Get documents about "Malawi Election Support Network (MESN)
Document Sample
MALAWI ELECTORAL SUPPORT NETWORK
(MESN)
STATISTICAL BASED MONITORING ANALYSIS REPORT
Malawi Parliamentary and Presidential Elections, 19 May 2009
The Chairperson
Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN)
P.O. Box 32160, Chichiri, BLANTYRE 3
Tel: 01843842
Cell: 088 8 828 262
E-mail: mesnsecretariate@gmail.com
With financial and technical assistance from
National Democratic Institute (NDI) and USAID
June 2009.
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) would like to register its most profound
gratitude to the polling day monitors and constituency supervisors for their untiring effort
in capturing data and transmitting it to the Project Management Unit (PMU). Without
that data production of this report would not have been possible.
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
MESN also sincerely thanks the Master Trainers, Regional Coordinators’ Teams, Data Entry
Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: Multiple 0.5
Clerks and Phone Operators for their hard working during the implementation of the SBM li
project. Mesn acknowledges the support that it received from the Electoral Commission (EC). Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Finally MESN would like to thank National Democratic Institute (NDI) and USAID for the
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
financial and technical support rendered. Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Aloisious A.C. Nthenda Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
MESN CHAIRPERSON Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Font color:
Auto
2
2.0 SUMMARY Comment [RK1]: I have intentionally left this to
be filled in by MESN
On 19th May 2009, Parliamentary and Presidential elections in Malawi, MESN conducted a Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 2 +
Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM) exercise of the Presidential results. The main achievement Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
of the SBM is that MESN provided Malawians, the EC, political parties and other stakeholders 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
with accurate, systematic, nationwide information on the conduct of election day. Because of
the SBM, MESN was able to provide this information rapidly so as to help reduce the natural
tensions that exists following any election. Further MESN was also able to verify the accuracy
of the official results. This showed clearly that the official results were tabulated correctly and
that the official results reflect how citizens voted on Election Day. One can have confidence in
the findings from the SBM (both about the conduct of voting and counting as well as the
accuracy of the results) because MESN deployed monitors to a representative random sample
of polling stations (the distribution tables demonstrate the representativeness of the sample)
and was able to rapidly collect checklists from the vast majority of its monitors (again
distribution tables demonstrate the representativeness of the data received). However, the
data from the SBM must be understood in the context of the overall electoral process and
shortcomings in the voter registration process and the campaign to some extent undermine the
legitimacy of the process. In future MESN should comprehensively monitor all aspects of the
electoral process including employing the SBM methodology on Election Day.
Finally, MESN accepts the official results as announced by the Electoral Commission (EC) as a
true reflection of the will of Malawian voters
3
3.0 BACKGROUND: Formatted: Tab stops: -1.75", Left + Not at
1.44"
3.1 About MESN
Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) is a network of Non Governmental Organizations,
faith based institutions and community based organizsations working on elections in Malawi.
The network works closely with the Electoral Commission (EC) and the donor community. The
network was formed in 2003 and participated fully in 2004 parliamentary and presidential
elections by conducting civic and voter education and election monitoring. In 2004 MESN
deployed over 11,000 polling day monitors across the country.
The goal of MESN is to ensure adequate and competent participation of its membership in
contributing to peaceful, transparent, credible and democratic national elections. MESN strives
to achieve this goal through:
i. Building the capacity of its members to implement sound programs on the electoral
process
ii. Coordination activities such as joint planning, implementation and review of its
activities.
iii. Lobbying, advocacy and resource mobilization on behalf of its members. The network
has an executive board and secretariat that are responsible for its operations.
3.2 About 2009 Elections Formatted: Tab stops: -1.75", Left + Not at
1.44"
Malawi held its fourth multiparty democracy Parliamentary and Presidential Elections on 19
May 2009. These elections were held with a background that the 2004 elections were marred
with a number of challenges such as the voters’ register was not clean, delay in announcement
of results, political violence, failure to accept results by some candidates and legal petitions
after announcements of results.
The preparations for the May 2009 elections by the Electoral Commission had its challenges
such as
Delay in the appointment of commissioners which resulted in delayed preparations for
the elections.
Legal challenge in court over the appointment of commissioners by opposition political
parties.
Staggered registration confused the electorate and was also marred by problems of
faulty equipment and inadequately trained personnel
Eligibility of former president
Lack of inadequate mobilization for monitors. Comment [RK2]: I am not clear what is meant
by this point. I would suggest you clarify.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
MESN members had also a fair share of challenges in the participation in the electoral process
such as inadequate capacity to conduct civic and voter education and election monitoring, late
and limited financial support.
4
The elections were expected to be hotly contested due to the electoral alliance between UDF
and MCP. The 2004 elections were marred by problems of lack of transparency in the
tabulation of the presidential election results.
Following the announcement of the presidential election results, opposition parties accused the
Electoral Commission (EC) of rigging the election results in favor of the ruling party which
reduced public confidence in the electoral process. Prior to the 2009 elections, opposition
parties had already cast doubt on the independence of the EC which threatened to further
undermine public confidence in the electoral process and democracy in Malawi as a whole.
Ahead of the May 2009 elections, MESN planned to establish a nationwide structure to recruit,
train and manage and deploy 800 monitors to implement a statistical based monitoring (SBM)
exercise. The preparations started in November 2008. In addition, MESN planned to establish
a Program Management Unit (PMU) for the purposes of collecting and analyzing SBM findings
from its 800 monitors. Through its SBM exercise, MESN expected to promote confidence in
the electoral process to the degree warranted by identifying isolated mistakes versus systematic
trends and evaluate the integrity of the official presidential election results.
With assistance from the National Democratic Institute (NDI), MESN implemented the
following activities:
1.i. A strategic planning session to develop a plan for project implementation. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
ii. Selected a representative random sample of polling stations for inclusion in the SBM
2.iii. Conducted training-of-trainers (TOT) workshop for 2018 Regional Trainers.
3.iv. Conducted trainings led by the 2018 MESN Regional Trainers for 193
Constituency Supervisors;
4.v. Conducted trainings led by 2018 trainers for 800 monitors who were responsible
for implementing an SBM exercise on Election Day; and
5.vi. Established a PMU with mobile phone hotlines, computers, and data entry clerks
to allow for the collection and analysis of SBM findings from 800 monitors. These
activities enabled MESN to implement an SBO exercise and release statements
incorporating SBM exercise and released interim statements on time incorporating SBM
analysis evaluating the electoral process.
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Formatted: Tab stops: -1.88", Left + Not at
1.44"
In 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections MESN used a new technique in election
monitoring called Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM).
Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM) is an election-monitoring excercise whereby statistical Formatted: Tab stops: 0", Left + 1.5", Left
principles are applied to evaluate the integrity of key elements in the election process and
election results. The SBM has two elements: qualitative and quantitative. The approach used
by MESN was SBM and general election monitoring.The qualitative aspect of the SBPM
provides detailed and specific information on the conduct of the opening of polling stations,
5
voting and counting on election day while the quantiative element enable domestic observers
to verify the accuracy of the official election results (when appropriate).
4.1 Goals for Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM)
Deterring fraud in elections
Encouraging citizen participation
Reporting on the quality of the voting and counting processes
Offering timely forecast of the resultsinformation on the conduct of the voting and
counting as well as the accuracy of the official results
Instilling confidence in the electoral process and official results
Extending organisational reach and skills building
Setting stage for future activities Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
4.2 Objectives of SBM Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
To improve public confidence in the electoral process. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
To provide accurate information on the conduct of voting and counting processes
To verify the accuracy of the presidential election results. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
To mitigate conflict by enhancing confidence in the electoral process and the official
results.
To build civil society capacity in election monitoring.
4.3 Benefits of SBM
It uses a smaller number of monitors therefore less resources and easier to
fundraise.
Allows strategic deployment of monitors
Top quality monitors are produced through its advanced training and the
recruitment of a smaller number of monitors.
Allows rapid reporting of incidents and resultsand the conduct of voting and
counting on the polling day.
It has more reliable data (Science vs. anecdotes)
Ensure adequate and competent participation
Gets resultsCollect data quicker than the traditional monitoring system
Fair coverage of polling streamsthe entire country.
4.4 Limitations of SBM
Cannot detect ballot box stuffing;
6
Cannot prevent voter suppression through a defective voters register;
Cannot document substantial campaign abuses: such as misuse of administrative
resources, unequal media environment, unequal campaigning between parties, etc.
4.5 Project Activities Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
The initial activity of the SBM project was a strategic planning exercise. This event was used to
fully explain the SBM effort to the MESN board.
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 7 pt, Not Bold
Following strategic planning the first step in the SBM exercise was the selection of a truly
representative random sample of polling station to which MESN would deploy accredited and
trained monitorsobservers.
A total sample size of 800 was selected which would represent slightly more than 10 percent of
the 6,774 streams at polling stations. For the SBM exercise the unit of analysis is the polling
station stream rather than the polling station since a monitor can only effectively observe
voting and counting at one stream. While the MEC had initially considered commingling
ballots papers from separate streams at a polling station for the purposes of counting,
ultimately the MEC gave polling officials instructions to count ballots for each stream
individually.
To ensure the sample would be representative it was stratified by region and district. In
practice this meant that the percentage of polling stations for any region or district included in
the sample matched to percentage of total polling stations in the region or district. As can be
seen from Table 1 the percentage of polling station streams in the sample from each region
closely match the percentage of total polling station stream. Appendices Appendix ??
providesprovide a similar breakdown of the distribution of total polling station streams and
sampled polling station streams by district. Within each district polling stations were selected
at random to ensure that the sample was unbiased and that the resulting data could be
extrapolated to the conduct of the elections at all polling stations.
Table 1. Distribution of Total Polling Station Streams and Sampled Polling Station
Streams by Region
Region Number of Percent of Total Sampled Percent Formatted: Centered
Polling Station Polling Station Polling Station Sampled
Streams Streams Streams Polling Station
Streams
Northern 1,081 16.0% 128 16.0%
Central 2,784 41.1% 329 41.1%
Southern 2,909 42.9% 343 42.9%
7
Total 6,774 100.0% 800 100.0%
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Not Bold
8
Following the drawing of a representative random sample of polling stations, MESN recruited
and trained constituency supervisors and monitors.The major activity for the SBM project was
training of constituency supervisors and monitors. The breakdown for the training is as below:
Table 2: MESN Master Trainers by Gender and Region
Region Males Females % Males % Females Total
Northern 4 2 66.3% 33.3% 6
Central 4 2 66.7% 33.3% 6
Southern 6 2 75.0% 25.0% 8
Total 14 6 70.0% 30.0% 20
DISTRICT TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE
MONITORS SUPERVISORS
CHITIPA 17 12 5 5 4 1
KARONGA 19 16 3 5 4 1
RUMPHI 14 8 6 4 4 0
NKHATA-BAY 15 11 4 6 6 0
MZIMBA 62 44 18 12 10 2
KASUNGU 42 29 13 9 8 1
LIKOMA 1 1 0 1 1 0
NKHOTAKOTA 20 13 6 5 4 1
NTCHISI 15 12 3 4 3 1
DOWA 35 29 6 7 6 1
SALIMA 20 11 9 5 4 1
MCHINJI 28 20 8 6 4 2
LILONGWE 105 79 25 22 19 3
DEDZA 37 21 16 8 7 1
9
NTCHEU 27 15 12 7 5 2
MANGOCHI 47 31 16 12 10 2
BALAKA 20 11 9 4 4 0
MACHINGA 31 24 7 7 5 2
ZOMBA 39 26 13 10 10 0
CHIRADZULU 16 10 6 5 4 1
BLANTYRE 57 33 24 13 8 5
MWANZA 5 4 1 2 2 0
THYOLO 33 16 17 7 7 0
PHALOMBE 19 13 6 5 2 3
MULANJE 29 18 11 9 5 4
CHIKWAWA 26 20 6 6 6 0
NSANJE 15 10 5 5 5 0
NENO 6 6 0 2 2 0
TOTALS 800 543 255 193 159 34
MESN CONSTITUENCY SUPERVISORS AS PER REGION
Table 3: MESN Constituency Supervisors by Gender and Region
REGIONRegion MalesMAL FemalesEMAL % NO. % NO. OF TOTAL NO.
ES ES OF FemalesEMA OF
MalesAL LE SUPERVISO
E RS
NORTHERNNorth 29 4 87.9% 12.1% 33
ern
CENTRALCentral 60 13 82.2% 17.8% 73
SOUTHERNSouthe 70 17 80.5% 19.5% 87
rn
10
TOTALSTotal 159 34 82.4% 17.6% 19320
MESN CONSTITUENCY MONITORS AS PER REGION
Table 4: MESN MonitorsObservers by Gender and Region
REGIONRegion MALESMal FEMALESFema % NO. OF % NO. OF TOTAL
es les MALEMal FEMALEFema NO. OF
es les MONITO
RS
NORTHERNNorth 92 36 71.9% 28.1% 128
ern
CENTRALCentral 229 98 69.6% 29.8% 327
SOUTHERNSouth 222 121 64.7% 35.3% 343
ern
TOTALSTotal 543 255 68.0%4 32.0%1.95 798
Note: The projected total number of monitors in the central region was 329 but the actual is
327 because there was no Monitorone too few monitors was recruited for in Lilongwe and
Nkhotakota North Streams respectively.
MESN MASTER TRAINERS AS PER REGION
REGION MALES FEMALES % NO. OF % NO. OF TOTAL NO. OF
MALE FEMALE TRAINERS
NORTHERN 4 2 66.67 33.33 6
CENTRAL 4 2 66.67 33.33 6
SOUTHERN 6 2 75 25 8
TOTALS 14 6 70 30 20
Topics covered included:
Election Day Procedures.
Roles and Responsibilities of Constituency Supervisors and Monitors.
How to complete the Monitoring and Incident Reporting Forms.
11
Timeline, Logistics, Deployment and Financial issues.
Troubleshooting scenarios
How to submit completed forms.
Communication system.
5.0 SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
1. Type of elections Parliamentary and Presidential Elections
2. Election Day 19 May, 2009
3. Total number of polling 3897
stations countrywide
4. Total number of polling 6774
streams countrywide
5. Sampling method Data collected from a representative sample of
polling streams using a single stage cluster sampling.
6. Sample size 800 polling streams
7. Polling Station Processed 793 polling streams 99.1% of sample designed
8. Voters Processed 458 009 voters (for SBM results)
9. Communication methods Monitors called into the Program Management Unit
(PMU). The phone operators fielded calls and called
out for data recovery. Computer operators entered
the forms entered to the database.
Sampling Design and
size:
Margin of error +/-
1.8% for SBM with
confidence level 95%
10. Reporting times 1. Incident Report To report any critical
incidents throughout the day.
2. Monitoring Reported at the end of the
Form Election-day Process.
11. Reporting period 19 May at 5:00 am until 22 May at 8:00 am.
12
13
5.1 Response Rate Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
As is typical with SBM exercises, it was not possible to collect data from 100 percent of the
Formatted: Font: Georgia, Not Bold
sampled polling station streams. As noted, during the recruitment and training exercise it was
Formatted: Font: Georgia
not possible to identify monitors for two polling stations. However, in total MESN was able to
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
collect reports from 793 or 99.1 percent of its observers within 48 hours of the close of polling Line spacing: single
stations. This was a significant improvement over 2004. Data from all 793 monitors was used Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 3 pt,
for the findings about the conduct of the voting and counting processes. This is an extremely After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
high response rate and the public should have a great deal of confidence in these findings. Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
However, at polling stations there was some confusion in regards to the correct procedures for Line spacing: single
the counting of ballots. In some instances either the polling officials commingled ballots from Formatted: Font: Georgia
multiple streams prior to counting or the MESN observer misunderstood their instructions and Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
they reported the vote count for the entire polling station rather than vote count for only their
Formatted: Font: Georgia
assigned stream. A decision was made by MESN not to include data on the vote count for the
Formatted: Font: Georgia
verification of the official results from observers when it appeared that they had reported
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
information for the entire polling station rather than their assigned stream. Thus for the Line spacing: single
purposes of verifying the accuracy of the official results MESN used data from only 673 Formatted Table
observers or 84.1 percent of the sample. This is still a very high response rate and the exclusion Formatted: Font: Georgia
of this data did not fundamentally change the findings. As shown in Table 5 below this did not Formatted: Font: Georgia
fundamentally change the distribution of the sample the sample remains representative of the Formatted: Font: Georgia
total population of polling stations. Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Table 5: Response Rates Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
Line spacing: single
Reporting Voting
All Polling Station Sampled Polling Reporting Vote Formatted: Font: Georgia
Region and Counting
Streams Station Streams Count Data Formatted: Font: Georgia
Process Data
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Northern 1,081 16.0% 128 16.0% 125 15.8% 116 17.2%
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Central 2,784 41.1% 329 41.1% 327 41.2% 280 41.6% Formatted: Font: Georgia
Southern 2,909 42.9% 343 42.9% 341 43.0% 277 41.2% Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
Line spacing: single
Total 6,774 100.0% 800 100.0% 793 99.1% 673 84.1% Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Space Before: 3 pt, After: 3 pt,
Line spacing: single
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia
Formatted: Font: Georgia, Not Bold
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
6.0 FINDINGS
Opening Process
What time did the polling station open?
6:01 - 6:30 am,
35%
6:31 - 8:00 am,
4%
After 8:00 am,
By 6:00 am,
1%
60%
Were the ballot boxes shown to be empty,
sealed and placed in public view?
Yes, 100% No, 0%
15
Was the polling stream set up so that
voters could mark their ballot in secret?
Yes, 98% No, 2%
Overall, how would you describe any problems
that may have occurred during the opening
process?
Minor, 33%
None, 65%
Major, 2%
The setting up of the polling booth ensured secrecy of the ballot.
The opening had minor challenges but this did not substantially affect voting.
Challenges were mostly logisticalmostly logistical such as misplacement of electoral
materials andmaterials and general lack of time management by the polling staff.
16
6.1 Voting Process
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Did the polling stream run out of ballot papers
at any time during the day?
Yes, 9%
No, 91%
Did the polling stream run out of indelible ink at
any time during the day?
No, 90%
Yes, 10%
17
Was voting suspended at any time?
No, 98%
Yes, 2%
How many people's fingers were not marked with
indelible ink?
Few, 2%
Some, 0%
Many, 1%
None, 96%
18
How many people were permitted to vote
without their names checked on the voters'
register or their names did not appear on the
voters' register?
Few, 30%
Some, 8%
Many, 3%
None, 59%
How many people were unable to find their
names on the voters register?
Few, 50%
Some, 13%
Many, 8%
None, 29%
19
Of those unable to find their names on the voters
register, how many were permitted to vote by
showing a Voter Register Certificate (VRC)?
Some, 15%
Many, 10%
Few, 49%
None, 27%
Overall, how would you describe any problems
that may have occurred during the voting
process?
Minor, 38%
None, 60%
Major, 2%
Overall materials were available. In some cases, the ink was either dry or run out but was Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: Not
at 1.44" + 1.5"
replenished and did not affect voting.
The voters register was a major challenge and this prompted EC to announce that people
with Voter Registration Certificate (VRC) but whose names did not appear on the voter s
register should be allowed to vote. Nevertheless few people were turned away by some
polling staff who did not hear the announcement in time.
20
6.2 Closing and Counting Process Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Were votes counted in a way that
allowed party agents and monitors
to verify for whom the ballot was cast?
No, 2%
Yes, 98%
Did any party agent lodge an official complaint at
any point during the day?
No, 86%
Yes, 14%
21
Did the election officials properly reconcile the
ballots?
No, 2%
Yes, 98%
Do you agree with the vote count for the
presidential election?
Yes, 99% No, 1%
22
Were all agents present given a copy of the
polling station results form?
Yes, 90%
No, 11%
Was the Results Form posted outside the polling
station?
Yes, 82%
No, 18%
23
Which party monitors were present?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
None 11%
DPP 86%
MCP / UDF 82%
RP 24%
NRC 24%
AFORD 22%
PETRA 21%
Nyondo 25%
Did all of the polling agents present sign the
polling station results form?
No, 2%
Yes, 98%
98% of Party monitors present agreed and signed the polling station results form while
2% did not agree.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: Not
at 1.44"
24
6.3 Results: Nationwide Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Not Italic
Formatted: List Paragraph
Margin Official
SBM of Results
Estimated Error Votes Votes
Candidate Party Votee % (95% c.i.) - ME +ME Formatted Table
Bingu wa 65.98%
Mutharika DPP 66.50% 1.80% 64.70% 68.30%
Kamuzu 0.79%
Chibambo PETRA 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90%
Loveness Gondwe NRC 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90% 0.72%
Stanley Masauli RP 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80% 0.76%
Dindi Gowa 0.45%
Nyasulu AFORD 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40%
James Nyondo Independent 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.61%
John Tembo MCP 30.30% 1.80% 28.50% 32.10% 30.69%
The national estimates from the SBM closely match the official results as announced by
the MEC. All of the estimates are of the same magnitude as the official results and the
official results for the two largest vote winners (which represent over 96% of all votes)
fall within the 95% confidence interval. This provides very strong evidence that the
national tabulation process was conducted properly and that the official results reflect
how citizens voted on Election Day.
In the diagram below, the term SBO is the same as SBM Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
MESN SBO Candidate Results
(Margin of error +/-1.8%)
70% 66.50%
60%
50%
40%
30.30%
30%
20%
10%
0.80% 0.80% 0.70% 0.40% 0.50%
0%
Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John
Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo 25
Map of Results at District Level:
(Michelle – Would you please provide key and
some notes to this map. Also make the colours
distinct from each other)
(Michelle – Would you please remove (PVT) and Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
replace it with SBM. Some notes are also required)
26
(Michelle – would you please remove PVT and replace it with SBM. Some notes Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0",
Right: 0", Space After: 0 pt, Border: Bottom:
are also required (No border)
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
6.3.1 Results: Northern Region Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Bold
Northern Region Formatted Table
SBM Officia
Estimate l
d Margin of Votes Votes Result
Candidate Party Vote % Error - ME + ME Formatted Table
Bingu wa 93.50 95.30 94.84
Mutharika DPP 94.40% 0.90% % % %
Kamuzu 0.36%
Chibambo PETRA 0.30% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30%
Loveness 0.58%
Gondwe NRC 0.60% 0.20% 0.40% 0.80%
27
Stanley 0.32%
Masauli RP 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50%
Dindi Gowa 0.57%
Nyasulu AFORD 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50%
James 0.29%
Nyondo Independent 0.30% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40%
John Tembo MCP 3.60% 0.80% 2.80% 4.40% 3.04%
As with the national figures, the SBM estimates for the Northern region closely match Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"
the official results as announced by the MEC. All of the SBM estimates are of the same
magnitude as the official results and the official results for the two main vote winners
(who won over 97% of the vote) fall within the 95% confidence interval of the SBM
estimates.
In the diagram below, the term SBO is the same as SBM. Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Northern Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results
(Margin of error +/-0.9%)
100% 94.40%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.30% 0.60% 0.40% 0.40% 0.30% 3.60%
0%
Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John
Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo
28
(Michelle – Would you please remove the work (PVT) and replace it with SBM. Some notes at
the bottom are also required)
6.3.2 Results: Central Region Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Central Region
SBM Officia
Estimate Votes Votes l
Candidate Party d Vote % MoE - ME + ME Result Formatted Table
Bingu wa 49.50 54.30 49.76%
Mutharika DPP 51.90% 2.40% % %
Kamuzu 0.89%
Chibambo PETRA 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00%
Loveness 0.81%
Gondwe NRC 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00%
Stanley 1.00%
Masauli RP 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00%
Dindi Gowa 0.38%
Nyasulu AFORD 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40%
Independen 0.76%
James Nyondo t 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80%
42.20 46.80 46.39%
John Tembo MCP 44.50% 2.30% % %
29
Again, the SBM estimates for Central region closely match the official results as Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"
announced by the MEC. The magnitude of the estimate for each candidate is close to the
official result. Further, for the two main vote winners (which won over 96% of the total
vote) the official result falls within the 95% confidence interval for the SBM estimate.
In the diagram below, the term SBO is the same as SBM. Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Central Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results
(Margin of error +/-2.4%)
60%
51.90%
50%
44.50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.90% 0.90% 0.90% 0.40% 0.70%
0%
Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John
Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo
(Michelle – Would you please remove the term PVT and replace it with SBM.
And some notes are also required on this graph.
30
6.3.3 Results: Southern Region Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Southern Region
SBM Official
Estimate Margin of Votes Votes Result
Candidate Party d Vote % Error - ME + ME Formatted Table
Bingu wa 68.03
Mutharika DPP 69.60% 2.60% 67.00% 72.20% %
Kamuzu 0.89%
Chibambo PETRA 0.90% 0.10% 0.80% 1.00%
Loveness 0.73%
Gondwe NRC 0.70% 0.10% 0.60% 0.80%
Stanley Masauli RP 0.80% 0.10% 0.70% 0.90% 0.76%
Dindi Gowa 0.49%
Nyasulu AFORD 0.40% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50%
Independen 0.63%
James Nyondo t 0.50% 0.10% 0.40% 0.60%
29.50 28.48%
John Tembo MCP 27.00% 2.50% 24.50% %
In the diagram below, the term SBO is the same as SBM
Southern Region: MESN SBO Candidate Results
(Margin of error +/-2.6%)
80%
69.60%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
27.00%
20%
10%
0.90% 0.70% 0.80% 0.40% 0.50%
0%
Bingu wa Kamuzu Loveness Stanley Dindi Gowa James John
Mutharika Chibambo Gondwe Masauli Nyasulu Nyondo Tembo
31
7.0 Formatted: Font: Georgia, Bold
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt, Bold
(Michelle – would you please remove the term PVT and replace it with SBM) Formatted: Font: Georgia, 12 pt
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
ACHIEVEMENTS Formatted: Font: Georgia
Managed Rapidly collected accurate information on the opening of polling stations,
voting, counting and the closing of polling stations to know how the voting and closing
of polling countrywide faster
The trend of results was similar to that of ECWas able to verify the accuracy of the
official results
Within limited time and resources available, MESN managed to successfully implement
all planned activities with minor challenges.
Organization’s capacity has been greatly enhanced in terms of election observation using
SBM through members that fully participated in this project at various levels.
MESN was able to make a correct projection of the final Presidential results faster that the
EC.
MESN was able to issue interim statements on elections on time which help build
confidence in the electoral process.
8.0 CHALLENGES Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
Lack of understanding of the concept by key stakeholders including political parties,
donors and EC
Inadequate and late disbursement of funds to implement planned activities as most
donors who had shown interest to support the project failed to live up to their word.
32
SBM as a new concept was not readily accepted by the entire MESN membership.
Requires higher quality and dedicated monitors
Politically sensitive
Require good management and organizational capacity
It is highly technical and requires the services of experts such as statisticians.
Requires higher technology proficiency and high quality trainings.
8.1 CHALLENGES ON THE POLLING DAY Formatted: Font: Georgia, Bold
Some monitors were refused access to polling streams due to communication
breakdown between the District Commissioner and Supervisors at polling stations.
At some polling stations ballots were commingled from individual streams by polling Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
officials
Slow and late counting of poll results
Technical problem with the toll free numbers
Inadequate capacity to identify and capture incidents on the incident reporting forms by
some monitors.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
Need for timely disbursement of adequate resources - financial and material to have
ample time to plan, implement and assess project activities.
Need for civic education and sensitization of key stakeholders on the importance of
SBM;
Need for on – going capacity building for MESN member organizations in new Formatted: Normal, Bulleted + Level: 1 +
Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent
techniques on election monitoring; at: 0.5"
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
10.0 CONCLUSION Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
MESN managed to monitor the elections using SBM despite various challenges. This helped to
provide Malawians, the MEC, political parties and other stakeholders with rapid, accurate and
independent information about the conduct of the election process and the accuracy of the
official presidential election results. Civil society has an important role to play in elections (as
do election management bodies and political parties). One role for civil society is to provide
independent information about the conduct of the election. This enhances transparency and
accountability and helps ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the will of the people.
Statistical Based Monitoring (SBM) is an important exercise that can contribute to these
goalsto enhancing the integrity of the results management in the election monitoring process. .
It is critical to understand the conduct of Election Day in the context of the overall electoral
process. Thus, SBM is better conducted as part of the wider election monitoring and not as an
exclusive activity.
33
It is also very important to ensure that key stakeholders are well appraised on SBM as to what
is involved, the methodology, purpose and what SBM cannot do. SBM is a better and very
objective approach than the traditional way of monitoring.
11.0 APPENDICES Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 1.44"
1. Distribution of MESN Representative Random Sample of Polling Stations by District
1.2. MESN
Monitoring Form – 19 May 2009
2.3. Incident
Reporting Form
3.4. Oath of Neutrality for MESN Monitors
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
5. Two interim statements. Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab
after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at
1.44"
34
