Introduction This Focus on provides a global overview of electoral laws and regulations around the world. It focuses on nine aspects: legal framework, electoral management, boundary delimitation, voter registration, political parties and candidates, media, voting operations, vote counting and voter education. By employing a global comparative perspective the authors strive to identify common legal practices as well as the underlying causes of these practices. Authors: André Blais and Agnieszka Dobrzynska The present report examines the laws that govern the conduct of elections around the world. The purpose is to indicate what kind of regulations are most and least frequent and to point out some factors that seem to be related to the adoption or non adoption of these rules. Electoral laws matter. They define what parties, citizens, groups, and the media are allowed or not allowed to do or not to do, during the election campaign (or, sometime, even before) and on Election Day, and they provide strategic incentives for the actors to behave in certain ways (“Establishing the Rules of the Game: Election Laws in Democracies”, Massicotte, Blais and Yoshinaka 2004; “Making Votes Count”, Cox 1997). It is impossible to make sense of how electoral democracy functions if we do not know or understand the rules of the game. Few people would challenge the idea that democracy requires free elections. There is much less consensus, however, when it comes to explicating what “free elections” really mean, and even more debate when it comes to specifying which rules should be enacted to ensure that an election be really “free”. This is so in good part because there are many conceptions of democracy, each of which having distinct implications about what kind of legislation should be adopted (“Democracy and Elections”, Katz 1997). Click here for the next chapter Objectives. Objectives The first objective of this study is thus to document the amazing variety of electoral laws that have been adopted in the world, while pointing out, whenever appropriate, the most popular practices that can be observed. The second objective is to explore some of the factors that seem to be associated with the presence or absence of various rules. We examine four such factors: region, economic development, degree of democracy, and colonial heritage. We determine the extent to which the presence or absence of a given electoral rule is associated with the region (continent) the country belongs to, its relative wealth, the strength of political rights, and its colonial heritage. We hope that this study will contribute to a better understanding of the rules that govern the counduct of elections around the world and will provide useful information to organizations involved in the process of reviewing the legal framework under which the electoral game is being played in a given country. Click here for the next chapter Methodology Methodology In all our analyses, the dependent variable is the presence or absence of a given electoral law and the independent variables are region, economic development, degree of democracy, and cultural heritage. Our universe consists of the 237 countries and territories listed in the Comparative Data set that provides a systematic collection of how countries manage their elections (being accessed on the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network). It covers the field of electoral administration around the world including older election administrations (Europe and Latin America), newer (Eastern Europe, Pacific, some places in Africa, Middle East) and those who start from scratch (as Afghanistan or Iraq). Related territories are included in that collection; it should be noted however that there is a lot of missing data about them. We provide information about the rules according to which elections take place in both tiny and huge territories, poor and rich, free and unfree environments. We have selected nine aspects of electoral legislation which seemed to be interesting and important and about which sufficient information was available. The nine factors are : 1. Legal Framework 2. Electroal Management 3. Boundary Delimitation 4. Voter Registration 5. Parties and Candidates 6. Media and Elections 7. Voting Operations 8. Vote Counting 9. Voter Education We start with the legal framework which defines the parameters of electoral legislation; we then turn to the issue of the electoral management body, the boundary delimitation, the voter registration process, the rules concerning the parties, the candidates, and the media, the casting and the counting of the votes. And we end with the question of voter education. In each domain we identify three or four specific issues, and we examine the laws that have been adopted to deal with these issues. On each dimension, we first document the variety of electoral laws while identifying the most popular practices. We then determine whether the propensity to adopt or not to adopt a given rule depends on the region, the country’s wealth, its degree of democracy, and its colonial heritage. Our starting point is geography. We have retained the six regions according to the classification used by the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network: Africa, Americas, Asia, Middle East, Pacific, and Europe. We determine whether some rules appear to be more popular in some regions than in others. When such differences occur, and they do occur rather frequently, we are not in a position to specify why it is so. This could be because of cultural, economic or political differences between these regions. Deeper analysis would be required to flesh out the meaning of these regional variations. Regional differences are inherently interesting, and this is why we systematically start with a simple description of patterns across the continents. As noted above, the exact meaning of these differences is ambiguous, and this is why we analyze them separately from the other factors. To the extent, however, that these regional variations do not seem to be related to the economic or political factors that are also considered, we are inclined to suppose that they reflect the impact of the culture and/or the social networks that link the political elites within a given region. We offer these conjectures, but they should be treated cautiously. Finally, we should point out that the number of observations for the Middle East (14 at the maximum, often less than 10 because of missing data) is quite small, and that generalizations concerning that region should be taken with extra caution. After an examination of geographical variations, we look at the potential role of three factors that could affect the nature of electoral laws: the level of economic development, the degree of democracy, and colonial heritage. The first factor is the economy. The indicator is GDP per capita in 2002 US dollar power purchasing party. The source is the cross-national comparative data The Quality of Government Dataset (version 2008) by Jan Teorell, Sören Holmberg and Bo Rothstein. We have data on 174 countries; the range is from 520 to 61,190, with a mean of 9087 and a standard deviation of 9925. Since Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading scholar of democracy, who wrote in 1959 a pioneer work on Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, a vast literature has established that economic development is a strong antecedent of democratization, and it is thus “natural” to verify whether electoral laws are systematically different in rich and poor countries. The second factor is the degree of democracy. We use the political rights scores given each year by Freedom House. These scores range from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). We use the mean score obtained between 2001 and 2006. These scores have been standardized so that the minimum equals 0 for those 13 countries that got the worst score of 7 every year and 1 for those 55 countries which were given the best score of 1 every year. Strong democracies constitute 29% of the cases for which we have information. Our objective is to determine whether democracies conduct elections differently from non democratic or authoritarian countries. One may wonder whether it is the degree of democracy that leads to the adoption of a given electoral law or the reverse. It must be acknowledged that causation may run both ways. On the one hand, a country that has become “democratic” would be inclined to modify its electoral laws in some direction. On the other hand, a country that has adopted a given set of rules would be more likely to be construed as “democratic” by the international experts who rate political rights across the world. While both causal directions are possible, we believe that casuality runs mainly from degree of democracy to the adoption of specific laws. Our belief is based on the assumption that experts evaluate the extent of political rights first and foremost on the basis of concrete indicators of freedom of speech and the observed degree of competition than on the text of the laws. The third factor to be considered is colonial heritage. We distinguish former French (27 countries), Spanish (19 countries), and British (66 countries) colonies. In their analysis of election laws in 63 contemporary democracies (“Establishing the Rules of the Game: Election Laws in Democracies” 2004), Massicotte, Blais and Yoshinaka found that former colonies tend to adopt the same electoral rules as their earlier mother country, and we wish to establish whether this pattern holds more generally. Given the exploratory nature of this research the statistical analyses have been kept as simple as possible. We have dichotomized the dependent variables, and so we have simply distinguished those countries that did or did not adopt a given rule. For each rule, we provide two pieces of information. We first show the bivariate correlation between regions and the existence or absence of a rule. We then indicate in a summary table whether the presence or absence of a rule is significantly related or not to level of economic development, degree of democracy, and colonial heritage. We have performed multivariate analyses including these three factors and the summary tables tell whether there is a statistically significant correlation. We should mention at the outset that the correlations between our independent variables are generally modest. The strongest correlation (.66) reflects the fact that an overwhelming majority of former Spanish colonies are located on the American continent, and as a consequence it is sometime difficult to distinguish the effects of these two factors. All other correlations are under .5, except that between Europe and GDP per capita, which is exactly .50. The findings we report and the interpretations that we suggest are necessarily tentative. We are conscious of the fact that some of the information is incomplete and in some cases (we hope only seldom) perhaps even inaccurate, given the time span from the last validation of the data (for some countries the data has been confirmed only in 2001, for others it has been validated more recently). We examine a limited number of factors that may “explain” why certain rules are adopted in some countries and not in others and we test basic models. Our work is merely suggestive, and our hope is that it will trigger further and more elaborate analyses. Despite all these limitations, we believe that it is fruitful to get some sense of different electoral laws that prevail in the world, to take stock of the amazing variation that exists, and to point out the factors that seem to be related to these variations. Click here for the next chapter Legal Framework Legal Framework In this section we examine the broad legal framework under which electoral laws function. The first issue is whether election laws are part of the constitution or not. The argument for having them in the constitution is that they are given higher status, as symbols of the contract that ties members of the community towards each other and between the people and their representatives. The argument for not putting them into the constitution is to obtain greater flexibility, as it is easier to amend simple laws than the constitution itself. It turns out that most of the time, that is, in 60% of the countries about which information is available elections laws, or at least some of them, are incorporated into the constitution. There are substantial regional variations, as they are part of the constitution in 80% of the countries in Europe and the Pacific, but only in a minority of the cases in the Americas and the Middle East. The propensity to include electoral laws into the constitution is not related to the degree of democracy or level of development. We do observe, however, that former French and Spanish colonies are less prone to incorporate election laws into the constitution. The second question is whether the national electoral law covers only national elections (and referenda) or applies to regional or local elections as well. In two thirds of the countries (65%), the electoral law has a broader reach and is not confined to national elections. This is particularly so in Africa, which is the most “centralized” continent. In contrast, a majority of the countries in the Middle East and Pacific have electoral laws that apply exclusively to the central level. The only factor (other than region) that seems to be correlated with degree of centralization is colonial legacy; former British colonies tend to have more decentralized legislation. The third aspect to be considered here is whether voting at the national level is voluntary or compulsory. Voting is compulsory in 25 countries, representing 12% of the total countries. The region where compulsory voting is most popular is clearly the Americas, where one quarter of the countries (26%) has adopted such legislation. In contrast it is in Africa that governments have been the most reluctant to force their electorates to go to the polls (only two countries, Central African Republic and Rwanda, have compulsory voting). The propensity to adopt compulsory voting appears to be unrelated to any obvious characteristic, except being a former Spanish colony, which is of course strongly correlated with being in the Americas. The final issue concerns the interpretation of the electoral law, and the question here is whether the ordinary courts are entirely responsible for (first level) electoral disputes or whether the electoral management body or some special electoral tribunal can also be involved. Two thirds of the countries (69%) have found it useful to grant at least some authority to specialized agencies or tribunals. In this case, regional variations tend to be muted but we observe that former French and British colonies are more likely to have bestowed some power to special tribunals or quasi-tribunals. Former French colonies appear to have followed the practice established in the “mother” country but the same explanation does not hold in the case of former British colonies since Britain does not have special tribunals. In this section we observed that: The dominant pattern is for the electoral law to be part of the constitution, to apply to local or regional elections as well, to be interpreted at least at the first level by specialized courts, and for voting to be voluntary. Except in the latter case, however, these tendencies are relatively weak, and many countries proceed differently. The choices that are made with respect to the broad legal framework are unrelated to the degree of democracy or level of economic development. The only factor that seems to have some impact is colonial heritage. The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on legal framework LEGAL FRAMEWORK Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Part of the constitution - less likely - less likely - Broad coverage of elections - less likely - - Compulsory voting - - - more likely - Special organs in charge of electoral disputes - more likely more likely - - Electoral Management We start with the financial autonomy of the electoral management body, more specifically whether the legislature determines its budget and/or control its expenditures. It could be argued that electoral management bodies need financial autonomy from legislatures in order to maintain their full independence from the parties and government. As a matter of fact, the legislature votes the budget to be allocated to these agencies in two thirds (69%) of the cases but it actually scrutinizes their spending in only one third (34%) of all the countries. There is thus more autonomy in the concrete operational side than at the planning stage. Surprisingly it is in Europe that financial autonomy is weakest; the budget of the electoral management body is voted by the legislature in 36 (84%) of the 43 European countries where information is available, and expenditures are controlled by legislators in 20 countries (54%). There is only a weak relationship between the level of democracy and the degree of financial autonomy, and it applies only with respect to the control of expenditures. Many democratic countries do not find it necessary to bestow electoral agencies with full fiscal independence. But at the same time, legislatures in former French and British colonies are less prone to oversee the revenues and expenditures of electoral management bodies. There may be a tension between two “democratic” principles. On the one hand, all public organizations should be scrutinized by the representatives of the people; on the other hand, politicians should have no leverage on the organization that may determine their future. A second issue concerns the term of the members of the electoral management body. In most cases (51%) the members are nominated for a fixed term, sometimes (25%) the period is left unspecified, and there are 26 countries (14%) where they last only for one election (there are in addition 20 (11%) “other”, meaning until retirement, permanency, a minimum term defined, but also cases where the information is not detailed enough). We are particularly interested in those 26 countries where the members are nominated for only one election. The concern here is that the members may feel that they have to please the eventual winner in order to be renominated for the next election. There is the possibility that the members of such bodies will not feel completely independent. Indeed, the two regions where such rules prevail are precisely those where democracy is weaker, that is, Africa and the Middle East. And indeed there is a significant negative correlation between the degree of democracy and the presence of agencies in which the members are nominated for one single election (we also find a positive correlation with French colony). A final question is whether the national electoral body is in charge of all the elections that take place under the territory. This is the case most of the time. There are only 41 countries (23%) where the national agency takes care of only national elections, and leaves other institutions with the task of administering regional or provincial elections. Such specialization is particularly rare in Africa and more generally in poorer countries and is more popular among former British colonies. It is neither more nor less frequent in more democratic countries. It is striking to observe that: Many democracies have themselves shown relatively little concern for the full financial autonomy of these bodies, as is testified by the absence of any correlation between the degree of democracy and independence from legislative oversight of their budget. Democratic countries have been more consistent in avoiding the use of very short mandates for the members of these bodies. If there is any example setting here it could be the United Kingdom, since electoral agencies seem to enjoy greater independence in former British colonies. Electoral management graph The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on electoral management rules ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Budget determined by legislatures - less likely less likely - - Expenditures controlled by legislatures less likely in more democratic countries less likely less likely - - Members nominated for one election only less likely in more democratic countries more likely - - - In charge of national elections only - - more likely - more likely in wealthier countries Click here for the next chapter Boundary Delimitation Boundary Delimitation In most countries, elections are contested first and foremost in districts. One thorny issue is how these districts should be defined and by whom. We address three specific questions related to the boundary delimitation. The first question is whether the districts are designed specifically for election purposes or whether existing regional/provincial/administrative boundaries are used. It seems that it is the former in an overwhelming majority of cases; only 28% of the countries appear to utilize existing regions as the basis for the boundary delimitation. There is little geographical variation across the globe, and more democratic countries do not appear to be more or less inclined to rely on existing boundaries. Again colonial heritage seems to matter. Former British colonies seem to be more prone to design specific electoral districts while former French colonies tend to rely on existing boundaries. The second question concerns the criteria for drawing the boundaries. A plethora of criteria is utilized, such as respecting natural barriers or cultural communities, the compactness of constituencies, and conformity with local jurisdictions, as well as equality of population. We focus here on the importance attached to equality. For 25 (18%) out of 141 countries for which we have information, equality of population appears to be the sole consideration. These countries are spread across the continents and do not form any coherent pattern, and so we have little to say about the factors that may induce decision-makers to put more or less emphasis on equality of population as a principle The last issue is whether a neutral independent agency is responsible for the boundary delimitation. This would seem to be an important requirement in order to prevent the parties, and most especially the governing parties, to draw the electoral map to their own advantage. We find that in only 47% of the countries where information is available the authority to draw the boundaries is delegated to an independent body. Paradoxically, independent authorities are particularly infrequent in the continent where democracy is the most strongly established, that is, Europe. There is strikingly no relationship between the degree of democracy and the presence of an independent body in charge for drawing electoral boundaries. Finally, former British colonies are more prone to creating independent agencies. This section allows us to conclude that: There are little clear-cut patterns when it comes to the boundary delimitation. Perhaps the most telling result that we have is that more and less democratic countries do not diverge at all on these questions. The only significant trend that we observe is that former British colonies are more inclined to have independent agencies drawing specific electoral boundaries. ´ boundary delimitation graph The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on boundary delimitation BOUNDARY DELIMITATION Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Specifically designed districts - less likely more likely - - Equality of population criteria - - - - - Independent body in charge of boundary delimination - - more likely - - Click here for the next chapter Voter Registration Voter Registration In almost all cases, the citizen who wishes to vote must first make sure he/she is registered as an eligible voter. But what does it take to be registered? The most common eligibility criterion is age. The great majority (86%) of countries have selected 18 as the voting age. Five countries (3%) have even gone for a voting age of 16 (Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, Somalia), and in four additional cases (2%) it is 17 (Indonesia, North Korea, Sudan, Timor-Leste). We are more interested here in countries that have chosen a higher threshold, that is, 20 (8 countries or 4%: Cameroon, Japan, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Morocco, South Korea, Taiwan, Tunisia) or 21 (11 countries or 6%: Bahrain, Fiji, Gabon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Samoa, Singapore, Tonga). These are countries that have resisted the trend towards a lowering of the voting age. There are some striking regional variations in the voting age. Almost all countries in Africa, America, and Europe now have a voting age of 18 or less (for a sake of simplicity, we combined those two categories in our analysis, but it should be noted that there is a large agreement that the voting age should be 18 and not below). In contrast, exceptions are more frequent in Asia (7 countries out of 27 have 20 or 21) and the Middle East (three countries out of nine). Former French and British colonies, as well as richer and less democratic countries, are more prone to be among the less “liberal” exceptions. The other qualifications that are often necessary to get registered are citizenship (or naturalization), citizenship of parents, and residence. We focus on those cases where citizenship (or naturalization) is the sole requirement. Those countries represent almost half of total cases (44%). This practice is widespread in Europe (77% of the cases), but is quite rare in Americas, Middle East and the Pacific, as well as among former French, Spanish, and British colonies. This suggests that culture and history inherent to this region play an important role in the definition of what is deemed to be necessary (besides age) in order to have the right to vote. There is then the issue of who is responsible for the registration of voters. Perhaps the most logical solution is to endow the electoral management body with this task. This is indeed the most popular option, chosen in 57% of the countries (the second most frequent is local authorities and the third a central government department). There is a huge exception; in Europe only 18% of the countries have gone with the electoral management body. Furthermore, the electoral board approach is most often utilized in more democratic but poorer countries as well as in former Spanish and British colonies. The reasons for these patterns are not altogether clear. But these findings suggest that these apparently technical matters are dealt with quite differently in different regions and cultures. The last question to be considered is whether registration is voluntary or compulsory. It is compulsory in two thirds (64%) of the countries. Regional variations are not as huge in this case but there remain some substantial differences. Less than half of African countries and very few British colonies have compulsory registration, but more than four fifths (84%) of European countries do require their citizens to register. Voter registration rules vary immensely from one country to the other, and as a consequence there is no dominant pattern: Except for voting age at 18. It is perhaps in this domain that we observe the most substantial and intriguing regional and cultural variations. ”Registration is compulsory in 24% of the countries undertaken in this study.” ”Culture and history inherent play an important role in the definition of what is deemed to be necessary (besides age) in order to have the right to vote” VOTER REGISTRATION Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Voting age of 18 or less more likely in more democratic countries less likely less likely - less likely in wealthier countries Citizenship or naturalization qualifications - less likely less likely less likely - EMB in charge of voter registraion more likely in more democratic countries - more likely more likely less likely in wealthier countries Compulsory registraion - - less likely - - Click here for the next chapter Parties and Candidates Parties and Candidates An important set of measures which are part of the electoral legislation are specifically targeted at the parties and candidates. One question has to do with what is required for the parties running for national elections to be officially registered. In 40% of the countries one such requirement consists in a monetary deposit. This practice does not vary significantly across the continents; it is unrelated to the degree of democracy or economic development. The measure is somewhat more popular in former French colonies. A second aspect concerns the legal qualifications to become a candidate at legislative elections. A residence requirement is mandated in 40% of the cases and a literacy or education threshold is imposed in 17% of the countries. The residence qualification is found most often in the Americas while literacy tests are to be found mostly in Africa and the Middle East, and more generally in former British colonies. More democratic countries are less prone to screen out candidates on the basis of their “competence”, perhaps an indication that the democratic credo rejects explicitly excluding people on the basis of socio-demographic characteristics. A third set of issues concerns parties’ eligibility to receive public (direct or indirect) or private funding. The dominant pattern is clearly to allow both: public funding is permitted in 74% of the countries and private donations are legal in 85% of them. Public funding is almost universal in Europe (only one exception, Belarus), but relatively infrequent in the Middle East and Pacific. Bans on private funding seem to take place almost exclusively in less democratic countries while public funding tends to be exceptional in former British colonies. We finally examined whether independent candidates are allowed to compete in legislative elections. The answer is “Yes” in 80% of the countries. Such is the dominant pattern in all regions of the world and knows of only few exceptions in former British colonies (Guyana, Israel, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa). There seem to be a certain number of norms that are respected in most countries with respect to the regulation of parties and candidates: One such norm is that there should be no education or literacy requirement for candidates, and that norm is particularly strong in more democratic countries. The second norm is that independent candidates should be allowed to run, and that norm is particularly strong in former British colonies. The third norm is that both public and private funding should be permitted; that norm is particularly strong among more democratic countries with respect to private funding and somewhat weaker in former British colonies in the case of public funding. In 80% of the countries independent candidates are allowed to compete in legislative elections. The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on rules for parties and candidates PARTIES AND CANDIDATES Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Monetary deposit requirement - more likely - - - Residence qualification requirement - - - - - Literacy or education requirement less likely in more democratic countries - more likely - - Public funding - - less likely - - Private funding more likely in democratic countries - - - - Independent candidates allowed - - more likely - - Click here for the next chapter Media and Elections Media and Election In this section, we examine four aspects to the election law that pertain to the role of the media in elections. The first dimension concerns the criteria for allocating free broadcast time and/or free advertisement space to political parties. Many different criteria are utilized, such as the number of candidates put forward in the election, the outcome of the previous election, and the size of the legislative caucus. In a few cases a special committee is charged with the task. But the most frequent approach, used in 64 countries, is to give each party equal time. This is found in 55% of the cases for which we have information. Variations across regions in the propensity to choose the equality principle are minimal. Interestingly, the equality clause is not more popular in more democratic countries. It is, however, somewhat less frequent in former French and British colonies. The second aspect has to do with paid advertising. In only 24 (18%) of the 133 countries about which information is available (it should be kept in mind that in many countries paid advertising is not allowed) there is a limit on advertising. The only region where limits are frequent is the Americas, where it exists in almost half of the cases. None of the former British colonies has implemented specific limits on advertising (note that there can be limits on total spending, which indirectly affect the amount of money that can be spent on advertising). Again, there is no correlation between imposing limits on advertising and the degree of democracy. Finally, limits on advertising are more frequent in Spanish colonies. The only region where limits for paid advertising are frequent is the Americas. The third item concerns the presence or absence of televised debates in legislative elections. Among the 131 cases for which there is information, 55% do hold such debates (note that in 18 countries televised debates are organized only for presidential elections). They are clearly the norm in Europe, where four fifths (80%) of the countries have them, and are particularly infrequent in the Americas (with only four countries out of 16: Canada, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique; note, however, that in many cases there are debates for presidential elections). We find debates to be held more frequently in countries with high scores on the Freedom House Political Rights scale. The last aspect to be examined is the presence or absence of a blackout period during which the results of pre-election polls may not be released to the public. Such blackout prevails in 58 (45%) of the 130 countries about which information is available. In 30 cases (23%), this is a short ban, of three days or less, but in another 17 countries 13%), the ban applies to a period of more than one week. Blackouts are more frequent in Europe and the Americas and rarer in Africa and the Middle East. Former British and French colonies seem more reluctant to implement such legislation, but more democratic countries do not appear more inclined to have blackouts. With respect to the regulation of the media in election campaigns, there appears to be no clear norm about what should be and should not be done: In the case of the specific measures that we have examined here, at least, countries seem to be split down the middle, more or less on half adopting such legislation and the other half not adopting it. The only exception is more apparent than real. Only a minority of countries explicitly establishes a ceiling on advertising expenditures but this is because some of them simply ban advertising while others regulate total expenditures rather than advertising as such. Not only do we find a great variety of approaches but it is seldom the case that more democratic countries go in a particular direction. On three aspects out of four there is just no correlation between the degree of democracy and the propensity to regulate the use of the media in election campaigns. The only exception and this is tellingly a case for which no legislation is usually required, concerns televised debates, which are more frequent in more democratic countries. We have observed some regional variations in the use of these four measures but they have not proven to be huge. Region seems to be less important than colonial legacy. Former French and British colonies emerge as systematically less prone to regulate the media than other countries. The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on rules for the media in elections MEDIA AND ELECTIONS Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Equal time criteria - less likely less likely - - Limits on paid advertising - - - more likely - Televised debates more likely in more democratic countries - - - - Blackout period - less likely less likely - - Click here for the next chapter Voting Operations Voting Operations We have previously looked at the rules that govern how people can get on the voter register. There are also rules that determine how registered voters can actually vote. We consider two specific aspects, first where voters can actually vote, and second if and how registered voters who are outside the country are allowed to vote. The first issue is where (and how) people vote. The most frequent option is at a specified polling station in the locality where they are registered but in many countries there is also the possibility to vote at other polling stations, by mail, by phone, or by proxy. We simply distinguish here those countries where the sole option available is a polling station in one’s locality from those where other options are also available. It turns out that there is a perfect split between the two groups. There are substantial regional differences, but the underlying logic is not clear. Sticking to the local polling stations is more frequent in the Middle East and Americas while offering more options is more popular in the Pacific, Europe and Asia. Contrary to what we might have expected, more economically developed and more democratic countries are not more prone to make it possible to vote in different places or ways. Finally, former Spanish colonies are more likely to rely entirely on local polling stations. The second question is whether people can vote from outside the country. In one third of the cases (37%), voting from outside the country is simply not permitted. This is the situation in a majority of countries in the Americas. At the other end of the scale, we find that three fourths of European (78%) and African (73%) countries explicitly allow some people to vote from the outside under some conditions. Again there is no correlation between being more “liberal” on this and the degree of democracy and/or economic development. The only pattern that we observe is that former British colonies tend to be more “conservative” and not to allow voting from outside the country. When voting from outside the country is allowed, it is most often made available to citizens residing abroad. Such a measure prevails in almost half the countries (47%). Here regional variations are quite modest, and the only significant pattern is that former British colonies are less prone to adopt such rules. Finally, voting from outside the country, when allowed, can be made more or less easy. In a small majority of cases (56%), voting takes place exclusively at embassies, consulates, or special polling stations. In other countries, it is also possible to vote by mail or proxy. The most “liberal” regions are the Pacific and Europe and the most “conservative” is Africa. The most liberal countries are the most democratic and wealthiest, while former British colonies tend to be more “conservative”. As in many other domains, there is an amazing variety of voting operations across the planet, there is really no dominant approach, and for the most part there is no cleavage between more and less democratic countries: There is a perfect split between countries where people must vote at their local polling station and those where more options are available, voting from outside the country is possible in most countries (though it is not in a substantial minority of cases) but it is often not made easy. Regional variations in this area are, as in many other dimensions, substantial though not huge. Former British colonies appear to be particularly “conservative”; the view that the place to vote is the local polling station seems to have a stronger hold in those countries. The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on voting operation practices VOTING OPERATIONS Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Voting only at a specified polling station in ones locality - - - more likely - Voting from outside the country not permitted - - more likely - - Voting from outside the country available to citizens residing outside - - less likely - - Voting from outside the country exclusively at embassies or special polling stations less likely in more democratic countries - less likely - less likely in wealthier countries Click here for the next chapter Vote Counting Vote Counting The penultimate aspect of the electoral law that we examine concerns the counting of the votes. Two questions are addressed: First, where are the votes counted? Second, under what conditions are the votes recounted? The first question is whether votes are first sorted and counted at the local polling station or more centrally. The advantage of the former is that the count can be completed more quickly and that there is less risk that ‘something’ happens between the polling station and the place where the count takes place. The counterargument is that it may be easier to ensure a fair count when the process is more centralized, as it is easier for all the parties and international observers to watch. Almost 80% of the countries have chosen to have the first count directly in the polling stations. This is the majority pattern in all regions, though there are relatively more exceptions in the Middle East and Pacific. There is no relationship with level of economic development or degree of democracy. Former British colonies tend to follow the example of the UK and to opt for centralized counting. The second issue is about recounts. There are basically three approaches. In some places (11 countries or 7%) ballots are never recounted, in others (14 countries or 8%) they are always recounted, and in the great majority they may be recounted under certain conditions, or by request or by court order. Countries with no recount (Angola, Costa Rica, Croatia, Israel, Lebanon, Mali, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Romania, and Venezuela) are clearly the exception but perhaps surprisingly they do not tend to be less democratic overall than those with recounts. There are clear dominant practices regarding the counting of the votes: In the great majority of the cases, the initial count takes place in the local polling station and recounts may occur under certain conditions. Exceptions to these dominant practices are more likely to be found among former British colonies, where the initial count often takes place outside polling stations. Automatic recounts are rare, but less so in more democratic countries. The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on vote counting practices VOTE COUNTING Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development Vote counting at the local polling station - - less likely - - Ballots never recounted - - - - - Ballots always recounted more likely in more democratic countries - - - - Click here for the next chapter Voter Education Voter Education Given the recent decline in turnout observed in most democracies, there has been renewed interest in the issue of voter education. Perhaps some citizens do not vote simply because they do not know the basic facts about how, where, and when to register and vote. Or perhaps some are baffled by the apparent complexity of political institutions and do not see the utility of voting, and would need civic education programs to inform them about how Parliament, the government, and parties function. The first issue concerns basic information about what it takes to register and vote, how/when/where people can cast (or perhaps mail) their ballot. It would seem normal for electoral management bodies to conduct information campaigns to improve citizens’ knowledge and understanding of how one gets registered and then votes. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of these organizations (84%) do wage such campaigns. Interestingly, it is in Africa, in Asia, and more generally in the poorest countries that these information campaigns are the most frequently conducted by EMBs. It is only in the more developed countries that the need for providing such information may not be obvious, and even in these countries the recent turnout decline has brought home the message that one should not assume that everybody perfectly understands how one votes. A related question is whether such information campaigns should be conducted at the time of the election or continuously. The dominant pattern is to do the former. Only 28% of the electoral management bodies appear to run a permanent campaign to inform citizens. Interestingly, permanent campaigns are most frequent in the Americas and particularly rare in the Middle East, the Pacific, and Europe. The other approach, of course, is to ensure that citizens understand not only the mechanics of registering and voting, but more generally the functioning of political institutions and political life. This is the goal of national civic education campaigns. Such programs seem to prevail in 69% of the countries. Perhaps not surprisingly it is in Europe and generally in wealthier countries that civics education programs appear to be less popular. As in the case of voter information programs, it appears that the need to educate people about politics is most obvious in poorest areas of the world. It is also interesting to note that civic education or information programs are neither more nor less popular in more democratic countries. The dominant pattern is thus to run campaigns to provide citizens with basic information about elections and the political system: This is particularly so in poorer countries where the need for such information is most obvious. At the same time, however, these information campaigns may not be very intense, as suggested by the fact that they are often confined to the election period. Voter education graph The impact of degree of democracy, colonial heritage and economic development on voter education practices VOTER EDUCATION Degree of democracy Former French colony Former British colony Former Spanish colony Economic development EMB in charge of voter education campaigns - - - - less likely in wealthier countries Voter education campaigns conducted at the time of the election only - - - - - National civic education campaign - - - - less likely in wealthier countries Click here for the next chapter Summary Summary We have examined the electoral laws that are in place in the countries of the world with respect to nine different domains. What is most striking when we look at them in some detail is the amazing variety of rules that prevail in the world. It is very rare that a given rule would prevail even in a mere majority of countries. Differences clearly trump similarities. There a few exceptions and these are interesting in themselves. The most dominant pattern is the voting age. There is a nearly consensus (86%) that voting age should be 18. This is a paradoxical consensus, as there seems to be no obvious reason why people should have the right to vote at 18 rather than at 15 or 20 or 25. Why almost all countries have converged towards the same rule, while they have not in most other matters, is a mystery which hopefully will be solved in the future. There are other exceptions. Compulsory voting at the national level does not occur frequently. Few (17%) countries impose education or literacy conditions for candidates and the great majority allows independent candidates as well as public and private funding. Vote counting usually takes place at the local polling stations and vote recount is possible under some conditions. Still, in the great majority of cases there is just no dominant pattern. We have looked at the nature and source of these variations. We have first determined if there are geographical patterns. The verdict is pretty clear. In most domains, regional variations are quite substantial. This observation raises further questions, about the reasons for these regional variations. We have not been able to address this question in this exploratory study but we hope that future research will delve more systematically into the sources of these regional variations. We suspect that this reflects the impact of networks and culture but more detailed analyses are required to test our intuition and to untangle the relative importance of these two factors. We have also checked whether the various electoral rules seem to be correlated to the level of economic development, the degree of democracy, and colonial heritage. In the great majority of cases we have shown evidence that colonial heritage matters. Our findings confirm those obtained by Massicote, Blais and Yoshinaka (“Establishing the Rules of the Game: Election Laws in Democracies” 2004) whose study was confined to electoral democracies. But again much more work needs to be done to specify how the influence of the mother country concretely operates, which former colonies are most and least likely to follow the “example” and why. Click here for Conclusion Conclusion The data that we have reported suggest that electoral rules are seldom correlated with economic development and degree of democracy. We are not surprised by the nil finding concerning the economy. The economy may be a strong prerequisite in the democratization process but it may have little to do in the precise forms of democracy that a country chooses. But the general absence of a relationship between the degree of democracy and the nature of electoral rules is more perplexing. In our view, coming to an understanding of why it is so should be a top priority on the research agenda. This suggests the lack of consensus on even the minimal conditions under which elections should be contested in a democracy. Why is it that almost everyone appears to agree that voting age should be 18 while there seems to be no agreement that the election should be conducted by a completely free and independent agency? Click here for About The Authors About The Authors André Blais is professor in the Department of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. He is a holder of the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and a research fellow with the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, the Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative (CIREQ), and the Center for Interuniversity Research Analysis on Organizations (CIRANO). He is past president of the Canadian Political Science Association. Agnieszka Dobrzynska (Ph.D., Political Science) in 2008 joined the Office of Institutional Research at the University of Montreal where she is a Research and Planning Analyst. A former postdoctoral fellow with the Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies at the University of Montreal, she was also a consultant for Elections Canada. Her most recent publications are on the topics of elections and voting behaviour, public opinion, media coverage of politics, electoral systems and research methodology.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:46:38 +0000