important. Il peut servir comme élement de test de qualité d'une élection.  Mais la question la plus importante est celle de savoir les personnes habilitées pour l'appréciation? Mais, il y a lieu de penser que les observateurs aussi bien étrangers que locaux peuvent se prononcer là-dessus. Il suffit d'arrêter les critères sur lesquels ils doivent se baser.

Hello. Here are some thoughts on the evaluation of the quality of elections. To begin, it is important to note that the assessment of the quality of elections should not be limited to voting operations even if fraud is more frequent in polling day and vote counting. Besides the absence of fraud is not sufficient to judge the quality of an election. There are several strategies to manipulate the results of an election such as the manipulation of voter registration, intimidation of opponents, gerrymandering, etc…

This means that measuring the quality of an election must take into account the entire electoral cycle. From this perspective, the Electoral Integrity Project initiated by the University of Sydney and Harvard University has proposed 49 criteria to measure the quality of an election. The assessment takes into account these eleven dimensions of the electoral process:

1-Electoral laws; 2-electoral procedures; 3-boundaries; 4-voter registration; 5-party registration; 6-campaign media; 7-campaign finance; 8-voting process; 9-vote count; 10-post-election; and 11-electoral authorities. For more details, see Pippa Norris, Assessing the Quality of Elections, Journal of Democracy, Volume 24, Number 4, October 2013, p. 124-135.

It is important to be aware that measuring the quality of elections is a matter of perception. Especially, losers and winners usually do not have the same judgment on the quality of electoral process and operations. One should therefore be very careful in selecting sources of information in the assessment of the quality of elections.

From the various definitions of quality, i wish to use these two to argue my case:

          1. Quality is a degree of excellence a product or service aspires to achieve.

          2. Quality is that which conforms to specification.

My assumption is that all countries have a legal framework (which specifies how elections are supposed to be carried out in that country). If the country holds an election which turns out to be contrary to what is specified, then it can't claim that it held a quality election. Perceptions aside.

If in an a given election (whether electronic or not and the issue here is not the level of technology) the registers are chaotic, the polling and counting process were marred by confusion and tallying and transmission too was chaotic. Then, even if the results are accepted by majority of the voters or stakeholders, that election does not qualify to be a quality election. Fortunately, for us another term 'credible' was coined to help us console ourselves. This term condones some degree of mistakes, which may not be acceptable for a quality election.

Therefore in accessing whether an election is a quality one, one needs to look at the following:

Qualitative

a). were the campaigns peaceful and whether each candidate had equal chance to campaign/move freely.

b). Was the registration of voters done well? i.e. all voters were given equal chance to register as voters and no section of voters were disenfranchised. Is the register up to date? Were voters not entitled to vote allowed to vote? Were their cases of persons not qualified to vote being assisted to vote? Cases of multiple voting or voting for others?

c). Was the polling and counting processes orderly and all eligible voters allowed to exercise their democratic right freely (as required by law).

d). Were results tallied and transmitted in a transparent manner acceptable to all participants? were the results accepted by ALL? What were the excuses given for challenging them? This is a case of perception which should help the EMB to work towards removing aspects that make participants not to trust it, for future election processes.

I might have left out certain important aspects of the election processes like nomination processes e.t.c. But, it is important to note that to achieve quality, we must document our processes. These are the steps to be followed to achieve the desired quality. For us election practitioners, we follow the legal frame work. Therefore,irrespective of the outcome of an election, the election processes must follow the laid down procedures in the legal framework. It doesn't matter whether the results are accepted by majority. Acceptances of results only is deceptive, since the majority of the voters may not be aware of the legal framework/procedures.

To enhance this debate, you may also read 'measurement of quality' and 'DIMENSIONS OF SERQUAL'.

Quantitave

The percentage of participants happy with the entire processes that leads to the election results, not the number accepting results.

It might be appropriate to come up with a checklist indicating all processes/activities leading to the election results. See Parasuraman et. al, 1988 and 1990.

In addition to the above, voter satisfaction (with the processes not results only) is an indicator of quality. This requires that voters be educated on the processes leading to election/yielding election results.

Election practitioners network should develope a template that is similar to a quality management system that will be used by EMBs, observer missions and political parties to measure election quality. The template should have ratings for each activity leading to the declaration of results/winner.

Many governance indicators around the world reference elections as one of the elements that they use to assess the "quality of democracy or governance". These are however often based on indicator sets such as Freedom House, Polity or the Bertelsmann Index.  Afrobarometer surveys in Africa seeks to take a survey-based, as opposed to an expert-based approach and often tackles election-related issues across the continent. The IEC of Botswana has now conducted several post-election audits with the helped of IDEA and ERIS, which can be useful to share, as pointed out by Carl Dundas above. Any efforts to assess the quality of elections has to be retrospective and be applied to past elections and not just the elections at hand. Furthermore, any frameworks that will be considered for usage by other indices needs to show its sustainability by being in use for at least 3 years or more in order for it to be included in a major composite Index like the Mo Ibrahim Index for African Governance. At present the V-Dem Index provides a fairly comprehensive overview of indicators associated with elections, much more than the World Bank or other indices that I'm aware of. Its shows real promise and potential.

In my opinion any system of measurement of the “quality” an election should keep in mind that elections are fundamentally political events. Elections – and their technical features – are not an end in themselves. Their purpose, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is to ascertain the will of the people regarding their government. They are processes to confer legitimacy to govern, and to peacefully resolve political competition. A genuine election is ultimately one in which the outcome reflects the freely expressed choices of the people.

 

As Johann Kriegler, a former chairman of the South Africa election commission, said in reflecting on the – technically imperfect yet widely accepted – 1994 election: “[Elections] are exercises in public perception and confidence. [..] If the public accepts the integrity and veracity of the election results as announced by the election administration, the election will have succeeded.” (Johann Kriegler, “Electoral Dispute Resolution: A Personal Perspective”, in David Gillies (ed.), Democracy in Dangerous Places, 2011, p. 194).

 

In the same vein, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has stated that “[t]he true measure of an election is whether it engenders broad public confidence in the process and trust in the outcome,” (UN document A/66/314, para. 54) and that “conducting genuine elections requires more than improving technicalities or comparing  processes against international obligations, commitments and practices”(A/68/301, para. 45).

 

From this perspective, then, it would be important to look at whether an election and its outcomes enjoys credibility in the eyes of the country’s citizens, whether it has achieved its function of giving voice to the will of the people. The elements of credibility and acceptance have been noted by other contributors in this discussion. The question is whether these can be ascertained by measuring mostly technical aspects of an electoral process.

 

There is no doubt some connection between the technical quality of an election, and the legitimacy of its outcomes and the body or government it produces. But as has been noted (for example by Jørgen Eklit and Andrew Reynolds, “A Framework for the Systematic Study of Election Quality” in Democratization, 12 (2), 2005), it is (still) not clear what exactly this connection is. There are numerous examples of elections that are technically imperfect, the results of which are nevertheless accepted as the expression of the people’s will; and examples of elections that would be hard to fault on technical grounds, yet in which losers contest the outcomes, sometimes using violent means. Technical perfection may be neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for the acceptance of results.

 

Other preliminary questions one might ask are: to what end would one measure the quality of an election? To what use would the information be put, and by whom? Discussion papers in this field often highlight the importance of standardizing quality measurements for election administrators (to improve their performance in conducting elections), for political scientists (to better classify political regimes), as well as for election observers (to harmonize their assessments) and media. They often suggest a strong belief in the normative value of these measurements, in the pursuit of a desirable performance standard, and in their potential to bring about positive change. But a measurement system that focuses on technical elements and draws normative conclusions – or even “scores” and ranks performance – can be a politically double-edged sword. If the measurement suggests that an election lacks technical quality – and if it claims to be based on broadly accepted standards – it might in itself erode public confidence. Or its conclusions can be manipulated and used by parties who are not satisfied with the outcome. Furthermore, with the exception of internationally agreed legal or political commitments, any set of indices will to a large degree be subjective and selective. This may be inevitable, but would be important to keep in mind when attributing normative value to such measurements.

 

From the political perspective mentioned here – that elections are not an end in themselves but a function of determining the will of the people – a measurement system could be part of a broader and systematic inquiry into the conditions for, or correlates of, trust in an election and the acceptance of outcomes. It would explore the question: what aspects of political institutions and processes lead non-winning political actors to accept their electoral losses? (This line of inquiry was started by Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., and Listhaug, O., in Losers Consent. Elections and Democratic Legitimacy (2005). Similar studies by Sarah Birch, “Electoral Institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes”, in Electoral Studies 27(2008), and others). As suggested by the United Nations Secretary-General, such an inquiry would involve looking beyond the rules and conduct of an election itself, and considering how the electoral stakes are affected by the broader political system and culture of a country (UN document A/68/301, para. 30).

 

This response is posted by ACE on behalf of PN member Jeff Fischer.

Jeffrey Carlson of Creative Associates and Dr. Sarah Birch of the University of Glasgow have developed the Electoral Malpractice Primer, which is a guide for the analysis and evaluation of acts of deception, coercion, destruction, or denials of service in the conduct of elections.

Measuring election quality is like measuring service quality. Both are intangible in nature. We modify the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF instruments to come up with our own instrument "ELESQUAL". I have attached a document with samples which members can modify. 

We need to come up with indicators of a quality election, what activities to look at, then determine the perceived gaps.

Recomiendo, adicional a todas las fuentes bibliográficas antes mencionadas en esta red, los esfuerzos de evaluar la democracia electoral presentados por organizaciones como el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).

Sostengo que la calidad de las elecciones va directamente asociada al desarrollo efectivo de la democracia. De nada vale un alto nivel de sofisticación tecnológica y/o procedimental e incluso legislación a tono con las demandas actuales, si no se cumple realmente con los principios básicos de elecciones libres y limpias.

Por otra parte, las mediciones (escalas, ponderaciones, jerarquizaciones) en ciencias sociales, entre las cuales se incluye la calidad de la democracia, tienden a ser complicadas y de allí que sus resultados generalmente son controvertidos.

En los trabajos que cito  las variables a considerar van, desde las clásicas elecciones limpias y libres, derecho al voto y respeto a los mandatos  (Índice de democracia electoral del PNUD en: Informe PNUD. "la democracia en América Latina. Bases empíricas del informe" (2004), pasando por otras aún más cualitativas como: la no discriminación de candidatos, la información veraz de las propuestas de gobierno, la inexistencias de barreras a partidos y, el respeto al estado de derecho (Auditoría ciudadana sobre la calidad de la democracia.(2001) Volumen II. Costa Rica)., amén de las planteadas por el Segundo Informe sobre desarrollo humano en Centroamérica y Panamá (2003) a saber, barreras para elegir y ser elegido, los mecanismos de designación de las máximas autoridades de los organismos electorales, entre otras.

PNUD: Informe "La Democracia en América Latina http://es.scribd.com/doc/39482121/PNUD-Informe-La-Democracia-en-America-Latina-descargar

 

Finalmente creo que son fuentes válidas para el análisis global de la calidad de la democracia y de las elecciones los estudios estadísticos realizados por Freedom House (http://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.U6xnm7HPs9Y) y The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/8908438)

 

 

 

 

 

In my humble opinion,I think that the quality of any election can best be viewed throughout the electoral process,that is from the registration process to the final publication of the result and how the election stakeholders perceive  the outcome of the ballot boxes.In other words,if by the end of the registration process(when the electorate is convened-in the case of Cameroon that is, in an election year),about 75% or more of the voting population is duly registered,that can be seen as the first step of a good quality of election in the case of the election that follows that registration.Next,will be the other pr-election activities such as cards  distribution,participation by the electorates on the e-day etc.A good quality can also be judged here.Finally,how the electorates and other election stakeholders receive the outcome of the ballot boxes will, to a large extent determine the quality of the Election.An Election that has a good quality enhances the credibility of an EMB and the other way round.

I would like to recommend for consideration a tool to analyse election quality created by Judith Kelley: Quality of Elections Data (QED) https://web.duke.edu/diem/docs/CodebookQEDlinked.pdf and Dataset on International Election Monitoring (DIEM) http://sites.duke.edu/kelley/files/2011/05/CodeBookDIEM.pdf. The methodology measures election quality capturing the view of international US department of state in the former and international observer groups in the latter cases. It provides details on a number of sub-components of elections as reported by the sources. 

Kelley, Judith and Kolev, Kiril. “Election Quality and International Observation 1975-2004: Two New Datasets” (October 19, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1694654

In my recent chapter on 'Electoral Management in Britain' in Pippa Norris et al.'s edited book Advancing Electoral Integrity (Oxford University Press), I outline a heuristic framework for evaluating electoral management that might be of interest.

 

The framework must  pay attention to  the political environment, as well as EMB capacities in planning and effective execution of plans.

In countries with history of highly polarized  politics especially where polarization  is ethnically based,  political leaders attitude of win lose  creates suspicion in election management  and  on the credibility of the results long before the polling day. Any outcome  in this case in only acceptable to the winner . 

In regard to capacity of EMB to plan and effectively  execute the plan ,attention must focus on 

1. Quality of the register and  it accessibility to  political players while protecting personal identifying information of voters. It is known that a register makes or breaks election legitimacy and acceptability 
2. Competencies of election personnel   and public perception of these competencies.
3. election logistics and logistic support services like procurement, warehousing,security  because chaotic logistics may be interpreted as a ploy by an EMB to mess up elections .
4. Electoral process resourcing  must also be considered  in respect to adequacy and cost effectiveness.