Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: GE13: SHAME! GE13 one of the WORLD'S DIRTIEST elections, just above ZIMBABWE

   
   
       
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392

    GE13: SHAME! GE13 one of the WORLD'S DIRTIEST elections, just above ZIMBABWE

    Friday, 28 February 2014 07:55


    SHAME! GE13 one of the WORLD'S DIRTIEST elections, just above ZIMBABWE

    Full article: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/in...#ixzz2ubloRsWU
    Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter



    KUALA LUMPUR — A study on the integrity of elections across the globe has rated Malaysia near the bottom of the pile, with the country’s general election last year coming in 66th out of 73 elections surveyed, just above Zimbabwe.


    The findings of the Electoral Integrity Project (EIP), based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, released this month shows that Malaysia’s 13th general election was perceived as having low levels of integrity, due to problematic electoral boundaries and election laws.


    Cambodia ranked below Malaysia at 69th, while the only other Southeast Asian country on the list, the Philippines, ranked 47th, signalling moderate levels of electoral integrity.


    In the EIP’s 100-point Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index, where a higher score denotes a more positive evaluation, Malaysia scored just 48.4 points, compared to Norway which ranked the highest at 86.4 points, indicating a high level of electoral integrity.


    “Worldwide, electoral integrity is at risk in Southeast Asia,” the EIP report said.


    “Recent electoral protests and instability in Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia vividly illustrate these challenges,” it added.



    The EIP, which covered 73 elections held between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 in 66 countries worldwide, said that Barisan Nasional’s (BN) victory in the May 5 election was attributed to gerrymandering, which is the malapportionment of electoral boundaries.


    “The ruling BN coalition have a distinct advantage in constituency size in their mainly rural, Malay base while the urban strongholds and ethnic Chinese populations supporting opposition parties have districts with much larger electorates,” said the report, pointing out that the Putrajaya federal constituency has just 15,791 eligible voters, compared to the Kapar constituency with 144,159 eligible voters.


    The EIP also noted that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition pact bagged just 89 federal seats, or 40 per cent, of the 222-seat Dewan Rakyat, despite winning 50.87 per cent of the popular vote in the election that is based on the first-past-the-post system.


    “The election also saw 80 per cent turnout, the largest in the nation’s history. The outcome deepened the challenge to the legitimacy of the government,” said the report.


    Shortly after the May 5 election, thousands rallied in protest against what they said were tainted polls. One key complaint was that the indelible ink used to prevent voters from casting votes repeatedly, washed off too easily.


    The EIP observed that BN enjoys greater access to the media. PR, however, lacks access to the government-controlled radio and television, while many newspapers have close ties to the ruling coalition, though the opposition pact has space in online media.


    “Access to political finance is also imbalanced,” the report said.


    The study showed that Malaysia scored poorly on several measures that make up the overall index of electoral integrity. Malaysia’s 13th general election scored just 28 points on electoral boundaries, 33 points on election laws, 37 points on voter registration, 37 points on campaign finance, 38 points on media coverage, 46 points on electoral authorities, 54 points on electoral procedures, 56 points on vote count and 65 points on the voting process.


    Malaysia scored 53 points on ‘results’ which refers to whether the election results were challenged or if the election had sparked protests. The country scored 58 points on party and candidate registration, which considers whether women and ethnic minorities had equal opportunities to run for office, or if some candidates were barred from holding campaign rallies.


    The study noted that contrary to popular belief that the main election issues arise on polling day, such as ballot stuffing and inaccurate counts, experts were mostly concerned about the lack of a level playing field in campaign media and political finance.


    “Overall, not surprisingly, the results confirm that electoral integrity is strengthened by democracy and development,” said the report, noting that Norway, Germany and the Netherlands have strengthened democratic practices and electoral management bodies over the years.


    The United States (US) scored the worst among Western countries, coming in at 26th, as experts expressed concern over redistricting processes, campaign finance and voter registration.


    The EIP said that several African nations risk failed elections, citing Equatorial Guinea, Togo, Djibouti, the Republic of Congo, Angola and Zimbabwe.


    In Asia, South Korea and Japan scored high for electoral integrity. The former ranked sixth, while Japan’s two elections were ranked 16th and 18th.


    The PEI survey identified around 40 election experts for each country, where there was roughly an equal balance between international and domestic experts. A total of 855 experts gave completed responses, representing 30 per cent of those contacted.


    In Malaysia, 17 experts had responded.


    The project defined electoral integrity as agreed international conventions and global norms that apply universally to all countries worldwide through the election cycle, including during the pre-election period, the campaign, on polling day, and its aftermath.


    The EIP is an independent research project based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, directed by Professor Pippa Norris, and co-authored by Dr Richard Frank and Dr Ferran Martinez i Coma. - Malay Mail



    Full article: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/in...#ixzz2ubiEn500
    Follow us: @MsiaChronicle on Twitter
    py

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/sp1hc6ogvajj0wl/The%20Year%20in%20Elections%202013%2024%20Feb%2020 14%20EXECUTIVE.pdf


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gakbmcvbpk...Feb%202014.pdf

    The Year in Elections, 2013

    [Click on the link to access the interactive graphics which gives a clearer picture.]

    New evidence on the risks of flawed and failed elections

    1.What are the risks?

    In many countries, polling day ends with disputes about ballot-box fraud, corruption, and flawed registers. Recent cases such as Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia illustrate these controversies, undermining legitimacy and stability. There are disputes even in long-established democracies such as the US and Britain. But which claims are accurate? And which are false complaints from sore losers?


    To address this issue, new evidence gathered by the Electoral Integrity Project compares the risks of flawed and failed elections, and how far countries around the world meet international standards. The EIP is an independent research project based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, under the direction of Professor Pippa Norris.


    This annual report evaluates all national parliamentary and presidential contests occurring in 66 countries worldwide holding 73 election from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2013 (excluding smaller states with a population below 100,000), from Albania to Zimbabwe. Data is derived from a global survey of 855 election experts. The report includes 73 national parliamentary and presidential contests held worldwide in 66 countries. All continents and regions are represented. Immediately after each contest, the survey asks domestic and international experts to monitor the quality based on 49 indicators. These responses are then clustered into eleven stages occurring during the electoral cycle and summed to construct an overall 100-point expert Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index and ranking.


    2. World rankings


    The following global rankings in figure 1 show how elections compared on the 100-point PEI index. Long-standing democracies such as Norway, Germany and the Netherlands emerged as the highest in electoral integrity, while contests in countries such as the Republic of Congress, Djibouti and Equatorial Guinea were worst rated by experts.
    1. PEI Rankings by Country

    Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2014. The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 2 (PEI_2)




    3.Regional patterns of electoral integrity


    Overall, the world map in Figure 2 confirms that elections in Northern and Western Europe are evaluated most positively, again as expected, while South East Asia was the weakest region.


    2. The world map of perceptions of electoral integrity
    PEI Index World Map





    High Integrity. Moderate Integrity. Low Integrity
    Click on any country for more details about the results.
    Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2014.
    The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 2 (PEI_2)

    Overall, not surprisingly, the quality of elections (measured by PEI) is significantly correlated with contemporary levels of liberal democracy, as gauged by combining Freedom House and Polity V indicators of democratization matched to the year of the contest. Additionally, the top ranking elections are all held in affluent post-industrial societies, with a long succession of democratic contests experienced over many decades or even centuries, as well as having stable states and effective public sector governance. These countries usually scored exceptionally well in PEI for electoral procedures, characterized by effective and efficient voter registration and vote tabulation processes. Levels of economic development usually help to predict which countries do well and poorly in electoral integrity.


    4.Democracy and development

    Nevertheless historical experience of democracy did not determine current levels of integrity; as shown in figure 3, the quality of elections was strong in several third wave democracies and emerging economies, including the Republic of Korea, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Lithuania, Argentina, and Mongolia. These countries are highly rated by experts although they only established multiparty systems and competitive democratic elections during the late-1980s and early-1990s.


    By contrast, the United States ranked 26th out of 73 elections under comparison worldwide, the lowest score among Western nations, falling into the Moderate Integrity category.

    3. Democracy, development and PEI

    Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2014. The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 2 (PEI_2); Quality of Government Cross-National Dataset, downloaded December 2013 http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/data


    5.Which part of the electoral cycle is most at risk?

    Much commentary focuses on problems occurring on polling day in the voting process and ballot count, such as the debate about voter fraud or insecurity in ballot boxes. In fact, however, campaign finance and campaign media coverage are the weakest links in the electoral cycle.


    Money in politics was a concern in many developing countries, such as Burkina Faso and the Republic of Congo, as well as in many affluent societies, such as the United States and Italy. The regulation of money in politics deserves greater attention by domestic actors and the international community when seeking to reduce corruption, the abuse of state resources, and vote-buying, to strengthen public confidence in elections, and to ensure a level playing field for all parties and candidates.

    Contrary to much attention by journalists and scholars, the end-stages of the electoral cycle, involving the process of vote tabulation, electoral procedures, and the announcement of the final results, were assessed by experts as the least problematic stage.

    4. Risks during the electoral cycle



    Source: Electoral Integrity Project. 2014. The expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release 2 (PEI_2)

    6. Looking ahead

    This first annual report provides a snap-shot summary of the quality of elections in countries which held elections in the 18-month period under comparison. The evidence allows elections across the world to be compared with each other and any problems diagnosed across all eleven components of the electoral cycle. The inclusion of all nation-wide contests during this period (with the exclusion of micro-states with populations below 100,000) means that the evidence provides a representative cross-section of all nation-wide elections held worldwide. Further publications from the team of EIP researchers analyze the data in more depth, including explaining the conceptual framework, testing the reliability and robustness of the data, and exploring the consequences for political legitimacy, public participation and regime transitions.

    We hope that this report and the data provide useful evidence for a wide range of scholars and policymakers, including for academic researchers and students, public officials in Electoral Management Bodies, election watch and human rights organizations, broadcasters and reporters covering elections, and agencies within the international community seeking to strengthen electoral integrity.

    Nevertheless the report is limited in its international coverage and especially the capacity to draw comparisons over successive contests occurring within the same country. The evidence will become more comprehensive geographically and over time as the survey is replicated annually and the report is published in subsequent years, rolling out the evaluations to cover national parliamentary and presidential elections in 2014 and beyond. Further analysis and publications planned by the EIP team will focus on several specific issues, including the prevention of electoral violence, the role of election management bodies, the impact of social media and crowd-sourcing on electoral transparency, the ways in which electoral integrity influences citizen activism and turnout, and the regulation of political finance. There are several opportunities to engage with the project at the University of Sydney through a series of international workshops, conferences, internships and visiting scholarships, with details available on the project website. All information is available viawww.electoralintegrityproject.com.

    Comments and feedback are welcome. In particular, reports about the party vote share and voter turnout for each election often differ slightly from one source to another, and any factual errors brought to our attention will be corrected in future releases of the dataset. In addition, it would be appreciated if copies of any related publications using the datasets could be sent to the project and if the original data source could be clearly acknowledged in citations. This project is a new addition to the conceptual framework and battery of evidence available to assess problems of electoral integrity and it is hoped that this initiative proves valuable.



    Pippa Norris (Director EIP, Professor of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, and McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Harvard University),

    Dr. Richard W. Frank (Project Manager and Research Fellow)

    Dr. Ferran Martínez i Coma (PEI Program Manager and Research Fellow)


    February 2014

    7. Further readings


    • Norris, Pippa, Ferran Martínez i Coma, and Richard W. Frank. 2013. ‘Assessing the quality of elections.’ Journal of Democracy. 24(4): 124‐135.
    • Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martínez i Coma. 2014. Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms’ Special issue of Electoral Studies 32(4):576‐588.
    • Norris, Pippa. 2013. ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’. Special issue of Electoral Studies 32(4): 563‐575.
    • Norris, Pippa. 2014. ‘Electoral integrity and political legitimacy.’ In Comparing Democracies 4, eds. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. London: Sage.
    • Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why electoral integrity matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Eds. 2014. Comparing Democracies 4. London: Sage Publications.

    8. More details

    Download the report:


    Executive version (20 pages)
    Full version (112 pages)


    The PEI data is publicly and freely available for download at the Electoral Integrity Project's Dataverse.



    Send your comments and feedback.

    9. News coverage and commentary



    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    py

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    Election 2013 lacked integrity, study finds

    BY BOO SU-LYN, themalaymailonline

    FEBRUARY 28, 2014


    KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 28 — A study on the integrity of elections across the globe has rated Malaysia near the bottom of the pile, with the country’s general election last year coming in 66th out of 73 elections surveyed, just above Zimbabwe.


    The findings of the Electoral Integrity Project (EIP), based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, released this month shows that Malaysia’s 13th general election was perceived as having low levels of integrity, due to problematic electoral boundaries and election laws.

    Cambodia ranked below Malaysia at 69th, while the only other Southeast Asian country on the list, the Philippines, ranked 47th, signalling moderate levels of electoral integrity.

    In the EIP’s 100-point Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index, where a higher score denotes a more positive evaluation, Malaysia scored just 48.4 points, compared to Norway which ranked the highest at 86.4 points, indicating a high level of electoral integrity.

    “Worldwide, electoral integrity is at risk in Southeast Asia,” the EIP report said.

    “Recent electoral protests and instability in Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia vividly illustrate these challenges,” it added.

    The EIP, which covered 73 elections held between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 in 66 countries worldwide, said that Barisan Nasional’s (BN) victory in the May 5 election was attributed to gerrymandering, which is the malapportionment of electoral boundaries.


    “The ruling BN coalition have a distinct advantage in constituency size in their mainly rural, Malay base while the urban strongholds and ethnic Chinese populations supporting opposition parties have districts with much larger electorates,” said the report, pointing out that the Putrajaya federal constituency has just 15,791 eligible voters, compared to the Kapar constituency with 144,159 eligible voters.

    The EIP also noted that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition pact bagged just 89 federal seats, or 40 per cent, of the 222-seat Dewan Rakyat, despite winning 50.87 per cent of the popular vote in the election that is based on the first-past-the-post system.

    “The election also saw 80 per cent turnout, the largest in the nation’s history. The outcome deepened the challenge to the legitimacy of the government,” said the report.

    Shortly after the May 5 election, thousands rallied in protest against what they said were tainted polls. One key complaint was that the indelible ink used to prevent voters from casting votes repeatedly, washed off too easily.

    The EIP observed that BN enjoys greater access to the media. PR, however, lacks access to the government-controlled radio and television, while many newspapers have close ties to the ruling coalition, though the opposition pact has space in online media.

    “Access to political finance is also imbalanced,” the report said.

    The study showed that Malaysia scored poorly on several measures that make up the overall index of electoral integrity. Malaysia’s 13th general election scored just 28 points on electoral boundaries, 33 points on election laws, 37 points on voter registration, 37 points on campaign finance, 38 points on media coverage, 46 points on electoral authorities, 54 points on electoral procedures, 56 points on vote count and 65 points on the voting process.

    Malaysia scored 53 points on ‘results’ which refers to whether the election results were challenged or if the election had sparked protests. The country scored 58 points on party and candidate registration, which considers whether women and ethnic minorities had equal opportunities to run for office, or if some candidates were barred from holding campaign rallies.
    The study noted that contrary to popular belief that the main election issues arise on polling day, such as ballot stuffing and inaccurate counts, experts were mostly concerned about the lack of a level playing field in campaign media and political finance.

    “Overall, not surprisingly, the results confirm that electoral integrity is strengthened by democracy and development,” said the report, noting that Norway, Germany and the Netherlands have strengthened democratic practices and electoral management bodies over the years.

    The United States (US) scored the worst among Western countries, coming in at 26th, as experts expressed concern over redistricting processes, campaign finance and voter registration.

    The EIP said that several African nations risk failed elections, citing Equatorial Guinea, Togo, Djibouti, the Republic of Congo, Angola and Zimbabwe.

    In Asia, South Korea and Japan scored high for electoral integrity. The former ranked sixth, while Japan’s two elections were ranked 16th and 18th.

    The PEI survey identified around 40 election experts for each country, where there was roughly an equal balance between international and domestic experts. A total of 855 experts gave completed responses, representing 30 per cent of those contacted.

    In Malaysia, 17 experts had responded.

    The project defined electoral integrity as agreed international conventions and global norms that apply universally to all countries worldwide through the election cycle, including during the pre-election period, the campaign, on polling day, and its aftermath.

    The EIP is an independent research project based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, directed by Professor Pippa Norris, and co-authored by Dr Richard Frank and Dr Ferran Martinez i Coma

    - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/ma....Ap6QfNFR.dpuf
    py

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,392
    MALAYSIA BOTTOM OF THE PILE IN GLOBAL STUDY ON ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES


    March 3, 2014




    (MMO) – The quality of Malaysia’s electoral boundaries used in the general elections last year has been ranked the worst out of 66 countries in a global study on the integrity of elections.

    The findings of the Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) based in the University of Sydney and Harvard University, released in February, showed that Malaysia’s 13th general election last May scored just 28 out of a maximum of 100 points on the electoral boundary indicator.

    The experts’ perceptions suggest that the voting districts were not impartial and discriminated against some parties, since they strongly favour rural constituencies as opposed to urban ones,” Max Groemping, doctoral researcher with the EIP team, told The Malay Mail Online in a recent email interview.

    The size of constituencies is unequal, so that rural districts often represent fewer voters than urban one. That means that it takes fewer rural voters to determine one seat. This is called ‘malapportionment’,” he added.
    The study was based on expert opinion on the electoral integrity of 73 elections in 66 countries, held between July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013.

    Groemping noted that Barisan Nasional (BN) stands to benefit from the way the electoral boundaries are currently drawn as the ruling coalition appears to enjoy strong support in rural areas.

    “This shows in the fact that the ruling party gained almost 60 per cent of seats with only about 47 per cent of the popular vote,” he said.

    The study’s 100-point Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index, where a higher score denotes a more positive evaluation, the United States (US) ranked second-worst on the electoral boundary indicator, scoring just 33 points.

    Malaysia’s neighbour Cambodia scored 44 points on the electoral boundary indicator, while the only other Southeast Asian country on the list, the Philippines, scored 61.

    South Korea scored 73, while the quality of Czech Republic’s electoral boundaries were ranked the best at 81 points.

    According to the study, the overall electoral integrity of Malaysia’s election was rated near the bottom of the pile, with the May 5 general polls coming in at 66th out of 73 elections in the PEI survey based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University.

    The study found that experts viewed Malaysia’s general election in 2013 as having low levels of integrity due to problematic electoral boundaries and election laws.

    “It is beyond the scope of the report to make specific policy recommendations to particular countries. But the experts’ perceptions would suggest that Malaysia could benefit from more evenly sized electoral districts, in order to minimise the ‘wasted vote effect’ due to malapportionment,” Groemping told The Malay Mail Online.

    Electoral reform groups have been pushing for a fairer redrawing of electoral boundaries ahead of the country’s constituency re-delineation exercise.

    The Star daily reported in February that Election watchdog, Bersih 2.0, will start a campaign to recruit and educate people on the re-delineation exercise, focusing on states where the group said gerrymandering was likely.
    py

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Nobody landed on this page from a search engine, yet!
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •