A Framework for the A Framework for the Study of Election Study of Election Management Quality Management Quality Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Denmark, Denmark, Conference on Conference on the ”Measuring Democracy”-project the ”Measuring Democracy”-project Boston, 23-24 May 2009 Boston, 23-24 May 2009
16
Embed
A Framework for the Study of Election Management Quality
A Framework for the Study of Election Management Quality Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Denmark, Conference on the ” Measuring Democracy” -project Boston, 23-24 May 2009. The Electoral Process. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A Framework for the A Framework for the Study of Election Study of Election
Management QualityManagement Quality
Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Professor, Dr Jørgen Elklit, Denmark, Denmark,
Conference on Conference on the ”Measuring Democracy”-projectthe ”Measuring Democracy”-project
Boston, 23-24 May 2009Boston, 23-24 May 2009
The Electoral ProcessThe Electoral Process
The Elklit/Reynolds Framework for Assessing The Elklit/Reynolds Framework for Assessing Election and Election Management Quality Election and Election Management Quality
((DemocatizationDemocatization, 2005; IPU, 2005):, 2005; IPU, 2005): 54 different indicators are used to assess 54 different indicators are used to assess
performance quality in the 11 steps of the electoral performance quality in the 11 steps of the electoral process by a panel of domestic and foreign expert process by a panel of domestic and foreign expert assessors.assessors.
Measurement results for each step is weighted Measurement results for each step is weighted according to perceived importance for established according to perceived importance for established and fledgling democracies, respectivelyand fledgling democracies, respectively
Results are published, so that they can be Results are published, so that they can be scrutinized and discussed by others (for scrutinized and discussed by others (for transparency’s sake and to reduce measurement transparency’s sake and to reduce measurement errors)errors)
Mistakes are corrected and results re-calculated Mistakes are corrected and results re-calculated before final publicationbefore final publication
2. Information about 2. Information about constitu-encies and lower constitu-encies and lower level districts level districts (demarcation, sizes, (demarcation, sizes, seats) easily available?seats) easily available?
dodo 33 33 33 22
3. Fair system, for 3. Fair system, for boundary delimitation and boundary delimitation and seat allocation in place?seat allocation in place?
2. Is the tabulation 2. Is the tabulation trans-parent, reflecting trans-parent, reflecting accurately the polling accurately the polling booth count?booth count?
DoDo 22 11 33 00
3. Are the results easily 3. Are the results easily available to interested available to interested members of the public?members of the public?
DoDo 33 11 33 11
4. Does counting take 4. Does counting take place with no undue place with no undue delay?delay?
DoDo 33 22 33 33
5. Parties and 5. Parties and candidates allowed to candidates allowed to obs. the count?obs. the count?
Do + Do + possibly possibly surveyssurveys
33 33 33 00
Intermediary step Intermediary step scoresscores
8.78.7 5.35.3 10.010.0 3.33.3
Is it OK to allocate Is it OK to allocate different weigths to different weigths to different steps? And to do different steps? And to do it differently to different it differently to different categories of political categories of political regimes?regimes?