Designing Voters Friendly Ballot Papers
As the preparation for 2019 General Elections intensifies, there are some sundry issues that should worth the attention of elections stakeholders. One is the unintended impact of large number of registered political parties on the design and printing of voters’ friendly ballot paper in a fit for purpose manner. As noted elsewhere on my facebook page, in 2015 general elections, the total registered political parties were 28 out of which only 14 (50%) fielded candidates at the presidential level. With the number of registered political parties reportedly standing at 91 currently, thinking aloud methinks a huge nightmare would likely stare us in the face in terms of design of voter’s friendly ballot papers.
What can the political stakeholders do? A consensus between INEC and all registered political parties is imperative on the subject matter perhaps, after the closure of submission and substitution of parties’ candidates list or names for various electable positions to foreclose crowding the ballot papers by all means. That in the event whereby no candidates is fielded for a particular electable position by a political party, the electoral commission is not obligated to include logo/symbol of such political party (or parties) on the ballot paper for the specific election in view. This is premised on the assumption that no strip of any paper size (A1, A2, A3, A4, etc.,) can contain a single list of logos, symbols and acronyms of all registered political parties in a fit for purpose single row presentation.
Even if one is founded, the possibility of huge voided or invalid votes looms large considering the fact that indelible ink from thump printing of elongated ballot paper can easily stain and overlap thereby rendering such stained ballot paper indeterminable. Moreover, casting such elongated ballot paper into the conventional ballot box size usually deployed by INEC for voting can further compound the risk of voided or invalid votes unless the commission is contemplating of migrating to bigger size ballot boxes like the type normally used for submitting tender documents in procurement contracts which have additional cost implication; not to talk of general level of voters literacy in the country.
Another nagging issue is the abuse or misuse of state and administrative resources (SARs). As often established in campaign finance literature, “the abuse of state resources (ASR) can be a major corruptive force in the electoral process, introducing or exacerbating power inequalities and giving unfair electoral advantage to incumbents” (IFES, 2018). These abuses can compromise the integrity of an election, create an unfair playing field (or undermine competitiveness), and reduce public trust in the legitimacy of the process and its outcomes. As incumbents continue to enjoy undue advantages attached to their offices at the expense of political opponents, what is the acceptable minimum amount of paraphernalia of office that ruling parties and or incumbent candidates can enjoy by virtue of incumbency vis-à-vis their political opponents? What is the general understanding and delimitation of public properties from personal ones; is it okay to use public property for private partisan business?
Like the common practice when PDP held sway and similar manifestations at the subnational levels across all the states of the federation, the ruling APC held its National Caucus meeting at Presidential Villa on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 using State House banquet facilities and logistics, including water and beverages maintained from public pulse, yet a presidential hopeful, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, was reportedly denied access to use Eagle Square for his legitimate political activity even when the facility might have been paid for on a flimsy pretense. Tunde Salman, is an Election Campaign Specialist and Convener of Good Governance Team