The Question

This question is posted on behalf of an ACE user who wishes to remain anonymous.

Political parties in Pakistan are working on electoral reform issues and are in need of a specific piece of information regarding electoral legal frameworks and the transportation of voters, specifically transportation provided by parties. Voter transport by candidates or political parties is banned under current Pakistani law, though some legislators are considering an attempt at changing that in the coming days. 

Parties are therefore looking for some examples of other countries where voter transport (on election day) by candidates or political parties is permitted (other than the US and Canada). Do you know of other countries?

Members of the Practitioners’ Network (PN) identified several examples of countries where candidates or political parties are permitted to transport voters on Election Day. Other than Canada and the United States, examples provided by the members included Comoros, Germany and the United Kingdom. 

In the case of the United Kingdom, electoral laws and procedures allow transport of voters by parties or political candidates as long as no payment is made for the vehicle used. Leading up to an election, candidates and political parties in the UK normally identify their likely supporters and offer transport to those that have difficulty getting to the polling station. However, a member highlighted that parties and candidates are prohibited from hiring vehicles to take voters to the polls, and that they often use their own vehicles. In Comoros, the law permits the provision of transportation of elderly and physically disabled people to polling stations, and also in Germany political parties often organize transportation for elderly or handicapped people.

One member further described the case of Quebec, Canada, where transportation of voters by political parties on Election Day is permitted in a context that limits the size of the party’s electoral expenses and where transportation expenses are added to the amount of electoral expenses. At the same time, a private company is not allowed to make electoral expenses as a contribution to a political campaign and thereby cannot, for instance, rent buses for the transportation of voters on behalf of a political party.

The support provided to facilitate voters’ access to polling stations was noted among the PN members as a way to improve voter turnout, and one member highlighted that the risk of disenfranchisement of voters in the absence of a facility that allows for voter transport is particularly relevant in the case of Pakistan. However, members also stressed the importance of protecting the secrecy of the vote, of avoiding any intimidation or coercion of those transported to a polling station, and of voters not being under any obligation to vote for the candidate or party which provides transport. 

Examples of Related ACE Articles and Resources

• Voting Operations 

External Resources

• Canvassing (Wikipedia)
• Certain Malaysian political parties provide transport for voters

Names of Contributors

• Thomas Dackweiler
• Sabahudin Durguti
• Bhojraj Pokharel
• Francisco Barrera
• Andrew Ellis
• Aysha Shujaat
• Idi Boina
• Ben Goldsmith
• Jean-François Gagné
• MCS Centre

Hi,

The transportation of voters is permitted in Germany. Often political parties organize transportation for elderly or handicapped people, so that they can cast their vote.

Of course, there is always the question of influencing the voter's vote, but as long as the secrecy of the vote is maintained I don´t see it as problem.

I have done elections in: Kosovo (many times), East Timor (two times), Liberia, Afghanistan (two times) and in these countries it is not allowed, simply because of what can happen. There are procedures regarding this - that one must to be escorted by Electoral Officials together with police. I do not understand why political parties are interested in doing that? There must be a reason and that is that they want to "change something".

During the South Sudan referendum I noticed that voters were transported from their location to the polling station on election day/-s (they had 7-day voting period).

El dilema del transporte de los electores es si, se quiere realmente acercar a estos a los lugares de votación, como promoción y facilidad en el ejercicio del sufragio, o cuando se les quiere trasladar a los lugares de votación en que los requieren los políticos, ejerciendo un  trasteo electoral que beneficia únicamente a los políticos implicados.

Realmente la acción física de movilizar a los electores en muchos países existe disfrazada de un favor con los electores que residen en sitios alejados de los lugares de votación, pero los controles se deben ejercer en verificar la conformación del registro de electores, que no tenga movimientos sospechosos, también en el día de las votaciones verificar si los electores no son guiados masivamente, o coaccionados a votar por quien los transportó.

De  forma legal existe en muy pocos países, incluido en la ley la aprobación del transporte subsidiado por los partidos políticos a los electores, pero en la gran mayoría lo hacen sin ser legal, aduciendo un favor con el sistema democrático.

UK electoral laws and procedures (which share a common root with Pakistan) allow transport of voters by parties and candidates as long as no payment is made for the vehicle used.  There remains an element of effective ground campaigning in UK elections under which candidates and parties canvass before polling day to identify their likely supporters and then 'knock them up' on polling day to remind them to vote and to offer transport (normally by party activists driving their own cars) to those who have difficulty getting to the polling station.  Parties and candidates are prohibited from hiring vehicles to take voters to the polls (I believe this dates back to the 19th century and reflects a climate in which access to hired vehicles was considerably easier for one of the two major parties of the time than the other).

Voters are of course under no obligation to vote for the candidate or party which provides transport - and having been a candidate many years ago I can certainly remember voters saying 'I voted for you but I got the other lot to take me"!

Thank you to everyone for interesting replies!

An ACE user was further interested in the Latin American context and was wondering: Are there examples of Latin American countries where voter transport (on election day) by candidates or political parties is permitted?

When discussing the issue in Pakistan, it is important to consider the various factors that were highlighted when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision to limit transportation of voters by political parties - in specific candidate's expenditure which do not allow such a facility without violation of the existing limit and the disadvantage to smaller parties with lesser means than mainstream parties. In reality the existing restriction is not expected to be enforced in the coming elections. It is an important reform issue and there is need to agree on an enforceable method of assisting voters with transportation. It is worth mentioning that the public transport system is Pakistan is considerably weak which could risk disenfranchisement of voters in the absence of such a facility. 

Le transport des électeurs est une activité comme tant d'autre toute fois,il faudrait qu'elle est prévue par la loi électoral. Ici aux Comores la loi a prévu une telle mission mais pour les personnes trop âgées ,les handicapés physiques.

Pour les personnes à les transporter,ceux sont des gens généreux,dès fois des candidats, et des partisans des candidats qui les transportent vers les bureaux de vote.

Pour terminer,je crois qu'il faudra faire un recensement de toute personne qui ne peut pas se déplacer seul vers le bureau de vote,savoir,leur nombre,et prévoir un budget spécial qui sera gérer par la commission chargé des élections afin d'éviter une influence quelconque aux électeurs.

As indicated by Andrew Ellis above, the UK allows the transportation of voters to the polls by political parties. I have heard the arguments against such practice raised in a number of countries now. Maybe my opinion of this is tainted by my UK perspective, but I have always seen this as a positive aspect of the democratic process. We all want voter turnout to be as high as possible on election day, and if this practice means that more voters participate in the process then that should be seen positively.

Now of course political parties transport such voters for a reason, they expect the voters to vote for them as a result. While I do not think that in the UK any overt pressure is applied to voters to do so, in other countries this may be the case, and this is clearly a concern.

However, as long as the secrecy of the vote is maintained then there is no way that political parties will know for sure if the voters they transported actually voted for them or not. Given this caveat I would always be in favour of any support provided to voters in getting to the polling station.

In Quebec Canada, transportation is permitted in a framework that limits Parties electoral expenses. For example, if a party uses buses to transport voters, this expense will be added to their electoral expenses that are limited.  A private company cannot rent buses since they do not have the premission to make electoral expenses. In Canada, in general, everything is considered towards the limitation of electoral expenses.

Here is a extract from Quebec province Election Act: 

CHAPTER VI
CONTROL OF ELECTION EXPENSES

 

DIVISION I
ELECTION EXPENSES

 

Interpretation,

(

(…)

 

Election expenses.

402. The cost of any goods or services used for the following purposes during an election period is an election expense:

 

(1) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or the candidates of a party;

 

(2) to propagate or oppose the program or policies of a candidate or party;

 

(3) to approve or disapprove courses of action advocated or opposed by a candidate or party; or

 

(4) to approve or disapprove any act done or proposed by a party, a candidate or their supporters.

 

1989, c. 1, s. 402.

 

Use of goods or services.

(

(…)

 

Exceptions.

404. The following are not election expenses:

 

(…)

 

(8) the transportation costs of any person other than a candidate, paid out of his own money, if the costs are not reimbursed to him;

 

This reply is posted on behalf of the MCS Centre.

In India it is not permitted.