Appropriateness for Environment
It is most important that voting operations processes and the electoral system they serve are appropriate for the social and political background. Effective processes will be specific to the given environment. Migrating procedures, systems or practices that work in one country to another environment with insufficient analysis of their relevance to or impact on the social environment or their acceptance by local populations is inviting ineffective operations. It is critical that voting operations processes
- include sufficient control measures for voters and candidates to be assured of the integrity of the election;
- are capable of being understood by all election participants;
- are appropriate for the human skills and technological capacities available.
Physical and social geography conditions, including transport infrastructure, weather, accessibility, size of geographic area, population size and distribution, and skill levels of human resources available, all will have a large influence on appropriate methods for implementing voting processes.
(For further specific aspects of the social and political context, see Participation History, Human Rights and International Intervention.)
Security
Security levels provided both to voters and voting materials will be related to the risks involved. Each environment needs to be subject to security risk analysis to determine appropriate security strategies. For example, in many environments, adequate security can be provided by polling officials and other election staff, without the need for involvement of police or military services. In these cases, excessive security measures can be an extravagant expenditure and may antagonise voters.
On the other hand, in societies where political disputes may lead to violence or manipulation of voting, intensive security measures, involving armed security forces to protect and deter, will be necessary. In any social context, the level of security provided has to be sufficient to convince the population that it is safe for them to vote and that voting materials are safe from manipulation. It is the perception, as much as the actuality, that is relevant.
Fraud Prevention
The intensity of legislative provisions and procedures required for the prevention of election fraud will be related to the political environment, particularly the history of political participants' acceptance of transfers of power and of the current risks of manipulation of voting processes. Appropriate methods for preventing fraud will vary according to the risks in each political environment and the levels of trust in the society at large. More intensive, costly and cumbersome measures will generally need to be taken to ensure election integrity in societies emerging from civil conflict. At the very least, the election authorities should:
- ensure the integrity of ballots, which could range from a polling official's notation on the reverse of the ballot to the use of special papers and security printing methods;
- check voters eligibility to vote when they attend a voting station, which could range from oral statements by voters, to requiring documentary proof of eligibility, to marking voters with special ink;
- protect election materials in general from theft or manipulation, which could range from reliance on normal building security and police response to armed military guards.
Literacy
Literacy levels need to be considered when developing materials, information programs and recruitment and training processes for staff. Where literacy rates in general are low
- procedures and systems used will need to be kept as simple as possible;
- materials to be used by voters cannot rely on written text and, in particular, the use of party symbols or photographs of candidates on ballot papers may be needed to assist voters in choosing correctly their preferred candidate or party;
- voter information campaigns will need to be oriented toward personal contact and use of pictorial images in materials;
- staff recruitment standards may need to be relaxed to ensure that polling officials are not drawn solely from the educated elite;
- staff training materials and methods cannot effectively rely on text-based manuals, but rather on speech, practical simulation exercises and simple pictorial representations of duties.
Even where literacy rates in general are high, non-literate voters will depend on special provisions for information and assistance in voting.
Cultural Differences
Voting operations may be simpler to implement in broadly homogeneous societies with a single standard language and common cultural expectations. Where societies contain a mixture of nationalities, cultures and particularly language groups, providing a consistent level of service to all voters can become more complex. Factors that will need to be taken into account in developing materials, procedures and providing services will include:
Information services and materials in different community languages. In environments where there are large proportions of the population with different native languages, to enhance participation, consideration will need to be given to printing voting materials in more than one language. This can be particularly relevant where different regions of a country are dominated by different language groups.
Care will need to be taken that voting alternatives are available for cultural groups for whom the normal voting locations or times may conflict with their cultural values, such as their religious obligations.
Ensure that staff recruitment, particularly for voting stations, reflects the cultural diversity of local areas. Voters' comfort levels and willingness to participate can be enhanced by ensuring that their communities are involved in the administration of the election.
Address cultural expectations when developing voter information materials and delivery methods.
Ensure that procedures and the actions of polling officials and other staff do not infringe the norms of participating cultural groups. This will often be relevant when conducting voting in areas populated by more traditional communities.
Information Base
Voting operations is an information-intensive activity. In societies where administrative records of past electoral activities are not available, or not of good quality, it will be more challenging to target services appropriately and deliver cost-effective voting processes.
Expectations
Different societies will have different general levels of expectation of the levels of service and range of voting facilities to be provided. These will often be related to the level of development of the society, the level of trust in institutional processes, and personal mobility. Such expectations include acceptable levels in the following examples and where there will be marked differences between societies:
- convenience of voting times and locations and methods of voting available;
- the intensity of voter eligibility checking;
- the method of voting;
- the use of technology in voting processes;
- the levels of service provided, such as expeditious processing of voters.
Different emphases in societal expectations will require decisions on priorities in voting processes, such as:
- providing accessibility in voting locations and methods as opposed to the cost of providing additional facilities and possible delays to election outcomes resulting from more complex systems;
- ease of voting procedures as opposed to the strictness of integrity controls;
- provision of high-technology solutions as opposed to the additional management complexity and controls required;
- provision of basic, serviceable materials and equipment as opposed to the additional costs of image-conscious design.
Post-Conflict Environments
There will be a number of special considerations in post-conflict environments. Measures to protect the integrity of voting will generally need to be more intensive to ensure that the public has faith in the transparency, reliability and security of all processes associated with voting.
Close protection of voters and of election materials may be advisable, through the use of armed military or police guards at voting stations and even armed military or police protection for voters and materials on their way to and from voting stations. Conversely, post-conflict situations will often be ones where significant sectors of the population have little trust in the integrity of the military or police. In such situations, measures to ensure the transparency of military and police activities will be required to ensure that their election-related actions are continuously under civilian scrutiny and that there are viable disciplinary procedures available for transgressions of integrity requirements.
There are other organisational issues affecting voting operations that may be relevant. The election legal and procedural framework in post-conflict and other transitional environments may still be in a fluid state during the election period and subject to continuing negotiation between political interests. Development of contingency plans to meet potential framework changes becomes a highly important part of voting operations planning in such environments.
In post-conflict environments, voting populations may also be suffering from the stress of recent conflict. Effects of post-traumatic stress on participation attitudes, information retention levels and attention spans may need to be taken into account in the planning of voter information campaigns and in the structuring of staff training methods.
