As has been proven through actual practice, an electoral management body (EMB) may take any
one of several different forms. It may be a temporary or a permanent body; a partisan,
partially-partisan, or non-partisan body; a centralized or decentralized body; a specialized judicial
body or government ministry; or even a mixture of several of these types and thus not easily
categorized. In National, we explore these possibilities and discuss generally the advantages and
disadvantages often associated with each. To facilitate this discussion, we first examine some of
the primary duties of the EMB, which we split into two distinct categories: administrative and
supervisory. In fact, Administrative Bodies not only examines this distinction but also attempts to detail some
of the tasks an EMB must complete to serve well as both an administrative and supervisory body.
Having discussed the various types of national-level bodies, we then turn our attention to
Regional and Local Election Bodies. In doing so, of course, we recognize that many of the attributes of these lower-level
bodies depend on the type of national body, the structure of the electoral system (whether it is
nationally, regionally, or locally-focused), and the nature of the delegated responsibilities.
Furthermore, we recognize that the nature of the delegated responsibilities ranges from significant
yet limited to critical to the success of the electoral process. In short, we assert that there are
always many important decisions to be made and tasks to be accomplished during the electoral
process but that it is up to the national authority to determine exactly which body is responsible
for the various types of activities and specify the nature of the relationships between the national,
regional, and local levels.
Another important issue, addressed in Relationship of Regional and Local Bodies to Higher-Level Bodies, concerns the flow of work and information within
the electoral system. As has already been noted above, each level of the electoral system has
certain duties, abilities, and limits. In this section, we discuss these duties, abilities, and limits in
the context of the relationships between the three levels of the EMB. As part of this discussion,
we emphasize the need for both routine and extraordinary methods of communication between the
three levels, as means of managing the electoral process and addressing specific situations as they
arise.
Overall, we realize that there is not one particular type of electoral system that will work in every
electoral environment. Thus, we have written this section to present some of the alternatives to
election management currently being implemented in electoral systems throughout the world.
Ultimately, the country's political, economic, and social circumstances must determine the
composition of the electoral model and the manner in which an electoral system is established or
modified.
