This question is posted by ACE on behalf of PN member Waqo Shuke Galma.

Question:

Hi, I am a post graduate student in UK working on a research project titled "The inherent challenges of electoral technologies management in developing countries." Basically, the aim is to explore the many challenges experienced in implementing and managing electoral technologies in highly uncertain political environments. 

I am developing a questionnaire to be administered for this research, and I'd appreciate it if members could guide me on what kind of questions I should be asking, and share any suggestions or considerations for designing a questionnaire on this subject.

Summary of Replies:

The Practitioner's Network first provided some examples of challenges faced by unstable countries in the implementation of electoral technology, such as

• the technological readiness of the implementing country, and its ability to a) decide on the correct technology for its needs, and b) its ability to maintain the technology once acquired 
• the acquisition of relatively high technology for some purpose, e.g. voter registration. This will be done the the medium of donor funds and a vendor. An adequate to good solution is in most cases supplied; However, after the election, the tech-savvy vendors leave, and by the time the next election comes along, the equipment and solution has deteriorated to the point it is cheaper to replace it rather than to try to resuscitate it.
• Donors supply a technology expert to assist in the implementation. However, instead of keeping this expert in place to continue training for at least a full electoral cycle, to ensure that the EMB staff have adopted the knowledge and techniques required of the solution, his position is usually made redundant after implementation is complete.
• Specifications for technology written by inexperienced donor officers, so that it is never going to work. Specifying technology is itself part of the project, must be done by experienced professions, and takes time. 
• Lack of confidence in, or downright suspicion of, the inputs and outputs of the computer, either through ignorance or as a deliberate ploy to undermine the results. It is almost impossible to establish that the information is correct, especially when people do not wish to accept it.
• Difficulty in accessing the internet because of connection, poverty and lack of knowledge about the technology.

PN members also contributed a list of sample questions.

• Was the introduction of technology based on a rigorous needs assessment?
• If not, was the technology driven by a top-down "we need to introduce this technology" approach?
• Did the EMB (or Government) come under influence of commercial interests (vendors or governments with commercial agendas)?
• What factors drove the decision to implement this (or any) technology for elections?
• How was the technology procured? How comprehensive were the procurement documents? Was the procurement problematic? Controversial? Was there litigation?
• How competitive was the procurement?
• How long were technology delivery lead times?
• What was the EMB's previous experience with technology implementation? With large IT project management? With procurement of technology?

Finally, PN members provided examples of the challenges faced in implementing voter technology and their resulting question from their areas of expertise.

• An example that came up in the Balkans (Albania for its 2007 local elections) was the proposal to install cameras in each polling station. This shows however a principle issue of modern electoral tools, also if they should in principle enhance transparency:

1. Whatever is planned - is it affordable and technically implementable? In most cases, the answer is no.
2. Is it more a politically motivated stunt rather than a real measure to improve the electoral process? Often, the answer will be yes.
3. Does it really improve transparency and assure a fair vote, or might it be used to abuse the system for one group's advantage (which is to be feared) or lead to wrong results due to technological shortfalls (see Florida 2000). The case of video surveillance in polling stations, for example, can easily be turned around 180° from a transparency enhancement measure to a tool for intimidation and covering up fraud. It is all about how technology is used.

• Another example came from Tunisia In 2014 elections. While the USSD messages were widely used for registration process, most of political parties have refused electronic tabulations of results so the ISIE ( Tunisian EMB) adopted manual tabulations.

• During the 2009 elections in Sudan the international consultants experienced some hard facts about the elections environments in that country. According to the ministry of the interior of Sudan, of the thirty million population only around one million and a half possessed IDs. The voters registrar was established through teams of so called Identifiers. An elections center could be a tent erected in the middle of nowhere to serve so many villages far away around, the electoral staff are sitting on the sand floor cross-legged, using the voting boxes as tables and a policeman is sting under a tree nearby smoking a cigarette, no representatives of the other lists let alone local or international monitors could be seen around. In South Sudan trucks, canoes and donkeys were used to carry a voting box to remote village.

Contributing Members

• David Kuennen
• Saad Alrawi

• Roger Thord-Gray

• Abdurashid Solijonov

• David George Ian Mathieson

• Phyo Tin Oo

• Idi Boina

• Mustafa Safwat Sidqi

• Victor Huge Ajila

• Ronan McDermott

• Christian Geosits

• Sameer Dwaikat

• Francisco Barrera

• Hedi Trabelsi

External Resources

• Implementing and Overseeing Electronic Voting and Counting Technologies. NDI and IFES. 2013. http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/ManualHandbook/2013/Implementing_and_Overseeing_Electronic_Voting_and_Counting_Technologies.pdf 
• Handbook for the Observation of New Voting Technologies. OSCE/ODIHR. 2013. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/104939?download=true 

• Direct Democracy: Progress and Pitfalls of Election Technologies. IFES. 2011.http://ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Books/2011/20111026_Direct_Democracy_Progress_and_Pitfalls_Election_Technology_Yard.pdf

• Introducing Electronic Voting: Essential Considerations. International IDEA. 2011. http://www.idea.int/publications/introducing-electronic-voting/index.cfm

• Comparative data on the use of ICT technology in elections collected by IDEA: http://www.idea.int/elections/ict/index.cfm 

Hello,

This an interesting area of work that has received a lot of attention in recent years in the fields of electoral assistance and election observation.  I've seen a handful of publications on related topics that may serve as a useful starting point for you:

• Implementing and Overseeing Electronic Voting and Counting Technologies. NDI and IFES. 2013. http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/ManualHandbook/2013/Implementing_and_Overseeing_Electronic_Voting_and_Counting_Technologies.pdf
• Handbook for the Observation of New Voting Technologies. OSCE/ODIHR. 2013. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/104939?download=true
• Direct Democracy: Progress and Pitfalls of Election Technologies. IFES. 2011. http://ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Books/2011/20111026_Direct_Democracy_Progress_and_Pitfalls_Election_Technology_Yard.pdf
• Introducing Electronic Voting: Essential Considerations. International IDEA. 2011. http://www.idea.int/publications/introducing-electronic-voting/index.cfm

Also, you may want to browse the publications and resources made available by Caltech and MIT Voting Technology Project (http://vote.caltech.edu/) and Verified Voting (https://www.verifiedvoting.org/), both in the U.S.

Best of luck with your research.

David

بسهولة التطور التكنلوجي في ادارة العملية الانتخابية والتصويت الالكتروني

Every country has its own challenges. One of the important aspects to look at is the technological readiness of the implementing country .. and its ability to a) decide on the CORRECT technology for its needs, and b) its ability to MAINTAIN the technology once acquired.

A recurring theme is the acquisition of relatively hi tech for some purpose eg voter registration. This will be done the the medium of donor funds and a vendor. An adequate to good solution is in most cases supplied. However, after the election, the tech-savvy vendors leave, and by the time the next election comes along, the equipment and solution has deteriorated to the point it is cheaper to replace it rather than to try to resuscitate it.

It is commonly suggested that training / knowledge transfer is, in these cases, insufficient. While essentially true, this does not paint the whole picture. Bringing UNTRAINED personnel up to speed into a hi-tech environment is NOT a 2 month job -- it takes time. The vendors have taken years to develop their solutions, they are not going to impart full maintenance knowledge in a few short months.

The donors are also, to a certain extent, at fault. They will often 'supply' a technology expert to assist in the implementation. However, instead of keeping this expert in place to continue training for at least a full electoral cycle, to ensure that the EMB staff have adopted the knowledge and techniques required of the solution, his position is usually made redundant after implementation is complete.

These comments obviously apply to the scenario where a hi-tech solution is being applied in an environment with comparitevely low technological skills. However, if these aspects could be clearly identified BEFORE acquisition, and contingency plans made for long term support of the EMB (ie between elections), there would far less wastage of resources and better use of donor funds.

The design of the questionnaire should really stem from the research question you have. As a starting point, I would recommend to look at comparative data on the use of ICT technology in elections collected by IDEA: http://www.idea.int/elections/ict/index.cfm 

I would doubly support the comments of Roger Thord-Gray, as we have seen the problem of unsupportable technology too many times.  6 months before the election the warehouse is opened to reveal broken or missing computers, and no-one knows what to do or has the money to do it.

Some other big problems to be aware of:

   Specifications for technology written by inexperienced donor officers, so that it is never going to work.  Specifying technology is itself part of the project, must be done by experienced professions, and takes time.

   Insufficient time to install and thoroughly TEST the systems, and to get systems fixed if they do not work.

   Lack of confidence in, or downright suspicion of, the inputs and outputs of the computer, either through ignorance or as a deliberate ploy to undermine the results.  It is almost impossible to establish that the information is correct, especially when people do not wish to accept it.

   And remember, if ANYTHING goes wrong, including the storm which washed out the main road, it is the fault of the IT department.

David Mathieson

In developing countries, the problem is difficult to access to internet because of connection, poverty and lack of knowledge about the technology.  You can consider the question based on these facts.

Bonjour, Comme disait mon précédent,les pays en développement connaissent tous les problèmes de la vie,et malgré les progrès réalisé en matière d’investissement des infrastructures technologiques, ils restent toujours très en retard et l’énergie en particulier l’électricité freine l'évolution des nouvelles technologie dans nos pays. J'ai fait des recherche sur le domaine des élections en partenariat avec l'institut de recherche des Nations Unies, publié sur le web au nom de Idi Boina,intitulé "Gouvernance Électorale en Union des Comores" je pense qu'en lisant ma thèse, vous allez avoir plus d'information qui peuvent vous être utiles.

Safwat Sidqi, Saturday 04:30

I think questionnaires should take the following facts in the consideration: 

During the 2009 elections in Sudan the international consultants experienced some hard facts about the elections environments in that country.

-          According to the ministry of interior of Sudan, of the thirty millions or so of the population only around one million and a half possessed IDs, the voters registrar was established through teams of so called Identifiers, several elderly members of a tribe or a village are gathered in a place and an electoral who claims that his name is Omer Abdurrahman Mohamed and he is eighteen years old or more will come forward to be registered and if no member of the Committee could challenge him that he is not what he claimed he will be registered accordingly.

-          An elections center could be a tent erected in nowhere to serve so many villages far away around, the electoral staff are sitting on the sand floor cross-legged, using the voting boxes as tables and a policeman is sting under a tree nearby smoking a cigarette, no representatives of the other lists let alone local or international monitors could be seen around.

-          In South Sudan trucks, canoes and donkeys where used to carry a voting box to remote village.

In South Africa the homes of the most villages are made of tree or bush branches and when a storm is devastating a village nobody care about clearing debris to rebuilt the huts, the place would simply be abandoned and the villagers would move, sometimes for several kilometers to another place to erect their huts and when another storm visiting the new premises the procedures would be repeated again so no any sophisticated GPS could find any villages, in the first democratic elections in that country a team of the elections experts coming from a very developed country was there to give advice and when the elections staff of the S A where talking about the short comings of the voters registrar regarding the voters addresses the foreigner experts advised them to use the telephone directory!.

Some elections regulations in a number of developing countries make room for helpers to accompany illiterate voters to assist them in casting their voters; soon helpers would be available in many elections centers to give help even to those who are not in need of any help. in some other countries, let alone what the laws and regulations are requiring there are so called family voting where a father would vote for the entire family members.

In many parts of the majority of developing countries electricity at any shape is a luxury who nobody can afford and the nearest electricity power could tens of kilometers away. 

Depende del público objetivo al que se dirigen las preguntas; considero que debería desagregarse para actores políticos, organismos electorales y población en general, actores de la sociedad civil.

Se podría preguntar:

- Existe transferencia de tecnología hacia el organismo electoral?

- Conoce totalmente la tecnología que se va a usar en el proceso electoral?

- Cuan es la vida útil de los equipos (hardware y software)?

- Quién hace la actualización y mantenimiento en el tiempo; y cuánto cuesta?

- Cuánto y cómo se paga la tecnología?

- Es sustentable la inversión que se va a realizar en tecnología electoral?

- Experiencia y antecedentes de cumplimiento del proveedor de la tecnología

- Confía en la tecnología a usar?

- Cuáles son los mecanismos de auditoría?

- El organismo electoral que adquiere la tecnología, está en capacidad de administrarla y mantenerla en el tiempo?

- El contexto social y político es el adecuado para imprementar la tecnología en el proceso electoral?

- Acepta algún mecanismo de control social independiente al proceso de contratación e implementación de tecnología?

Without knowing who will take this survey (EMB, donor, technical, non-technical, etc) it's very hard to know what questions to ask! Also, I'm unclear what is meant by "uncertain political environments" - this could mean security, but might just as well mean a closely contested election! The nature of the survey - will respondents be anonymous or identified? How will you filter out spurious responses? Some elaboration by the questioner would be welcome...

Here are some topics you might explore - but bear in mind that you'll get very, very different answers from different respondents, hence my first comment above.

1. Was the introduction of technology based on a rigorous needs assessment?
2. If not, was the technology driven by a top-down "we need to introduce this technology" approach?
3. Did the EMB (or Government) come under influence of commercial interests (vendors or governments with commercial agendas)?
4. What factors drove the decision to implement this (or any) technology for elections?
5. How was the technology procured? How comprehensive were the procurement documents? Was the procurement problematic? Controversial? Was there litigation?
   
6. How competitive was the procurement?
   
7. How long were technology delivery lead times?
8. What was the EMB's previous experience with technology implementation? With large IT project management? With procurement of technology?
9. Was a multi-electoral cycle approach taken when procuring the technology? What is the anticipated life-span of procured technologies?
   
10. Specifically, if battery-powered technologies were procured for field deployment, what is the expected lifespan? What arrangements have been made for battery storage, maintenance and replacement?
11. Was any research conducted prior to the introduction of the technology?
12. Were there any pilot tests? What was the scale of the pilot tests? Were there multiple possible solutions piloted, or simply a smaller number of a single solution prior to national rollout?
13. Was the capacity of the ICT department of the EMB taken into consideration when deciding what technologies were feasible?
14. Post-electorally, is the EMB in question fully able to operate the systems? Maintain the systems?
15. Are there any restrictions on access to stored data by the EMB? (no passwords? Access requires further SLA or payment to a vendor?)
16. Does the EMB have access to software (source code) in order to be able to fix bugs in systems procured? To be able to extend, modify or add functionality?
17. Has a procured solution been used for more than one electoral cycle?

Good luck with the research - it's an enormous subject and something of a political minefield...

An interesting example that came up in the Balkans (e.g. Albania for its 2007 local elections, I remember) was the proposal to install cameras in each polling station. This shows however a principle issue of modern electoral tools, also if they should in principle enhance transparency:

1. Whatever is planned - is it affordable and technically implementable? In most cases, the answer is no.

2. Is it more a politically motivated stunt rather than a real measure to improve the electoral process? Often, the answer will be yes.

3. Does it really improve transparency and assure a fair vote, or might it be used to abuse the system for one group's advantage (which is to be feared) or lead to wrong results due to technological shortfalls (see Florida 2000). The case of video surveillance in polling stations, for example, can easily be turned around 180° from a transparency enhancement measure to a tool for intimidation and covering up fraud. All about how technology is used.

Excellent points, Christian. Waqo, if you intend to explore the issue of cameras in polling stations, I recommend you look this previous ACE discussion on this topic: http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/291099047.

Yes Technology can be used in all joints of the electoral processes because they are much easy today hardly a citizen of any country in the world, but is used or seen the use of information technology in the elections, but in some countries need to increase awareness in the election.

Hola

Todos los aportes anteriores son de mucho interés y acorde a la situacion, solo me gustaría adicionar, si el tipo de estudio es aplicado a la tecnología en general incluyendo software y hardware, o si va a tener en cuenta los varias rtapas dentro del procesos electoral, que son susceptibles de aplicarle la tecnología, por ejemplo:

Automatizar y poner en medios avanzados los sistemas de información (votantes, candidatos, resultados)

Automatizar la conformación del proceso de creación, actualización y divulgación del censo o padrón electoral (listados de votantes)-

Formas de identificación y de validación de las personas que concurren a las votaciones

Formas de votar, completamente automatizada, parcialmente electrónica, si es presencial o por internet.

Los escrutinios si se van a automatizar, siempre y cuando no se automatice el voto,

El transporte y el control de todos los documentos electorales, incluyendo la digitalización de algunos muy sensibles y disponer de un proceso de gestión documental

Automatización de la recolección y divulgación de los resultados electorales

Sistemas automáticos de conformar los jurados o jueces de mesas, incluso el manejo automático de los candidatos, de los partidos, el control de las cuentas, de las campañas, de las donaciones etc.

Como se ve el tema desagregado es bastante grande y se debería especificar en qué dirección va la investigación o si por el contrario es un tema de cambio de procesos manuales y mecánicos a un proceso completo automatico.

Another example came from Tunisia

In 2014 elections , While the USSD messages  were widely used for registration process , most of political parties have refused electronic tabulations  of results so the ISIE ( Tunisian EMB) adopted  manual tabulations.