A Framework for the Study of Election Management Quality Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Denmark, Conference on the ”Measuring Democracy”-project Boston, May 2009

The Electoral Process

The Elklit/Reynolds Framework for Assessing Election and Election Management Quality (Democatization, 2005; IPU, 2005): 54 different indicators are used to assess performance quality in the 11 steps of the electoral process by a panel of domestic and foreign expert assessors. 54 different indicators are used to assess performance quality in the 11 steps of the electoral process by a panel of domestic and foreign expert assessors. Measurement results for each step is weighted according to perceived importance for established and fledgling democracies, respectively Measurement results for each step is weighted according to perceived importance for established and fledgling democracies, respectively Results are published, so that they can be scrutinized and discussed by others (for transparency’s sake and to reduce measurement errors) Results are published, so that they can be scrutinized and discussed by others (for transparency’s sake and to reduce measurement errors) Mistakes are corrected and results re-calculated before final publication Mistakes are corrected and results re-calculated before final publication

26 November November November 2015

1. Legal framework Performance indicators How to measure? GHA 2008 KEN 2007 LES 2007 ZIM Consolidated legal foundation easily available? Expert panel assessments Comprehensive electoral timetable available? Do Elections held without extra-legislative delay? Do Can the electoral legislation be implemented? Do Electoral framework generally cons. legitimate? Do + possibly surveys 3231 Intermediary step scores

2. Electoral management Performance indicators How to measure? GHA 2008 KEN 2007 LES 2007 Zim Perceived degree of EMB legitimacy? Polling evidence for perceptions Perceived degree of EMB impartiality? Expert panel for de jure and de facto analysis Perceived degree of quality in EMB service delivery? Stakeholder surveys Perceived degree of EBM transparency? Do2210 Intermediary step scores

3. Constituency and polling district demarcation Performance indicators How to measure? GHA 2008 KEN 2007 LES 2007 Zim Constituency structure reasonable and broadly accepted? Expert panel + stakeholder surveys Information about constitu- encies and lower level districts (demarcation, sizes, seats) easily available? do Fair system, for boundary delimitation and seat allocation in place? do2032 Intermediary step scores

4. Voter education Performance indicators How to measure? GHA 2008 KEN 2007 LES 2007 Zim Voter education to voters in need of education? ”In need” is operationalized as first time voters ”At risk” groups with needs identified and needs addressed? ”At risk” is historically marginalized groups Percentage of ballots valid? Outreach assessed through surveys Turnout among first time voters, in terms of VAP? Register and polling data 2212 Intermediary step scores

26 November November November 2015

9. Counting and tabulating the vote Performance indicators How to measure? GHA 2008 KEN 2007 LES 2007 Zim Is the count conducted with integrity and accuracy? Expert panel assessments + obs. reports Is the tabulation trans- parent, reflecting accurately the polling booth count? Do Are the results easily available to interested members of the public? Do Does counting take place with no undue delay? Do Parties and candidates allowed to obs. the count? Do + possibly surveys 3330 Intermediary step scores

Is it OK to allocate different weigths to different steps? And to do it differently to different categories of political regimes? 3: Essential factors (necessary?) 2. Important factors 1. Desirable factors

Thank your for your attention (– and patience)!