June 12, 2012

Prof Wadan Narsey: Issues of electoral fraud, and voter registration and turnout targets



This Submission addresses two areas that the Ghai Commission could usefully examine and comment on.
First is the continued Regime allegations that there was electoral fraud in the 2006 elections.
Second, some advice based on international experience, on what might be appropriateand cost-effective targets for voter registration and voter turnouts in a rurally dispersed electorate such as Fiji.
The Regime selectively quotes the EU Report, pointing to disenfranchisement of certain voter groups (not stated who exactly), flawed registration processes, lack of integrity in the electoral roll,  old traditional wooden ballot boxes being used with some political parties claiming that "the boxes had sufficient gaps beneath the lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes were sealed", no recount of some close votes, a 101 percent. voter turnout in one constituency; and electoral officials favouring the SDL.

These are the serious allegations of possible electoral fraud that the Ghai Commission must examine objectively using the facts, and either accept or reject these allegations once and for all.

There have been other allegations which even the Yash Ghai Commission would know to be merely inefficiencies which are undesirable but little to do with possible electoral fraud: such as,  inappropriate allocation of polling stations and ballot boxes; high levels of invalid votes (bad electoral system);  Electoral Commission lacking funding, lack of institutional knowledge due to the downsizing of the Office of the Supervisor of Elections; the main voter roll not ready on time for public scrutiny which resulted in about 20,000 corrections; and the strange Regime reference to "only 12% of polling stations were being headed by women".

This submission tries to assist the Ghai Commission with an analysis of the "big picture"allegation of electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL (presumably against the Indo-Fijian FLP) using the 2007 Census data produced by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics.
On the issue of appropriate registration and voter turnout targets, a key statistical point that the Ghai Commission might wish to consider is that having another 10% or even 5% of potential voters registering to vote, or voting, would have been extremely unlikely to have made any difference whatsoever, to the elections outcome- either in the past, or in the future.
[A qualification: Let me state at the outset that I hold no brief for the SDL, FLP,or any other political party, although I have been accurately described in the media as a former NFP Parliamentarian (which I was between 1996 and 1999). Following the 1999 elections, however, I ceased my political affiliation,  although I still have friends from many of the political parties during my three years in Parliament. I was able to assist the Electoral Office during the 2006 elections, as well as all the  political parties that attended my voter education workshops throughout Fiji in 2005 and early 2006.
I now focus on the substance of this Submission.
What could be indicators of electoral fraud?
I suggest to the Yash Ghai Commission that if there is any substance at all to allegations of widespread electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL against Indo-Fijian voters and parties, then
(a) the numbers of Fijian voters  registered as a proportion of the actual population aged 21 and over, would tend to be systematically higher than the similar proportions for Indo-Fijians, both in individual constituencies and in aggregate; and
(b) the numbers of Fijians voting as a proportion of those registered to vote, would tend to be higher than the similar proportion for Indo-Fijians, both in individual constituencies and in aggregate.
The facts in Annex 1, Annex 2 and Annex 3, to this submission suggest completely the opposite.
The 2007 Census data
The elections were held in 2006 and the Census was unfortunately postponed to 2007.
[This was much to the unhappiness of the Fiji Bureau of Statistics demographers and the few of us who understand how critical it was to not break the hundred year old cycle of the ten year gap between censuses.  For political purposes, it would have been far more sensible and cost effective to have the census first, so that the electoral boundaries could be more easily established, given the requirements of the 1997 Constitution. In the end, the costs were wastefully duplicated.]
Regardless of that, anyone can go to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics website and download all the 2007 Fiji Census data, by single years.
[My considered opinion is that, contrary to blog allegations, there has been no political interference with any FBS data for the last six years, despite the recently retired Government Statistician being the older brother of Commodore Bainimarama].
Add up the 2007 numbers of potential voters (aged 21 and over) for Fijians, Indo-Fijians and Others in 2007.
To estimate the numbers of potential voters for 2006, reduce the Fijian number by 1.9% (that is the annual growth rate of Fijian voters).
And reduce the Indo-Fijian number by a much smaller 0.1%, the growth rate of Indo-Fijian voters around 2007 (but note that the growth rate of Indo-Fijian voters has been negative for the last five years- expect fewer Indo-Fijian voters at the next election in 2014).
You will get the following interesting table for 2006:
Table 1
Fijians
Indo-Fijians
Registered voters in 2006
256014
204470
Estimated Number Of Voting age in 2006
261876
205723
Percentage registered
98%
99%

The last row indicates that  98% of eligible Fijian voters were actually registered to vote in 2006.
But that was lower than the 99% of Indo-Fijian voters who registered.
There is little possibility of hordes of non-existent Fijian voters being registered twice by the SDL or any Fijian political party.
And what percentage of those registered voters actually voted?
The last row of Table 2 tells you that 87% of registered Fijian voters actually voted, compared to a higher 89% of registered Indo-Fijians who voted.
 Table 2
Fijians
Indo-Fijians
Registered voters in 2006
256014
204470
Actually voting
222660
182476
Percentage voting:
87
89

Nationally, a higher proportion of potential Indo-Fijian voters were registered than Fijians.
AND a higher  proportion of registered Indo-Fijian voters actually voted, than Fijians.
Whatever happened in that one Cakaudrove East constituency, certainly was not replicated throughout the constituencies in aggregate (see Annex 3) nor in individual constituencies (see Annex 2).
Annex 2 shows that the Cakaudrove East result (of more voters than registered) was just one constituency out of 46, and only in 2006.  There was no such result in either 1999 or 2001, when Fijian parties were also in control of the election processes. i.e. 1 anomaly out of 138 communal constituencies (and I show below that even that was trivial).
The Yash Ghai Commission should insist on hard evidence from anyone who keeps alleging that there was widespread electoral fraud in the 2006 elections.
If it wants to satisfy itself, the Yash Ghai Commission can commission similar analysis at the division and the province level.  Just request and please pay for assistance from the last few remaining demographersat the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (before they emigrate to better paying jobs at regional organisations and elsewhere).
To get the Ghai Commission started, I present Annexes 1, 2 and 3  at the bottom of the paper, of some analysis I did three years ago, to see if there was any evidence to support the allegations of electoral fraud  in any of the constituencies.
Annex B suggests that these allegations of electoral fraud are not substantiated by these numbers.
Annex 3 shows that for all three elections (1999,  2010, and 2006) a higher proportion of Indo-Fijians registered, actually voted than did Fijians.
What of the anomaly in Cakaudrove East, where there was indeed a 101% voter turn-out. 
What of the Cakaudrove East anomaly?
Of course, you cannot have 1% more voters than the number supposedly registered.
But was this clear evidence of electoral fraud by the SDL, perhaps with their hand-picked electoral officials secretly stuffing the ballot boxes with extra votes for SDL, through gaps below the lids of wooden boxes?
If you examine this anomaly closely, you find that not only was Cakaudrove East a small rural constituency (with only 7639 voters), but the "extra" 1% voters amounted to a mere 52 votes (that is right, fifty two).
Right alongside was another Fijian constituency, Cakaudrove West, where a much larger 1987 registered voters did not vote.
I would not be surprised to find that some voters registered in the Cakaudrove West mistakenly voted in Cakaudrove East.
The Ghai Commission should also note that the SDL won Cakaudrove East with 6120 votes, and a massive margin of 5353 votes over all the others combined.52 extra votes was a drop in that big bucket.
I doubt if any one from the SDL would have bothered to cheat in that constituency, even if some political parties alleged that "the boxes had sufficient gaps beneath the lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes were sealed").
The Ghai Commission should note that the FLP had one year in the Interim Government, and the Military Regime has had more than five years, to find any evidence of electoral fraud.  They have not found any.
Continued repetition of allegations of electoral without an iota of evidence should be rejected by the Ghai Commission, and seen for what they are: a refusal by political parties to abide by the "rules of the game" when the game goes against them, and other agenda.
The other flimsy excuses
Extremely strange are the Regime allegations that "only 12% of polling stations were being headed by women", as if that amounts to electoral fraud.
The women members of the Ghai Commission would know that most female civil servants (and civil servants are usually the polling officers) will not want to be working at odd hours in polling stations, with their families worried about their safety, or probably more likely male family members clamouring at home: "who is going to cook the dinner?".
Such a complaint is indeed strange coming from an all-powerful dictatorial Regime which has appointed only 1 female Minister in an otherwise all male Government, especially when one Superman is allegedly looking after 7 ministries of his own, and probably another 6 as well for the Boss. (Goodness me.  The Ghai Commission could even recommend that the Fiji Cabinet can do with just 2 Ministers - one Superman, and one Super Woman - to have gender balance! But paid one salary each, of course.)
The allegation that the composition of the polling staff did not reflect the balance of Fiji’s ethnic communities may have some substance- but I suspect simply reflecting whoever volunteered for these tasks and perhaps some insensitivity of the SDL government to this issue- hardly any evidence per se of attempted electoral fraud by them.
If the Regime is to be consistent about the issue of ethnic balance in electoral officers, the Ghai Commission might record in their Report that if the Regime continues to use the Fiji Military to conduct the bulk of the voter registration exercise, that will also reflect the 99% indigenous Fijian balance in the military while Fiji's ethnic balance would require 33% of these officers to be Indo-Fijian.

Why do most Indo-Fijians still believe the allegations of SDL electoral fraud?

I have little doubt that if the Ghai Commission were to ask a large number of Indo-Fijians if they believed that there was electoral fraud by the SDL in 2006 or 2001, I suspect the majority would say "yes".

Most Indo-Fijians believed the FLP's allegations of electoral fraud in 2001 and 2006, and these allegations have not been retracted to this day.

In Australia and NZ, there are also powerful media propaganda machines which keep peddling these views internationally, despite the lack of any hard evidence, and indeed despite any evidence to the contrary.

It is important for the Ghai Commission to understand the reasons for this continued but misplaced belief.

The harsh reality is that the Indo-Fijian community have not forgotten the 1987 and 2000 coups which removed their political leaders from control of government, and all the associated random and targeted violence against them.

Those wounds have not healed and the few racist political statements since the 2000 coup have not helped either.

Such violence has never been targeted against the general indigenous Fijians population even after the 2006 coup, although many have suffered violence at the hands of the military.

It should be noted that while the elected Fijian leaders may have been deposed by the 2006 coup, they have been replaced by another set of Fijian leaders, albeit from the military.

Two Indo-Fijian swallows in the Bainimarama Cabinet do not make for an Indian summer, however prominent one may be in the media.

It is to be hoped that the current rapprochement between all the political parties such as SDL, FLP, NFP, and UPP will result in genuine reconciliation between all the parties, most of whom have by now made the mistake of supportingone military coup or another.

[NAP, SVT, PANU, BLV, MV etc.may surface one of these days- in one form or another, once they understand the likely advantages to themselves, should a proportional electoral system come into being for the 2014 elections.]

What are sensible targets for voter registration and voter turnout?

There is currently a frenzy of spending of tax-payers funds, on electronic methods of voter registration, with the objectives of improving  the proportions of voter registration, and voter turnout.  These are theoretically good objectives in themselves.

But the Yash Ghai Commission should note that Fiji's registration rate and voting rates are already incredibly high by international standards.

Have a look at the international comparisons here.

This sensible article points out that voter turnout depends on "trust in government, degree of partisanship among the population, interest in politics, and belief in the efficacy of voting.

For Fiji, Annex 3 shows that the voter turnout rate declined for ALL ethnic communities between 1999 and 2001, not just for Indo-Fijians: why bother voting when the resulting government is going to be removed at gun-point?

But even in 2001, the Fiji voter turnout rates were among the highest in the world.

Note also, that the voter turnout in 2006 returned to the much higher levels of around 89% of 2006, indicating that the vast majority of voters were once more engaging with the electoral process.

I submit that the Ghai Commission should note the following four aspects of voter turnout rates and voting effectiveness in the Fiji case.

First, the proportions of invalid votes in future will almost certainly be drastically reduced by the likely changes in the electoral system and the simplification of the ballot papers.

Secondly, for many voters who live far from the polling stations, especially rural indigenous Fijians, the logistics and costs of getting to the polling stations far outweighs any benefits of voting for their party of choice.

(Regardless of other benefits that the two former Fiji parliamentarians on the Ghai Commission will remember, with mixed feelings no doubt, such as the free transport of voters, food, grog, and jovial company that usually awaits voters at polling stations, often merrily enjoyed without necessarily giving the bribing political aspirants, their vote, in the secrecy of the polling booth).

The third point is that some 5% of potential voters in Fiji are currently aged 70 years and over, and this proportion is going to rise rapidly in the future given our demographic trends.  A large fraction of this elderly group may have no wish to vote, or would find it physically onerous to travel long distances to vote.  That would leave a mere 5% of potential voters who do not vote for whatever reason- cost, illness on the day, or even very legitimate personal inclination such as total mistrust and dislike of all political parties and politicians.

But the fourth and probably the most important point to consider is a statistical one, related to the ultimate objective of all elections, which is to identify accurately and fairly "who the people want to govern the nation" in their, and the public interest.

How big a voter turnout do you really need?

Every good statistician and Bureau of Statistics knows that if a proper random sample is taken of the entire country of voters, then a mere 5% (I repeat, a mere five percent.) would tell you quite accurately which party is likely to be the winner (don't take my word for it, go and ask a good statistician at the FBS or USP).

This great statistical result is what household surveys by bureaus of statistics, good "opinion polls" or "exit polls" rely on,in the developed world.

Nobody questions that a "sample"or "voter turnout rate" as large as 48% (which is apparently the voter turnout rate in US) or 58% (in the world's largest democracy, India) or 75% (in UK, the origins of the Westminister system) would give you statistically reliable results, accepted by wining and losing parties alike.

The Ghai Commission should consider that increases of voter registration beyond 90% or voter turnout beyond 90% is extremely unlikely to change the result of any election: why would the last 10% of potential voters be any different in political views than the first 90% who have already voted?)

All accountable and resource-scarce countries in the world understand that once you have reached the 85% mark (as Fiji already has) then the "marginal costs" of increasing both the registration rate and the voter turnout rate  will result in negligible marginal benefits in identifying winning parties, while imposing great cost to tax-payers- as we may end up doing currently.

The Ghai Commission should guard against costly and un-necessarily high targets for voter registration or voter turnout, especially when there are many more urgent needs for the use of taxpayers' funds, such as in poverty alleviation, health, education or rural development.

All political parties would similarly gain, if they mutually agreed to not provide all the incredibly costly "bribes" that voters have come to expect from aspiring candidates, often discouraging poor candidates from standing.

While this is something that cannot be enforced (even though there is absolutely no evidence that in Fiji such electoral "bribes" actually work), the Yash Ghai Commission might wish to make a recommendation on this issue, and the political parties might wish to come to some agreement on this (to reduce their own expenditures). Let the voters vote, based on their commitment.

Conclusion

I urge the Yash Ghai Commission to ensure that they do not repeat or give any credibility to any allegations of alleged electoral fraud in either 2001 or 2006, without definitive and objective evidence.

It is accepted that the Regime's new arrangements for electronic electoral registration, individual voter cardsmay be improvements on the past systems and should be welcomed by all the political parties- provided they are not too costly and they not suffer from glitches (have a look at the FBS disastrous belated attempt to use electronic scanners for the 2007 Census forms).

However, I submit to the Yash Ghai Commission that they keep in mind that such minor improvements in the logistics of the electoral processes are extremely unlikely to make any great difference to the eventual election outcomes, or confer any significant benefits to the tax-payers and the nation.

Far more useful for the country's improvement of electoral processes would be a genuine dialogue, rapprochement and the building of goodwill, between the political parties and the Military Regime, with independent NGOs as facilitating intermediaries.


Annex Tables

Annex 1

Voters Listed
Numbers Voting
No
Constituency
Type
1999
2001
2006
1999
2001
2006
1
Bua Fijian
Fijian Comm.
6357
6972
6749
5966
6050
6245
2
Kadavu Fijian
Fijian Comm.
5845
6540
6089
5371
5328
5476
3
Lau Fijian
Fijian Comm.
6807
7536
6612
6343
6197
5943
4
Lomaiviti Fijian
Fijian Comm.
8131
8743
7650
7265
7009
6906
5
Macuata Fijian
Fijian Comm.
9377
9964
9823
8545
8076
8956
6
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
Fijian Comm.
16051
17415
19044
14718
13672
16704
7
Naitasiri Fijian
Fijian Comm.
11449
12488
12067
10511
10214
10874
8
Namosi Fijian
Fijian Comm.
2856
3053
3340
2658
2531
3066
9
Ra Fijian
Fijian Comm.
9570
10589
10880
8831
8586
9590
10
Rewa Fijian
Fijian Comm.
6289
6832
7341
5798
5636
6675
11
Serua Fijian
Fijian Comm.
3903
4065
4473
3630
3423
4112
12
Ba East Fijian
Fijian Comm.
10019
11115
11836
9201
8955
10215
13
Ba West Fijian
Fijian Comm.
12435
13141
15348
11076
10077
12650
14
Tailevu North Fijian
Fijian Comm.
8946
9534
9682
8407
7838
8687
15
Tailevu South Fijian
Fijian Comm.
8738
9635
10303
7938
7934
9389
16
Cakaudrove East Fijian
Fijian Comm.
8054
8808
7587
7120
6923
7639
17
Cakaudrove West Fijian
Fijian Comm.
9062
9855
11609
8426
8328
9622
18
North East Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
13234
14477
17155
10785
10618
14560
19
North West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
15307
16306
18864
12965
11531
15550
20
South West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
12070
13215
15093
10174
9728
12518
21
Suva City Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
11653
12663
12707
9914
9337
10435
22
Tamavua/LaucalaFijan
Fijian Com.Urban
12573
13701
16068
10801
10139
13491
23
Nasinu Fijian
Fijian Comm.
11538
12417
15694
9857
8980
13357
24
Suva City General
General
3772
4107
3523
3231
2956
2896
25
North Eastern General
General
4556
4894
4701
3860
3694
4042
26
Western/Central General
General
5701
5942
5593
4890
4328
4657
27
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
Ind.Comm.
7760
8230
7256
7324
7006
6621
28
Tavua Indian
Ind.Comm.
8477
9197
8536
8070
7873
7912
29
Ba East Indian
Ind.Comm.
10049
10487
8203
9394
8912
7532
30
Ba West Indian
Ind.Comm.
10188
11240
11538
9450
9149
10155
31
Lautoka Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
9667
10253
11200
9104
8304
9841
32
Lautoka City Indian
Ind.Comm.
11849
12356
12308
10806
9285
10634
33
Vuda Indian
Ind.Comm.
11286
11584
10526
10413
9316
9239
34
Nadi Urban Indian
Ind.Comm.
12336
13019
13081
11437
10088
11453
35
Nadi Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
9678
10160
11467
9079
8629
10394
36
Nadroga Indian
Ind.Comm.
11179
11833
11240
10552
9879
10350
37
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
Ind.Comm.
7839
8290
8407
7222
6623
7586
38
Suva City Indian
Ind.Comm.
13280
14435
12568
11837
10055
10618
39
Vanualevu West Indian
Ind.Comm.
8839
9186
7754
8200
7612
7193
40
Laucala Indian
Ind.Comm.
14453
15343
18610
13171
11374
15983
41
Nasinu Indian
Ind.Comm.
12090
13075
14789
11218
10393
13327
42
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
Ind.Comm.
10875
11519
11641
10257
9108
10525
43
Labasa Indian
Ind.Comm.
9668
9996
10248
8793
8148
8986
44
Labasa Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
9775
10113
7416
8806
8568
7012
45
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
Ind.Comm.
8332
8721
7682
7641
7203
7115
46
Rotuma
Rotuman Comm.
5232
5567
5373
4682
4255
4737



Annex 2
Percent. Voting
Percent. Not Voting



1999
2001
2006
1999
2001
2006
1
Bua Fijian
Fijian Comm.
94
87
93
6
13
7
2
Kadavu Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
81
90
8
19
10
3
Lau Fijian
Fijian Comm.
93
82
90
7
18
10
4
Lomaiviti Fijian
Fijian Comm.
89
80
90
11
20
10
5
Macuata Fijian
Fijian Comm.
91
81
91
9
19
9
6
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
79
88
8
21
12
7
Naitasiri Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
82
90
8
18
10
8
Namosi Fijian
Fijian Comm.
93
83
92
7
17
8
9
Ra Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
81
88
8
19
12
10
Rewa Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
82
91
8
18
9
11
Serua Fijian
Fijian Comm.
93
84
92
7
16
8
12
Ba East Fijian
Fijian Comm.
92
81
86
8
19
14
13
Ba West Fijian
Fijian Comm.
89
77
82
11
23
18
14
Tailevu North Fijian
Fijian Comm.
94
82
90
6
18
10
15
Tailevu South Fijian
Fijian Comm.
91
82
91
9
18
9
16
Cakaudrove East Fijian
Fijian Comm.
88
79
101
12
21
-1
17
Cakaudrove West Fijian
Fijian Comm.
93
85
83
7
15
17
18
North East Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
81
73
85
19
27
15
19
North West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
85
71
82
15
29
18
20
South West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
84
74
83
16
26
17
21
Suva City Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
85
74
82
15
26
18
22
Tamavua/Laucala Fijan
Fijian Com.Urban
86
74
84
14
26
16
23
Nasinu Fijian
Fijian Comm.
85
72
85
15
28
15
24
Suva City General
General
86
72
82
14
28
18
25
North Eastern General
General
85
75
86
15
25
14
26
Western/Central General
General
86
73
83
14
27
17
27
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
Ind.Comm.
94
85
91
6
15
9
28
Tavua Indian
Ind.Comm.
95
86
93
5
14
7
29
Ba East Indian
Ind.Comm.
93
85
92
7
15
8
30
Ba West Indian
Ind.Comm.
93
81
88
7
19
12
31
Lautoka Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
94
81
88
6
19
12
32
Lautoka City Indian
Ind.Comm.
91
75
86
9
25
14
33
Vuda Indian
Ind.Comm.
92
80
88
8
20
12
34
Nadi Urban Indian
Ind.Comm.
93
77
88
7
23
12
35
Nadi Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
94
85
91
6
15
9
36
Nadroga Indian
Ind.Comm.
94
83
92
6
17
8
37
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
Ind.Comm.
92
80
90
8
20
10
38
Suva City Indian
Ind.Comm.
89
70
84
11
30
16
39
Vanualevu West Indian
Ind.Comm.
93
83
93
7
17
7
40
Laucala Indian
Ind.Comm.
91
74
86
9
26
14
41
Nasinu Indian
Ind.Comm.
93
79
90
7
21
10
42
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
Ind.Comm.
94
79
90
6
21
10
43
Labasa Indian
Ind.Comm.
91
82
88
9
18
12
44
Labasa Rural Indian
Ind.Comm.
90
85
95
10
15
5
45
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
Ind.Comm.
92
83
93
8
17
7
46
Rotuma
Rotuman Comm.
89
76
88
11
24
12



Annex  3
Percentage voting in elections of
Percentage Not Voting in elections of

1999
2001
2006
1999
2001
2006
Fijian Communal
89
78
87
11
22
13
Indian Communal
92
80
89
8
20
11
General Communal
85
73
84
15
27
16
Rotuman
89
76
88
11
24
12

Percentage Change




1999 to 01
2001 to 06



Fijian Communal

-12
11



Indian Communal

-13
11



General Communal

-14
14



Rotuman

-15
15







No comments: