Cambodia mbodia Voter er Regist istry y Aud udit 2013 Phnom - - PDF document

cambodia mbodia voter er regist istry y aud udit 2013
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Cambodia mbodia Voter er Regist istry y Aud udit 2013 Phnom - - PDF document

03/27/2013 Cambodia mbodia Voter er Regist istry y Aud udit 2013 Phnom Penh, 21 March 2013 Supported by: Presentation entation Out utline ne Introduction Methodology & Design of the Audit VRA Management & Process


slide-1
SLIDE 1

03/27/2013 1 Phnom Penh, 21 March 2013

Cambodia mbodia Voter er Regist istry y Aud udit 2013

Supported by:

Presentation entation Out utline ne

 Introduction  Methodology & Design of the Audit  VRA Management & Process  Election Data Analysis: Overview of the 2012 Voter Registry

& List of the Polling Stations

 Field Audit findings on the quality of the voter registry:

  • 1. Comprehensiveness: registration gap, does the voter registry contain

all eligible voters?

  • 2. Accuracy: the completeness of the information of voter particulars and

the existence of duplicate records

  • 3. Currency (Validity): is the information in the voter registry up-to-date

and does it contain valid records?

 Voter behavior & opinion which may influence the registry  Conclusions & Recommendations

slide-2
SLIDE 2

03/27/2013 2

Introduction The imp mpor

  • rta

tanc nce e of vot

  • ter

er registr istrat ation ion

 Voter registration is a fundamental part of the election process

– voter registry is the key to franchise – and thus should be checked for accuracy and validity.

 The maintenance and upkeep of a voter registry can be

particularly challenging in countries with insufficient records, transient populations or weak infrastructure.

 Voter registries are susceptible to manipulation for electoral

advantage.

 Inaccurate voter registries have led to numerous post-election

conflicts in elections held around the world and have disenfranchised many eligible voters.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

03/27/2013 3

Remember ember

Voter registration is not perfect. Every voter registration exercise will result in some eligible voters still being

  • disenfranchised. However, voter registration provides

important and necessary safeguards to ensure that eligible voters will be able to vote.

Purpos urpose e of the aud udit

 To address concerns raised in regard to the quality of the

voter registry through the undertaking of an independent audit

 To ascertain the quality improvements made to the

registry by the recently concluded voter update and clean up exercise

 To build public confidence in the electoral process

slide-4
SLIDE 4

03/27/2013 4

What t is a Vot

  • ter

er Registr istry Aud udit (VRA)? )?

 A scientific, systematic, and independent assessment of

the voter registry using a specific statistical methodology

 VRA is scientific and emphasizes facts, and NOT about

perceptions/ opinions.

 A VRA is a method that is used by independent

election observers around the world and has been proven reliable and accurate internationally

A VRA cannot…

 Register voters  Speculate about causes or opinions. VRA is scientific

and emphasizes facts.

 Verify whether citizen identification documents were

handed out correctly

 Analyze the quality of elections on election day

slide-5
SLIDE 5

03/27/2013 5

Methodology & Design of Audit

What is the 2013 13 Vot

  • ter Registr

stry y Audit it (VRA) met ethodo

  • dology
  • gy?

1.

Electoral Data Analysis (Partial Computer Audit):

a)

to assess how current or updated the registry was, a demographic comparison was made between the voter registry and current census population projection figures obtained from NEC & the National Institute

  • f Statistics (NIS)

b)

to make general analysis on the 2012 voter registry and the list of polling stations which will be used in 2013 general elections

2.

Statistically rigorous two-way field test:

a.

List to People  to ensure that every name on the voter registry is that

  • f an actual person who is eligible to vote and that his/ her information is

correct, as well as deletion list to people test to check whether the deletions records were valid.

b.

People to List  to determine if there are people who are eligible to vote and/ or who appear to have attempted to register to vote, but whose names are absent from the voter registry and to ensure their particulars are correct.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

03/27/2013 6

Three e main criteria a for evalua aluatin ing g the vot

  • ter

er registr stry: y:

1.

Comprehensiveness/Completeness: assess what proportion of eligible voters is included on the voter registry (People to List test)

2.

Currency (Validity): evaluate whether the information in the voter registry is updated in timely fashion (List to People test – by checking the validity of the names on the registry)

3.

Accuracy: measure the rate of error in the data entered for individual voters (Both tests)

Sampling process…

Population of interest Sample Sampling frame Inference

slide-7
SLIDE 7

03/27/2013 7

Sur urvey y Design gn

People to List List to People Population Voting age population in Cambodia a) Registered voters in the 2012 voter registry (for the 2013 elections) b) People in the 2012 deletion list Respondents 2,472 individuals of eligible voting age 1,656 voters from the 2012 voter registry + 765 voters from the deletion list Margin of Error ± 2.0% margin of error and 95% level of confidence ± 2.5% margin of error and 95% level of confidence , ± 3.5% margin of error for deletion list

 Sampling: a statistically representative random sample (nationwide,

urban-rural, gender)

 Total observers: more than 450 observers were trained and deployed

to do face-to-face interviews

 Data collection: February 5-8, 2013 and February 16-19, 2013 using

structured tracking questionnaires

 Coverage area: 24 provinces, 176 districts, 414 communes, 830

villages and reached both urban and rural areas

Samplin pling g Al Allocat

  • cation

ion of Communes mmunes

slide-8
SLIDE 8

03/27/2013 8

Respon sponde dent nt selec lection

  • n

List to People ple

415 communes & Villages selected using a statistically representative sample A computer program selected randomly one polling station in each village & the deletion list associated with the selected location

The trained

  • bserver went

to the location

  • f PS

Observer met with the village chief to confirm the location

A computer program selected randomly: a. 4 voters from the list b. 2 people from the deletion list Observer would attempt to find & meet the selected respondents Successfully verified, met and interviewed the respondents Can’t met the respondent in person - Talked & received information

  • n the respondent’s

whereabouts from relatives, neighbor or village chief If the selected respondent refused to be interviewed, we randomly identified a replacement Confirm the respondent’s whereabouts

Respon sponde dent nt selec lection

  • n

Peopl ple to List

In the selected 415 communes, 415 additional villages selected using a statistically representative sample

The trained

  • bserver went

to the location

  • f village

Observer met with the village chief to confirm the location Observer selected the sampling start point Select four households Interval - Every 10th house in rural areas and every 20th house in urban areas

Select randomly a respondent within each household using a “lucky draw” Interview the respondent Two quota respondents

  • Disabled eligible voters
  • 18 years old or turning

18 before election day

  • Recently moved to the

village;

  • Recently died

Check to the registry

slide-9
SLIDE 9

03/27/2013 9

Limita tations ions of aud udit

 Voter registry including the deletion list used for this audit is the 2012

National Voter Registry and the 2012 Deletion List made available for us as of December 31, 2012. Therefore, any changes to the register made after this date are not taken into account by this audit report.

 The NIS figure of the eligible voting age population used to assess how

current or up to date the voter registry is a projection made by the NIS, taking into consideration migration, mortality rate, etc., which means that the figure also contains a margin of error which is yet to be established.

 Because we don’t have access to the whole voter registry in an analyzable

format :

 The registration status was checked only in the location we found the respondents

and the location information given by the respondents

 We can’t do analysis on the duplication rate since we only can check whether the

respondents are still registered in the previous address and not the whole registry

VRA Managemen nagement t & Proces

  • cess
slide-10
SLIDE 10

03/27/2013 10

VRA A Managemen nagement t Struct cture re

NICFEC VRA Data Collection

NICFEC Executive Director VRA Project Coordinator 24 NICFEC Provincial Coordinators 414 Interviewers 4,893 VRA Respondents

CAS and NDI Quality Control

CAS and NDI Technical Staff and Master Trainers 52 CAS Supervisors assisting and

  • verseeing work of 414 NICFEC

interviewers 6 CAS and 6 NDI Auditors conducting parallel interviews of sample of respondents

VRA Proces

  • cess

Survey Design & Instrument Development Observer Recruitment

  • Criteria:
  • Age from 18 to 45 years old
  • Minimum of high school

education

  • Has their own transportation

and mobile phone

  • Not an activist of any party
  • Selected 469 (154 female)

interviewers from target communes, 54 reserve observers

Observer Trainings

  • Conducted 12 trainings, 36 – 45

participants in each training

  • Training content:
  • Guidelines for interviewer
  • Review of questionnaires
  • Interview methodology
  • Practice/Role play
  • Evaluation

Deployment

  • 1st deployment: 5-8 February 2013 (15 provinces)
  • 2nd deployment: 16-19 February 2013 (9 provinces)
  • Interviewer needs to interview 12 respondents (6 for

L2P and 6 P2L).

  • Provincial coordinators in each province to monitor
  • bservers.

Data Reporting & Cleaning

  • Each questionnaire was checked in multiple levels
  • Unclear information  call to the respondents/

village chief/ interviewers

  • Registration status of the respondents was checked on

the VR website (www.voterlist.org.kh) and the PDF both voter registry and the deletion list

  • Re-check team was doing further data cleaning to the

respondents/ village chief to locate missing info

slide-11
SLIDE 11

03/27/2013 11

Qua uality ity Con

  • ntrol
  • l

Survey Design & Instrument Development

Observer Recruitment Observer Trainings Deployment Data Reporting & Cleaning

  • Review & recommendations

from stakeholders

  • Multiple levels review from

election experts

  • Pilot test on how to

administer the questionnaire

  • Translation checked by

different people

  • Longer training period for both

master trainers & interviewers

  • More interactive trainings
  • Pre-test and post-test to

identify misunderstanding and follow up with interviewers 1. Multiple levels oversight done by three different levels: 1. NICFEC provincial coordinators 2. CAS supervisors 3. Independent auditors/ spot-checkers by NDI/ CAS 2. Parallel independent audit to 25% of the NICFEC interviewers using the complete questionnaire 1. Re-interviewed more than 7% respondents 2. Found that all interviews had taken place 1. NICFEC checked completeness of all questionnaires 2. Multiple checks using NEC website in location, Voter List PDF and deletion list, using different phonetic spelling to attempt to find voters on the list 3. For abnormal findings, NICFEC, CAS and NDI recheck data by:

  • Re-check logic and data entry
  • Re-deploy in Phnom Penh to try to find respondents in

person

  • For outside of Phnom Penh, directly contacted respondents,

informants (family, village chief, etc.) by phone to confirm whereabouts and status.

  • For voters not found on the list, re-checked two times by two

different people.

  • For suspected incorrectly deleted voters, checked in voter list

in the polling station they were deleted from, as well as other possible registration locations.

Election ion Data Analys lysis: is:

Overvi view of th f the 2012 Voter r Regist stry

Sources: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Results NEC – List of Polling Stations for the National Election 2013 NIS – 2013 Demographics Projection

slide-12
SLIDE 12

03/27/2013 12

Electi ction Data ta Analys lysis is - Com

  • mpa

pariso rison betw twee een NEC C and NIS S Data ta:

Distribut tribution ion of Vot

  • ting

ng Age Population ation

Sources: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result NIS – 2013 Demographics Projection

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Distribut tribution ion of regist ster ered ed vot

  • ters

ers by Provin ince ce

Total number of registered voters in the 2012 Voter Registry = 9,675,453

Source: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result

slide-13
SLIDE 13

03/27/2013 13

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Registr strat ation

  • n Rate:

By compar mparing ing numb mber er of regist istered ered voter

  • ters

s with the e vot

  • ting

ing age populati tion

  • n infor
  • rma

mati tion

  • n

101.2% 101.4% 101.6% 101.8% 102.0% 102.2% 102.4% 102.6%

102.5% 101.7%

Registration Rate (using NIS 18+ figure) Registration Rate (Using NEC 18+ figure)

Sources: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result NIS – 2013 Demographics Projection

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Registr strat ation

  • n Rate by Provin

ince: ce:

Compar mparing ing numb mber er of regist istered ered voter

  • ters

s with the e vot

  • ting

ing age populati tion

  • n infor
  • rma

mati tion

  • n

Sources: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result NIS – 2013 Demographics Projection

slide-14
SLIDE 14

03/27/2013 14

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is – Results lts of the Vot

  • ter

er Registr try Revision ion

Percen enta tage ge Newly y Regist ster ered ed Vot

  • ters

s & Delet eted ed Vot

  • ters

s by Provi vince ce in the 2012 2 Vot

  • ter Regist

stry

Source: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is Comparison arison betwe tween en 2011 and 2012 Vot

  • ter

er Registr try

Percent centage ge increa ease se in regist stered ed vot

  • ters

Source: NEC – 2012 Voter Registration Result

slide-15
SLIDE 15

03/27/2013 15

Pa Partial al Compu puter er Audit

Pollin ing g Station ion An Analysis ysis

Election tion Data a Analys lysis is

Distribut tribution ion of 144 Newl wly y Created ed Polling ng Stations

  • ns

Source: NEC – List of Polling Stations for National Elections 2013

slide-16
SLIDE 16

03/27/2013 16

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Does s the dist stribu ribution

  • n of poll

lling ng station

  • n match with

the dist stribu ribution

  • n of regist

ster ered d vot

  • ters?

s?

Source: NEC – List of Polling Stations for National Elections 2013

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Total

  • tal Nu

Numbe ber of Pollin ling g Stati ations

  • ns in Each

h Provi vince ce with th more than an 50% newly ly regist stered ered vot

  • ter

ers

Source: NEC – List of Polling Stations for National Elections 2013

slide-17
SLIDE 17

03/27/2013 17 Election tion Data a Analys lysis is

Number er of Pollin ing g Stations

  • ns with more than

50% people e deleted ed

Source: NEC – List of Polling Stations for National Elections 2013

Election ion Data a Analy lysis is

Small llest est Size e of the Poll lling ng Station

  • n compar

pared ed with the Average rage Size e of Polli ling Station

  • n in each Provin

vince ce

Source: NEC – List of Polling Stations for National Elections 2013

slide-18
SLIDE 18

03/27/2013 18

Key Finding dings s of th f the Field ld Audit

Decline of the quality of comprehensiveness, accuracy, and currency (validity) compared to the 2008 VRA

Com

  • mpr

prehen ehensiv iven enes ess

Does the voter registry contain all eligible voters?

slide-19
SLIDE 19

03/27/2013 19

Field audit it - Comprehe ehens nsivene eness:

Does es the vot

  • ter

er registr istry con

  • ntain

tain all eligib ible le vot

  • ter

ers?

N = 2,285; from People to List

Field audit it - Comprehe ehens nsivene eness:

How w does es the 2013 registra istratio ion rate e compar are e to the 2008 VRA RA?

Source: People to List Test in VRA 2008 & VRA 2013

slide-20
SLIDE 20

03/27/2013 20

Field audit it – Comprehe ehens nsiv iven enes ess:

Among g the unregist gister ered, ed, can we find

nd them em in the 2012 deleti etion n list? st?

N = 390, from People to List respondents who are not registered

Field ld audit it - Compreh ehen ensiv iven enes ess

Have e they y vot

  • ted

ed before

  • re in 2008 and/or
  • r 2012?

?

N = 2,278; People to List Test Did you vote in either the 2008 or 2012 elections?

slide-21
SLIDE 21

03/27/2013 21 Field ld Audit it - Compreh ehen ensiv siven enes ess

Registr strat ation

  • n Rate in Other Count

ntries: es:

Field ld audit it – Comprehen rehensiv iven enes ess:

Eligible citize zens ns believe e that they y are regist stere ered, d, but actually they y are NOT on the registr stry

N = 2,078; Respondents People to List who believe that they are registered

slide-22
SLIDE 22

03/27/2013 22

Accur curac acy of the Voter er Regist istry: y:

How accurate are voter particulars on the voter registry?

Field ld audit - Ac Accurac racy

Extent nt of accu curacy cy between een vot

  • ter

er particu icular lars in the e registr istry y and nd partic icula ulars of the ID docum cuments ents

slide-23
SLIDE 23

03/27/2013 23

Field ld audit it - Accurac uracy

How does s the 2013 13 accuracy uracy inform

  • rmat

ation

  • n

compare are to the e 2008 VRA?

2008 Accuracy

Cur urren rency cy (Validi lidity ty): ):

Is the information in the voter registry up to date and does it contain valid records?

slide-24
SLIDE 24

03/27/2013 24

Field Audit it – Currenc ncy (Valid idit ity)

Vot

  • ter Verifica

ication ion: Can

n all peopl ple e on the e vot

  • ter registr

istry y be verif ified ied to exist or having ing existed ed?

N = 1,656 from List to People test

Field ld Audit it – Curren rency (Validi lidity) ty)

Vot

  • ter

er Verif rificat icatio ion: : How does s the 2013 3 vot

  • ter

verificati ation

  • n/

/ curren rency y compare are to the 2008 8 VRA?

Source: List to People test VRA 2008 and 2013

slide-25
SLIDE 25

03/27/2013 25

Deleti etion

  • n List Aud

udit

Field Audit it – Deletion etion List Verifi ficat ation

  • n

Can all l peopl ple e on the delet etion

  • n list

st be verified ed as ineli eligible gible or need eding ng to be delet eted ed?

N = 765 respondents of the Deletion List test

slide-26
SLIDE 26

03/27/2013 26

Voters’ Behavior & Opinions which ch may influence ence the Qua uality ty

  • f the Registr

try

Vot

  • ter Opinion

ion

Challeng nges es or Problem ems s during ng the registr strati tion

  • n

N = 2,898; Registered People to List (except the deceased) + All met List to People Did you experience any challenges or problems during the registration? - multiple responses

slide-27
SLIDE 27

03/27/2013 27 Vot

  • ter Behavi

vior

  • r

Iden enti tity y docu cumen ment(s (s) ) used ed for registr strat ation

  • n

N = 3,687; People to List respondents which are registered + List to People respondents that we met Which identity document (or documents) did you use when you registered? - Multiple responses

Vot

  • ter Behavi

vior

  • r – Compariso

ison bet etwee ween VRA 2008 8 and 2013 13

Iden enti tity y docu cumen ment(s (s) ) used ed for registr strat ation

  • n
slide-28
SLIDE 28

03/27/2013 28

Vot

  • ter Behavior

ior

Pa Participation icipation during ing the vot

  • ter registr

stry y review w period

  • d

Did you verify and check your voter registration status during the voter list revision?

Vot

  • ter

er Behavior vior

Plan to reside ide in the same address ess in July 2013 13

N = 3,128; Are you planning to reside at this address in July 2013?

slide-29
SLIDE 29

03/27/2013 29

Vot

  • ter Opinion

inion

Confiden idence ce in the vot

  • ter regist

istration ation process ess

N = 3,319 all respondents; How much confidence do you have in the voter registration process?

Vot

  • ter

er Beha havior vior

Knowl wled edge ge about ut the electi tion n date

N = 3,544; All respondents met Can you tell me the year, month, and day in which the next national assembly elections will be held?

slide-30
SLIDE 30

03/27/2013 30 Vot

  • ter Behavi

vior

  • r

Intent ntion

  • n to vot
  • te

Do you intend to vote in the next election?

Co Conclusio usions ns & Recommend ndations ations

slide-31
SLIDE 31

03/27/2013 31

In sum um, , these e are the main n findings: dings:

Comprehensiveness:

82.9% of eligible citizens are registered. This represents a decline from the 2008 VRA showing a 87.9% registration rate. It is also a discrepancy with the National Election Committee’s statistic that the number of registered voters is at 101.7% of the eligible population.

10.8% of eligible citizens who think they are registered were not found on the voter registry. Among unregistered voters, only 2.1% were found on the 2012 deletion list. Further, 7.8% of eligible citizens are currently unregistered even though they said they voted in the 2008 and/or 2012 elections. Currency (Validity):

Only 63.6% of names on the list can be verified to exist in person, while another 17.9% exist but live most of the time in another location. Of the invalid names, 7.4% have permanently relocated, 0.5% were confirmed as dead and 10.4% are unknown. (List-to-People test.)

9.4% of the people in the deletion list were incorrectly removed. This represents no progress since 2008, despite extra measures taken by the NEC and commune councils to prevent false deletions. (Deletion List-to- People test.) Accuracy:

Voter data is less accurate than in 2008. Only 63% of records show matching data for date of birth, compared to 78.97% in 2008; and 86.4% of names match, compared to 87.88% in 2008. (Both tests.) Behavior

96.5% of registered voters said they intend to vote in the July elections; 74% of unregistered respondents said they intend to vote.

Recommen commendat dations: ions: Immedia ediate e

 Given the inaccuracy of voter data and presence of unknown voters on the list, the NEC should

allow access for independent monitors to observe the identification verification of voters at the polling stations and provide access to voter lists in polling stations.

 Considering the high internal migration rate, NEC should open a mechanism for non-resident

voter registration to allow registered voters who are away from their electoral district at the time

  • f the election to vote.

 To build the public confidence in the voter registration process, NEC should improve

transparency by allowing independent observers and political parties to access the whole voter registry (in analyzable format). This is common practice in established democracies and would allow the VRA to expand upon its findings and provide more comprehensive information.

 Given the number of unregistered citizens who plan to vote on election day, the NEC and all those

concerned with a successful election, such as non-governmental organizations, political parties, media and the general public, should encourage eligible voters to check their registration status

  • n the voters list before July 28, 2013.

 Due to the significant number of eligible citizens incorrectly deleted, the NEC should organize

another period for voters to check their names on the deletion list and submit complaints in order to be registered.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

03/27/2013 32

Recommen commendat dations: ions: Long ng term

 The Government of Cambodia and the NEC should consider the adoption of a more efficient

voter registration system that can better address the increasing rate of internal migration and that can enfranchise unregistered citizens who learn too late they are not on the list. This could include a change to continuous, or even automatic, registration that can allow for changes or corrections to registration closer to election day.

 To improve the accuracy and validity of the voter list, create or assign an impartial, unelected,

well-trained, well-funded, professional local body with the focused task of registering voters.

 To increase the accuracy of the list and ease the registration process for citizens, the Ministry of

Interior should improve the civil registry—including a unique serial number for each citizen--and distribute national ID card to all citizens.

 The NEC should take steps to improve its data management systems, including systematic use of

Khmer spelling and fonts, current and synced IT systems, and more coordinated oversight of data collection and entry at all levels of election administration.

 The addition and placement of polling stations should be conducted in a transparent manner and

with stakeholder support, especially with considerations to ease of voter access.

Thank you

For more information, please contact:

  • Hang Puthea (Khmer) – Executive Director of NICFEC

Mobile: (855) 12959666 Phone: (855) 23 993037

  • Laura L. Thornton (English) – Senior Director NDI Cambodia

Phone: (855) 23 990072 Email: lthornton@ndi.org

Supported by: