Ethical Basis
Without a solid basis in ethical principles, the conduct of voting operations can at best be ineffective or at worst become manipulated by partisan political or corrupt forces, leading to the undermining of public confidence in voting processes. This in turn would result in the potential for lack of public acceptance of the validity of election-related decisions and outcomes. Application of the following principles to voting operations is fundamental to maintain the integrity of an election.
Accessibility
In order to exercise democratic rights through voting, opportunities to vote must be accessible to those with the right to vote. Accessibility affects almost all voting operations and can be the most difficult principle for the election management body to maximise in a cost-effective manner. Major issues to be considered in making voting operations accessible include:
- locating voting sites in areas where eligible voters can attend easily and freely;
- provision of special voting facilities for those who cannot attend the voting station(s) in their electoral district on voting day;
- determining the day and hours of voting, taking into account issues such as voters' work patterns;
- ensuring that voting materials and information on voting cater to the levels of literacy and language differences amongst the voting population;
- provision for assistance in voting to voters with physical incapacities or of lower literacy levels;
- determination of administrative and legal voting operations deadlines (for example for candidate nomination, challenges to administrative decisions or errors) that allow opportunity for public participation.
Equity
Equity demands that voting operations offer equal opportunities for participation to all eligible voters and, likewise, to all political participants. At the basic level it requires public, widely-accepted rules and procedures and accurate, consistent and reviewable application of these rules.
Equity encompasses aspects of accessibility by requiring feasible opportunities to vote and equality of treatment in voting for all eligible voters, regardless of their location, social status or abilities, while ensuring that any special needs of disadvantaged sectors of the voting population are met.
Equity encompasses aspects of transparency by requiring open and accountable decision-making by election management bodies or others in charge of voting operations.
In relation to the role of political participants, the concept of equity requires equal access for all to facilities for observing/monitoring voting operations processes and rights of challenge to these.
Within the management of voting operations functions, equity also requires equality of opportunity in awarding contracts for supplies or services and in recruitment and staffing practices that pay special attention to the needs of women, minority groups and the culturally disadvantaged.
Security
Security of voting operations, on a safety level, needs to guarantee that all eligible voters can participate in voting, and vote according to their own choice, without fear of harm or intimidation. Political participants need similar guarantees that they may freely publicise their programs in safety.
There is an equally important but different aspect to voting operations security, namely, ensuring that the ballots that are counted after the close of voting and the election results determined from these are a true and accurate reflection of the choices made by eligible voters when casting their vote. Thus security must equally address measures to prevent theft, unauthorised destruction, tampering and manipulation in relation to election materials, systems and procedures, the addition of bogus election data or material, and fraudulent attempts to vote.
Transparency
Transparency of actions and decisions is a vital component for maintaining public confidence in the equity and integrity of voting operations. In general it requires that voting operations-related documents are publicly accessible and that all political or administrative decisions relating to voting operations are publicly available and subject to challenge and independent review.
Transparency in voting operations also demands recognition of the special role of political participants and independent observers, by providing them with equal access to observe and challenge voting processes, particularly in voting stations, but also for other voting operations functions where discretionary decisions may be made or actions defined in law or procedures must be implemented.
Professionalism and Public Service
Professionalism in voting operations ensures the effective provision of services to voters and political participants. Whether subject to a formal administrative code of conduct or not, staff involved in voting operations must be:
- actively non-partisan
- courteous
- effective in decision-making and use of resources
- careful and accurate in their handling of election materials
- cognisant of the rights of voters and political participants
- alert to the needs of minority or disadvantaged sectors of the voting population
- responsible regarding security and voting secrecy
- striving to improve their performance
The expectation of professionalism brings with it a responsibility on the executives and supervisors in electoral management bodies to provide all staff with the training necessary for them to provide voting operations services in a professional manner.
The requirement for professionalism does not merely apply to staff of the electoral management bodies. Other organisations participating in voting operations, such as security forces, civic organisations, contractors, independent observation groups and political participants, all have an equal obligation to ensure that their staff and representatives fulfil their duties in a professional manner.
Accountability
As decisions and actions on voting operations issues affect the exercise of basic rights of the population, it is important that these are made within a clear framework of accountability. This is equally important for the lowliest of polling officials as for the most senior managers in the electoral management body. This framework should
- define each task as the personal responsibility of particular staff;
- ensure that staff know the boundaries of their own and others' decision-making powers;
- provide mechanisms for resolution of disputes;
- provide clear and comprehensive guidelines and procedures for voting operations processes and dispute resolution.
As with professionalism, staff will need training in accountability issues.
Without some form of control mechanism, accountability may wither. Ensuring that all decisions and actions taken leave audit trails and maintaining an active audit presence provides a necessary protection. Open and transparent public processes for challenging electoral management body decisions and actions will also assist, as will regular, independent and public reviews of voting operations objectives and performance.
Secrecy of Voting
Preservation of the secrecy, or confidentiality, of voting is a fundamental guarantee that voters are able to make their own choice between competing political interests, without gaining any advantage and without any fear of retribution. Maintaining voting secrecy is a fundamental aspect of
- the layout and voting facilities provided in voting stations
- ballot and election form design
- the conduct expected of polling officials and the roles they and other authorised persons representing political participants and state authorities may play within the voting station
- procedures for assisted voting
Special attention should be given to secrecy when designing materials and procedures that deals with special forms of voting--by mail, in advance, by proxy, in another electoral district or country--where the voter's ballot may need to be accompanied by documentation identifying the voter and confirming his or her right to vote in that election. Secrecy must also be borne in mind when determining whether ballots cast at voting stations catering to distinctive communities or very small populations should be counted at those voting stations or despatched elsewhere for amalgamation with those from other voting stations before counting.
Sustainability
Elections are not, hopefully, one time events. In determining appropriate processes, systems and procedures for voting operations, the possibility of continuing to provide these services to voters at equal or higher levels must be thoroughly assessed. This is particularly true of voting operations functions that may attract international funding for a particular election. It is not just a matter of costs, though affordability is highly important. These issues include
- skills availability for future maintenance and operation of equipment and systems;
- developing dependencies on external suppliers and technical assistance;
- potential alternative or continuous uses of skills and equipment acquired for voting operations purposes;
- economic distortions that may result from a massive influx of voting operations funding.
In all cases, voting operations processes will only be sustainable if they are appropriate for the particular environment of the country. Where international funding assistance is provided for voting operations, it provides more sustainable activity when it is used largely for skills transfer to the local population, such as
- technical assistance that advises and mentors local staff, rather than takes responsibility for complete tasks;
- provision for equipment and training that enhances local production facilities, rather than import of material.
Readiness
Voting operations requires the mobilisation of large quantities of resources and the implementation of a vast range of systems within a very short time period and to an immutable deadline. This cannot be achieved without professional planning of all aspects of voting operations and enforcing the delivery of supplies and services with strict schedules. Planning should also ensure that new systems and procedures are introduced only within time frames that allow them to consistently meet operational quality standards prior to the announcement of an election.
In electoral systems with fixed election dates, readiness planning can be more certain. In those with less determined election dates, a constant background state of readiness is required.
A lack of voting operations readiness--poorly or untrained polling staff, unavailable or poor quality materials and equipment, no identification of suitable voting sites, untested communications and electronic systems, poor logistics planning--will threaten election validity.
Governments and other state authorities need equally to be aware of the effects that a lack of readiness can have on the integrity of voting operations. Changes imposed by legislation or administrative reorganisation close to the election, and particularly constant changes to election legislation or rules in the weeks leading up to voting day, can throw an already hectic process into a state of chaos. Election administrators must then attempt to reorganise activities such as materials supply, staffing levels, training content and schedules within time frames generally barely sufficient for the originally planned process. This has potentially grave effects on the quality of the product. It is sensible for both governments and election administrations to negotiate a cut-off date, after which legal and administrative frameworks of the election will be static through voting day.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness is a principle that may seem to compete with the above principles; cost considerations may mean that ideal solutions for implementing them may not be possible. But there are two very good reasons that cost-effectiveness should be one of voting operations' guiding principles. Managing voting operations is about achieving the optimal mix of services within the generally finite funds available. Ineffective use of resources in attempting to achieve particular voting operations objectives will reduce the potential to achieve other objectives. And executive government or public perceptions of inefficient or ineffective use of resources for voting operations can lead to questioning whether it is worth attempting to achieve some or all of the objectives above.
