Visiting opportunities at EIP - Call for applications closing soon!

Have you been downloading our publications and data files? Do you enjoy reading our books and blog posts? Have you attended one of our research seminars, conference workshops or panels? And would you be keen to spend a few months in Australia’s most beautiful city?

If the answer to any of the above questions is ‘yes’ and you are interested in, or already working on electoral integrity, do not miss out on the rest of this blog post! 

The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) in a nutshell: EIP is a 5-year project that was launched in conjunction with the IPSA World Congress in 2012. The project explores three key issues: 

1. When do elections meet international standards of electoral integrity? 
2. What happens when elections fail to do so? 
3. What can be done to mitigate these problems?

Read more about the EIP here. 

Each semester the EIP welcomes visitors to its project offices based in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney.

The deadline for visits planned during the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2015 is September 1^st.

There are several visiting opportunities:

1. Several visiting research fellowships are available for senior scholars working on issues of electoral integrity. You would be part of the research team, and we would ask you to write and present a new research paper relating to electoral integrity and designed for publication in a scholarly journal or book, as well as being published on the project website. We offer remuneration of AUD$15,000, and you can apply if you have a doctorate and hold a full-time academic teaching or research appointment in Political Science or a related field. Find out more about selection criteria and the application process here.
   
   
2. A limited number of resident internships are also available for advanced level under-graduates and graduate students, for a period of three to twelve months. Remuneration is offered of AUD$1,000 per month as well as up to $1,700 towards the cost of a round-trip economy flight to Sydney, designed to defray the partial costs of your stay. You would be expected to work up to 20 hours a week on project-related research, including data collection, project administration, publication editing and event coordination, under the direction of the Project Manager. You would have the opportunity to participate in research seminars, reading groups and colloquium talks with the Department of Government and international Relations at the University of Sydney. You would also write a research paper on a topic relating to electoral integrity, designed to be posted as a working paper on the project website and as a blog post. Find out more about selection criteria and the application process here.
   
3. A few resident unpaid visiting positions are available for advanced level doctoral students registered for a PhD at another university institution. You can apply for a period of three to twelve months, and you would have the opportunity to participate in research seminars, reading groups and colloquium talks with the Department of Government and international Relations at the University of Sydney. You would also write a research paper on a topic relating to electoral integrity, designed to be posted as a working paper on the project website and as a blog post. Find out more about selection criteria and the application process, here.

Have we convinced you? Complete the online application form.

Would you like additional information? Read more about EIP and visiting opportunities here.

Questions? Don’t hesitate to contact us (note, replace ‘at’ by @). 

APSA 2014 is around the corner!

From 28 September to 1 October more than 415 conference participants of over three dozen countries will attend the 2014 Australian Political Studies Association annual meeting at the University of Sydney. 

Conference participants will have the opportunity to attend all-day interactive thematic workshops, over one hundred stream panels, several special plenary sessions and multiple major social events!

This year’s general theme is ‘Democracy, Autocracy and Elections’, and we want to draw your attention to a few key events.

We are delighted with the addition of ‘Docos for Politicos’, a film series devoted to a retrospective of the documentary films of Eugene Jarecki: award-winning filmmaker, public thinker on international affairs, author, and one of only two people to have twice won the Sundance Grand Jury prize for documentary. 

These special sessions will screen four of his major documentary films and feature a live interactive discussion with the director and producer, moderated by Professor James Der Derian from the Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) at the University of Sydney.

More information is available here. 

Professor John Keane from the Sydney Democracy Network is involved in two fascinating special sessions. On Monday 29 September, Lance Bennett will speak about "Democratic Mobilization in the Digital Age" from 09.00-10.30am, and on Tuesday 30 September Professor Keane will lead a Q&A with Professor Marian Simms about "Funding Opportunities with the Australian Research Council".  

We would also like to highlight two pre-APSA thematic research workshops on electoral integrity that are to take place on Sunday 28 September, and which will offer scholars and practitioners alike an opportunity to exchange ideas and build their networks.

The workshop on “Challenges of Electoral Integrity in Asia-Pacific” will review cutting-edge research on electoral integrity in the Asia-Pacific region, aiming to strengthen working relations between experts and identify challenges and opportunities for research and teaching in this emerging sub-field. The workshop will cover topics including comparative institutions, political violence, political finance, and media and communication technologies and is not to be missed!

The EIP’s Money, Politics and Transparency project will host an authors' workshop on “Comparative Political Finance”. It is meant for those working on a new executive report on Comparative Political Finance Worldwide, which is to be released online and designed primarily for practitioners. With this publication and a subsequent longer book-length volume meant for scholars, students and policymakers, the project aims to explore the workings of the ‘political finance regime’. This is the set of public policies, legal frameworks, and procedural rules, institutions, court decisions, and social norms that regulate the role of money in politics, .e.g. the funding of political parties, candidates, election campaigns, and elected representatives.

And last but not least, on Monday 29 September from 6.00-8.00pm, participants will have the opportunity to get acquainted and mingle at a cocktail reception with drinks and canapés, hosted at one of Sydney’s most stunning venues: the Stranger’s Dining Room at the New South Wales Parliament. This event features an official welcome to Sydney and a brief speech by the well-known ABC political commentator Antony Green!

Namibia votes in November 2014

By Ferran Martinez i Coma

The Electoral Integrity Project, University of Sydney

A conference “Detecting and Deterring Electoral Fraud and Malpractices in Africa” was held in Windhoek (Namibia) from 12 to 15 May.  The event was organized by the Hanns Seidel Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research and it brought together a combination of Africanist scholars and practitioners. Namibians will held Presidential and Legislative elections in November. The South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) has been in power since Namibia independence in 1990, constantly increasing its advantage with its competitors.

The first session focused on concepts of fraud and malpractice. Hermann Thiel, Country Director of IFES in Jordan, building in previous works from his colleagues, gave a very clear conceptualization of fraud and malpractices. He then graphically presented a typology of the problems that may happen considering the intensity of the impact of the problem and the vulnerability. Discussants Roger Southall, from the University of Witwatersrand (South Africa), and Denis Kadima, the Executive Director of EISA (South Africa) gave their respective insights. Southall described different types of fraud and he also highlighted the absence of comparative studies on gerrymandering.   

In the second session, different participants exposed clear manifestations of electoral malpractice and fraud. David Coltart, from Zimbabwe, highlighted the problems with the registry; Tom Mboya mentioned problems of voter disenfranchisement in Kenya while Professor Alexander Kaakyire Frempong from Ghana exposed the problem of registration of foreigners. There were also interventions covering Nigeria and South Africa.

The third session was on detecting the presence of fraud and malpractice. I presented the results of PEI and highlighted that problems of fraud and electoral malpractice may emerge at any point of the electoral cycle. I also emphasized the problems on finance and media while presenting the results of PEI in a regional comparative perspective. Halfdan Lynge-Mangueira, from Oxford University, presented the main question of his dissertation –namely, why did politicians in advanced democracies stopped rigging elections- and with his theoretical framework he presented his research on Ghana. Halfdan’s state of the art work mixes quantitative with qualitative analyses.

We closed the first day with a public event on electoral integrity of Africa that was open to the public. Besides the presenters, Dr. Paul Isaak, Director of Elections of the Electoral Commission of Namibia gave the keynote address on the Namibian elections. After the presentations, the audience engaged in a very lively and rich conversation with Dr. Isaak.

The second day was oriented towards improving electoral integrity. In the first session, Dr Seema Shah, currently working as an analyst at  AfriCOG (Kenya), showed us how the argument of the peaceful elections held in Kenya last year was used to silence the fraud in many stances. Shah’s uses Pippa Norris concept of electoral integrity as well as Judith Kelley’s work on monitor observation. Shah and her team have exposed numerous problems of the elections in Kenya. Her work is a beautiful application of academic concepts into real world situations.

In the second section, Ushahidi founder, Daudi Were, explained how he and his colleagues decided to create a platform to expose and improve how the elections were conducted. Ushahidi’s approach is through very simple technology that is not only been used in elections but also in humanitarian catastrophes. One of the principle of Ushahidi is making all voices count and their approach can be extremely useful for crowdsourcing studies.

The last and finals session was devoted to propose suggestions and ideas to be implemented in Namibia. The ideas proposed were divided for the short, medium and long term, since Namibians will go to vote on November 2014.

On the short term the most relevant suggestions were: make clear and public the playing field: at this point, Namibians do not know under which electoral formula will be voting; draft and publish an observation guideline to be shared with the different Namibian civil society groups; use Ushaidi’s knowledge to prepare a platform for citizens.

On the medium and the long term, the focus was on voter education as well on training of the different actors involved in the Namibian elections. 

The EIP project will follow the general and presidential elections in Namibia and next year we will be able to report about their 2014 elections. 

Further information:

http://en.starafrica.com/news/integrity-of-african-electoral-bodies-key-to-poll-credibility-expert.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/201405190899.html

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

Monday 31 March 2014 7-8pm Ottowa

OPENING STATEMENT BY PIPPA NORRIS

I am honored to contribute towards the deliberations of the Canadian Parliament and I thank the committee for the invitation.

In particular, I direct the electoral integrity project based at Harvard University and the University of Sydney.  We monitor the causes and consequences of flawed and failed elections in all countries around the world.

We study major problems, such as flaws in voter registration and election management in mature democracies such as the United States, Britain and Canada as well as major problems of electoral violence, bloodshed, and instability in fragile states such as Afghanistan, Thailand and Kenya.  

STANDARDS OF ELECTORAL INTEGRITY endorsed by the international community suggest that contests should meet certain agreed principles, in particular that:

·        Electoral management bodies should be independent and impartial, with the capacity to manage contests fairly, transparently, and effectively.

·        Voting processes should be secure, honest, fair, and inclusive of all eligible electors.

·        The role of money in politics should provide a reasonably level playing field which is equitable for all parties. And,

·        Electoral laws and regulations should be subject to public consultation and careful parliamentary deliberation to foster a broad consensus among all political parties.

I think that we can all agree on these broad standards. The Fair Elections Act proposes a set of wide-ranging changes. Unfortunately, the current draft of the proposed legislation would fail to meet these international standards in four ways. In particular, it would:

1.      Diminish the effectiveness, impartiality, and independence of electoral administration;

2.      Restrict voting rights and thereby reduce electoral turnout;

3.      Expand the role of money in politics; and

4.      Produce polarization rather than a broad consensus among all political parties.

As a result, the legislation damage Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of human rights and provide a poor example for countries elsewhere in the world. Let me explain these concerns.

DETAILED COMMENTS

The bill seeks to rewrite many major laws and regulations governing elections in Canada.  These major changes would reduce electoral integrity in four ways, as follows:

1. DIMINISH THE EFFECTIVENESS, IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION

The proposed Act significantly diminishes the effectiveness of Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, in the fair administration of elections and the independent investigation of electoral infractions by:  

·        Severely limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to communicate with the public, thereby preventing the CEO from encouraging voting and civic participation, and publishing research reports

·        Removing the enforcement arm of the agency, the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections Canada, and placing it in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a government department. This weakens the Commissioner’s accountability to report to all political parties in parliament and to the general public.

·        Enabling the winning political party to recommend names for poll supervisors, thereby politicizing the electoral process and introducing the possibility or perception of partisan bias.  The risk is that politicization will reduce public trust in the electoral process and confidence in elected officials

·        Failing to provide the Commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony (a significant obstacle in a recent investigation of electoral fraud)  

Any electoral management body needs to be seen to be independent of the party in government, impartial towards all political parties, and effective in connecting with the public, including mobilizing turnout. The Act would weaken Elections Canada in all these regards, violating international norms.

2. RESTRICT VOTING RIGHTS AND TURNOUT: The proposed Act diminishes the ability of citizens to vote in elections by:

·        Prohibiting the use of vouching to establish a citizen’s eligibility to vote

·        Prohibiting the use of Voter Information Cards to establish a citizen’s identity or residency

The prohibition against vouching is ostensibly to reduce voter fraud yet there is no evidence, as affirmed by the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, that vouching results in voter fraud. These changes to the voter eligibility rules will disproportionately impact seniors, the younger population and students, the economically disadvantaged, and First Nations citizens, leading to an estimated disenfranchisement of over 120,000 citizens.

There are more appropriate and effective ways which many countries use to prevent voter impersonation, including the provision of no cost official photo voter identification cards by the EMB, the use of provisional ballots (put into a special provisional ballot box to double check against registration records after close of polling), and stricter punishments for any transgressions, such as higher fines or imprisonment.

3. EXPAND THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLITICS: The proposed Act does this by:

·        Exempting “fundraising expenses” from the spending limits for political parties, thereby creating a potential loophole and weakening enforcement

·        Failing to require political parties to provide supporting documentation for their expenses, even though the parties are reimbursed over $30 million after every election

·        Increasing the caps on individual donations from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year

·        Increasing the caps on candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns from $1200 to $5000 per election for candidates and $25,000 per election for leadership contestants

The danger is thereby increasing the influence of personal wealth in elections. Campaigns cost money. Alternative strategies include raising public subsidies and direct services available for all registered candidates and parties on an equitable and fair basis.

4. FAIL TO ACHIEVE A BROAD BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS

The substance of the Fair Elections Act raises significant concerns with respect to the future of electoral integrity in Canada. The process by which the proposed Act is being rushed into law in Parliament has also sparked considerable concern. The governing political party has used its majority power to enact the bill as soon as possible. By contrast, the conventional approach to reforming the electoral apparatus in many democracies has always involved widespread consultation with electoral authorities, the opposition parties and the citizens, as well as with the international community.

Electoral rules and procedures which are seen as partisan or serving the interests of any one party are likely to reduce public trust in the electoral process AND confidence in members of parliament, as well as being vulnerable to amendment following a change of the parties in government.

IN CONCLUSION, the proposed legislation should be revised so that contests in Canada continue to meet the highest international standards of electoral integrity.   I share the concerns expressed in writing by many distinguished national and international experts that the proposed Fair Elections Act threatens to:

·        undermine the integrity of the Canadian electoral process,

·        damage Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of human rights, and

·        provide an example which would also undermine prospects for democracy to flourish in the rest of the world.

Pippa Norris

Director, the Electoral Integrity Project

Professor of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Harvard University

Sydney

2 April 2014

International concern about Canada's proposed Fair Elections Act

We, the undersigned, international scholars and political scientists, are concerned that Canada’s international reputation as one of the world’s guardians of democracy and human rights is threatened by passage of the proposed Fair Elections Act.

We believe that this Act would prove [to] be deeply damaging for electoral integrity within Canada, as well as providing an example which, if emulated elsewhere, may potentially harm international standards of electoral rights around the world.

In particular, the governing party in Canada has proposed a set of wide-ranging changes, which if enacted, would, we believe, undermine the integrity of the Canadian electoral process, diminish the effectiveness of Elections Canada, reduce voting rights, expand the role of money in politics, and foster partisan bias in election administration.

The bill seeks to rewrite many major laws and regulations governing elections in Canada. These major changes would reduce electoral integrity, as follows:

Elections Canada: The proposed Act significantly diminishes the effectiveness of Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, in the fair administration of elections and the investigation of electoral infractions by:

· Severely limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to communicate with the public, thereby preventing the CEO from encouraging voting and civic participation, and publishing research reports

· Removing the enforcement arm of the agency, the Commissioner of Elections, from Elections Canada, and placing it in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a government department

· Prohibiting the Commissioner from communicating with the public about the details of any investigation

· Preventing any details about the Commissioner’s investigations from being included in the DPP’s annual report on the Commissioner’s activities – a report that the DPP provides to the Attorney General (AG), and which the AG forwards to Parliament

· Failing to provide the Commissioner with the power to compel witness testimony (a significant obstacle in a recent investigation of electoral fraud)

Right to Vote: The proposed Act diminishes the ability of citizens to vote in elections by:

· Prohibiting the use of vouching to establish a citizen’s eligibility to vote

· Prohibiting the use of Voter Information Cards to establish a citizen’s identity or residency

The prohibition against vouching is ostensibly to reduce voter fraud yet there is no evidence, as affirmed by the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, that vouching results in voter fraud. These changes to the voter eligibility rules will disproportionately impact seniors, students, the economically disadvantaged, and First Nations citizens, leading to an estimated disenfranchisement of over 120,000 citizens.

Money in Politics: The proposed Act expands the role of money in elections by:

· Exempting “fundraising expenses” from the spending limits for political parties, thereby creating a potential loophole and weakening enforcement

· Failing to require political parties to provide supporting documentation for their expenses, even though the parties are reimbursed over $30 million after every election

· Increasing the caps on individual donations from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year

· Increasing the caps on candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns from $1200 to $5000 per election for candidates and $25,000 per election for leadership contestants

· Creating a gap between the allowable campaign contributions of ordinary citizens and the contributions of candidates to their own campaigns, and thus increasing the influence of personal wealth in elections

Partisan Bias: The proposed Act fosters partisan bias and politicization by:

· Enabling the winning political party to recommend names for poll supervisors, thereby politicizing the electoral process and introducing the possibility of partisan bias

· By exempting “fundraising expenses” (communications with electors who have previously donated over $20 to a party) from “campaign spending,” creating a bias in favour of parties with longer lists of donors above this threshold – currently, the governing party

The substance of the Fair Elections Act raises significant concerns with respect to the future of electoral integrity in Canada. The process by which the proposed Act is being rushed into law in Parliament has also sparked considerable concern. The governing political party has used its majority power to cut off debate and discussion in an effort to enact the bill as soon as possible. By contrast, the conventional approach to reforming the electoral apparatus in Canada has always involved widespread consultation with Elections Canada, the opposition parties and the citizens at large, as well as with the international community.

In conclusion, we, the undersigned, ask that the proposed legislation should be revised so that contests in Canada continue to meet the highest international standards of electoral integrity.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Shaun Bowler, University of California, Riverside, US

Professor Brian Costar, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Ivor Crewe, University College, Oxford, UK

Professor Jorgen Elklit, Aarhus University, Denmark

Professor David Farrell, University College, Dublin, Ireland

Professor Andrew Geddis, University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Lisa Hill, University of Adelaide, Australia

Professor Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan, US

Professor Judith Kelley, Duke University, US

Professor Alexander Keyssar, Harvard University, US

Dr. Ron Levy, Australian National University, Australia

Professor Richard Matland, University of Illinois, US

Professor Dan Meagher, Deakin University, Australia

Dr. Jenni Newton-Farrelly, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia

Professor Pippa Norris, Harvard and Sydney Universities, US/Australia

Professor Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Australia

Professor Andrew Reynolds, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US

Professor Ken Sherrill, Hunter College, City University of New York, US

Professor Daniel Tokaji, The Ohio State University, US