Determining Factors
Effectively calculating the number of staff required in voting stations is essential for both providing quality service to voters and controlling voting operations costs. Overall, the number of staff required will be directly related to the number of registered voters that have to be serviced. However, the actual staffing levels required in each voting station will be directly related to a number of other factors as well, such as:
- the range of services to be provided, both in terms of voting facilities required by the legal framework and additional services provided to assist voters;
- the complexity of the voting procedures;
- the physical layout of the voting station;
- how familiar and experienced voters are with the voting procedures;
- the number of hours during which voting will take place;
- whether a single election or multiple simultaneous elections are being held;
- the service standards for voter processing that have been set by the electoral management body.
There are also more localised factors that may affect staffing levels in specific voting stations, such as:
- the characteristics of the local voting population, particularly in terms of age and literacy in the official language to be used for voting;
- local conditions that may exacerbate peak periods of voter attendance and thus require additional staff to ensure service standards are met throughout voting day.
Effective Staffing Levels
Given that there will be wide variations in these factors, an ideal staffing level applicable to all environments and ensuring that all the functional responsibilities in a voting station are effectively implemented (see Staff Categories and Duties) is not possible to determine.
However, there are some general principles for determining staffing levels that can be applied. The foremost of these is in establishing a standard staffing model for voting stations at a particular election. The manner in which this is done will depend on the way in which voting sites are determined (see Locations of Voting Sites). In broad terms, there are two basic methods for doing this:
1. By dividing electoral districts into voting station areas containing approximately equal numbers of voters, one staffing model may be developed that is appropriate for all voting stations. This implies the formulation, either through regulation or preferably by administrative direction, of a standard voting station size. In some circumstances, particularly where accessibility needs to be preserved for rural residents or there are large differences in literacy levels between rural and urban residents, there may need to be two different models for rural and urban electoral districts. In any case, this model is relatively simple to implement since it provides a single or very limited number of standard staffing requirements for voting stations.
2. A more flexible policy on how many voters will be accommodated at each voting station may be determined by efficiencies that can be gained from local circumstances (e.g., size of premises available, experience of staff). Then, staffing is determined on the basis of a sliding scale directly related to the number of voters expected at each voting station. While there can be efficiencies derived from this method, it is most viable in sophisticated electoral management systems with access to computers and relevant software to determine staff allocations for each voting station.
Flexibility
On whatever basis standard staffing for a voting station is determined, some managerial flexibility to adapt staff numbers to local circumstances is necessary. This is as useful where additional staff are required to provide an acceptable service level (e.g., in areas with high proportions of aged residents or low literacy levels or where voter traffic may be slower and information needs greater) as it is for circumstances where standard staffing is excessive and cost efficiencies can be achieved without affecting service.
However, such flexibility should be treated on an exception basis and require approval from senior electoral management body officials to ensure consistency of service and avoid both wasteful additional staffing and emphasis on economy over effective service by local officials.
Staffing to Meet Specific Election Needs
The following table5 shows how widely standard staffing varies between jurisdictions and how dependent it is on the specific election environment, particularly in terms of voting procedures and voters' familiarity with these, and the availability of experienced staff. The examples for Australia and South Africa have the following characteristics:
Both deal with similar numbers of voters in the voting station.
Both are for elections in which voters had to complete two ballot papers--by a single mark in the South African case, and in the Australian case by a choice of a single preference mark or exhaustive preferential numbering on one of the ballot papers and again exhaustive preferential numbering on the other.
Voter identity checks were more rigorous for the South African example, involving production of identity cards and in some cases marking with ink. In the Australian case, voters were simply asked to declare that their claimed identity and address were correct and that they had not previously voted in the election.
In the Australian example, where both voters and officials were experienced in the voting procedures, voters could vote at any voting station in their electoral district, and bank-style queuing was used in which voters were directed to the first available ballot issuing officer in the voting station (see Crowd and Queue Control).
In the South African example, voters and officials were not experienced in the voting procedures used. Most had little experience with voting. Voters were assigned to a single specific voting station, and voters lists were generally split between two, eligibility checking and materials issuing tables divided alphabetically (i.e., A-M, N-Z).
| VOTING STATION STAFFING PROFILES |
| |
SOUTH AFRICA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS 1995 |
AUSTRALIA FEDERAL ELECTION 1996 |
| Method of Determining Staffing |
Standard staffing up to a maximum voter registration of :
| Urban areas (literate voters) | 2500 |
| Urban areas(less literate voters) | 1250 |
| Rural areas | 750 |
|
Flexible according to number of voters |
| Possible adjustments |
Decrease in officials on approval of Premier where small numbers of voters expected
Increase in numbers of voters to
| Urban areas (literate voters) | 4000 |
| Urban areas(less literate voters) | 2500 |
on approval of Premier
|
Adjustments can be made for local circumstances |
| Number of hours voting open |
15 |
10 |
| Expected voter turnout for this example |
Maximum voter turnout in:
| Urban areas (literate voters) | 2500 |
| Urban areas(less literate voters) | 1250 |
| Rural areas | 750 |
|
2500 | 1250 | 750 |
| |
| STAFFING CATEGORY |
NUMBER OF STAFF |
| Voting Station Manager |
1 |
1 | 1 | 1 |
| Deputy Voting Station Manager |
1 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| Entrance Control /Queue Control Officers |
2 |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| Exit Control Officer |
1 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| Voter's Register Checking Officer |
2 |
| | |
| Individual Constituency Ballot Issuing Officer |
2 |
*5 | *3 | *2 |
| Proportional Representation Ballot Issuing Officer |
2 |
| | |
| Voting Compartment Monitor |
2 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ballot Box Guard |
2 |
1 | 1 | 1 |
| |
|
| | |
| TOTAL STAFF |
15 |
8 | 6 | 4 |
| * The same official both checks voter eligibility and issues both ballots to the voter. |
As can be seen from the table, with experienced voters and polling officials, by combining polling official functions and simplifying voting procedures, significant efficiencies can be gained in staffing costs.
Enhancing Efficiency
Areas where efficiencies can be examined in terms of staffing profiles and numbers for the expected numbers of voters and traffic flow throughout voting day include:
- whether queue control and entry control functions can be handled by the same officials(s), or, in very small voting stations, left with the voting station manager;
- whether voter eligibility checking and voting material issue functions can be streamlined so that the same official performs both functions;
- what the most effective mix of staff is for dealing with voters after they are issued a ballot.
Are separate officials for monitoring voting compartments, guarding ballot boxes, and controlling exits really required? In many instances, for example, service to voters may be poor not because of deficiencies in staffing in this area, but because insufficient voting compartments have been allocated to the voting station.
Depending on the election environment, and the legal framework, significant efficiencies may not be available. However, these issues need to be considered in determining cost-effective staffing levels. A key issue in calculating staffing levels required is the rate at which staff can be expected to check voter eligibility and issue ballot material accurately.
This in turn will depend on such factors as the procedures adopted for voter eligibility checking and the amount and type of voting material to be issued. Analysis of such tasks should be augmented by an examination of peak voting periods and their effect on voter service. Staff may be expected to work to output targets, but unfortunately voters do not arrive in a steady stream.
Voting Material Issue Rates
In efficient systems (with accurate voters lists, well-trained staff, and adequate voting station facilities) a single polling official responsible for both checking voter eligibility and issuing ballot material should be able to comfortably process sixty voters per hour. Where the functions of checking voter eligibility and issuing ballot materials are assigned to separate officials, this rate could be one third to one half higher, but at double the cost.
However, processing rates of up to forty voters per hour are more likely where:
- there are difficulties in using voters lists (e.g., where they contain a large number of names, with inaccuracies, or more than one list has to be examined);
- staff are inexperienced or not well trained;
- voters are unfamiliar with the voting system and need considerable guidance or large numbers of voters need language assistance;
- additional recording tasks are required of staff issuing voting materials (see Issue and Casting of Ballots).
When voters are required to provide personal information for eligibility--such as for some methods of absentee voting, provisional or tendered votes, or voting following a written declaration of eligibility--achievable processing rates would be unlikely to be much above twenty voters per hour.
Trial of Staff Schedules
It is highly advisable that when standard staffing level requirements are introduced or amended that they be tested before introduction for a general election. There may be opportunity to do this at a partial election (by-election). With or without such opportunity, test runs using a sample of voters should be organised to ensure that:
- processing rates for voters underpinning the standard staffing allocations can be achieved without undue stress on staff or adverse effects on voter service and election integrity;
- the calculations of required staff are sufficient both in terms of overall numbers in a voting station and the numbers of staff assigned to specific functions.
Standard voting station staffing can greatly aid the cost-effectiveness of voting operations. It is worth some expense and time to test them thoroughly and then adjust them on the basis of test experience. To have insufficient staff allocated to voting stations can seriously threaten election integrity.
