One Man One Vote

8/8/2019 One Man One Vote

1/28

1

ONE MAN ONE VOTE THE PANACHE OF NIGERIA

POLITICS

"One Man, One Vote" or "One Person, One Vote" is a slogan that has been used

in many parts of the world where campaigns have arisen for universal suffrage. It

became particularly prevalent in the less developed countries, during the period of

decolonization and the struggles for national sovereignty from the late nineteen-

forties onward. It was used in this form in an important legal case in the United

States, the United States Supreme Court majority opinion of Reynolds v. Sims,

issued in 1964.

More than a century ago, the greatest of American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln,

described the ideal democratic state as one which was of the people, by the people

and for the people, this is the power of voting and democracy.

The 2 major questions are

y What is a vote?y Why do we vote?

A vote is an individual's act of voting, by which he or she expresses support or

preference for a certain motion (for example, a proposed resolution), a certaincandidate, a selection of candidates, or a political party. With a secret ballot to

protect voters' political privacy, voting generally takes place at a polling station.

The act of voting is voluntary in some countries; whereas some countries, such as

Argentina, Australia, Belgium and Brazil, have compulsory voting systems

Voting is a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a

decision or express an opinionoften following discussions, debates, or election

campaigns. It is often found in democracies and republics.

Reasons for voting

In a representative government, voting commonly implies election: a way for an

electorate to select among candidates for office.

In politics voting is the method by which the electorate of a democracy appoints

representatives in its government.


2/28

2

Voters eligibility

According to the Nigerian constitution of 1979, any Nigerian from the age of 16 is

eligible to vote in an election.

Types ofvotes

Different voting systems use different types of vote. Suppose that the options in

some election are Kayode, Tunmise, Kayla, Timmy, and Shekeena and they are all

vying for the same position:

In a voting system that uses asingle vote, the voter selects his or her most preferredcandidate. "Plurality voting systems" use single votes

However, there are different types of voting system depending on the purpose and

objective of the election.

y Single Voting System which can lead to two round election (Re-run)y Preferential Voting Systemy Multiple Vote Systemy Range Voting System

A development on thesingle vote system is to have two-round elections, or repeat

first-past-the-post. However, the winner must win by 50% plus one, called a simple

majority. If subsequent votes must be used, often a candidate, the one with the

fewest votes or anyone who wants to move their support to another candidate, is

removed from the ballot.

An alternative to the Two-round voting system is the single round Preferential

voting system (Also referred to as Alternative vote orInstant run-off) as used in

Australia, Ireland and some states in the USA. Voters rank each candidate in order

of preference (1,2,3 etc). Votes are distributed to each candidate according to the

preferences allocated. If no single candidate has 50% or more votes then the

candidate with the least votes is excluded and their votes redistributed according to

the voters nominated order of preference. The process repeating itself until a

candidate has 50% or more votes. The system is designed to produce the same

result as an exhaustive ballot but using only a single round of voting.


3/28

3

In a voting system that uses a multiple vote, the voter can vote for any subset of the

alternatives. So, a voter might vote for Alice, Bob, and Charlie, rejecting Daniel

and Emily. Approval voting uses such multiple votes.

In a voting system that uses a ranked vote, the voter has to rank the alternatives in

order of preference. For example, they might vote for Bob in first place, then

Emily, then Alice, then Daniel, and finally Charlie. Preferential voting systems,

such as those famously used in Australia, use a ranked vote.

In a voting system that uses a scored vote (or range vote), the voter gives each

alternative a number between one and ten (the upper and lower bounds may vary).

See range voting.

Some "multiple-winner" systems may have a single vote or one vote per elector per

available position. In such a case the elector could vote for Bob and Charlie on aballot with two votes. These types of systems can use ranked or unranked voting,

and are often used for at-large positions such as on some city councils.

Fair voting

Results may lead at best to confusion, at worst to violence and even civil war, in

the case of political rivals. Many alternatives may fall in the latitude of

indifferencethey are neither accepted nor rejected. Avoiding the choice that the

most people strongly reject may sometimes be at least as important as choosing the

one that they most favor. There are social choice theory definitions of seeminglyreasonable criteria that are a measure of the fairness of certain aspects of voting,

including non-dictatorship, unrestricted domain, non-imposition, Pareto efficiency,

and independence of irrelevant alternatives but Arrow's impossibility theorem

states that no voting system can meet all these standards.

Anti-voting

In South Africa, there is a strong presence of anti-voting campaigns by poor

citizens. They make the structural argument that no political party truly represents

them. For instance, this resulted in the "No Land! No House! No Vote!Campaignwhich becomes very prominent each time the country holds elections. The

campaign is prominent among three of South Africa's largest social movements:

the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, Abahlali baseMjondolo, and the

Landless Peoples Movement. Other social movements in other parts of the world

also have similar campaigns or non-voting preferences. These include the Zapatista

Army of National Liberation and various Anarchist oriented movements.


4/28

4

Voting and information

Modern political science has questioned whether average citizens have sufficient

political information to cast meaningful votes. A series of studies coming out of

the University of Michigan in the 1950s and 1960s argued that voters lack a basic

understanding of current issues, the liberalconservative ideological dimension,

and the relative ideological dilemma.

Religious view

Jehovah's Witnesses, Old Order Amish, Christadelphians, Rastafarians and other

religious groups share a religious tradition of not participating in politics through

voting.

The role of INEC in electoral process in Nigeria

The role of INEC includes those listed below among others:

y The Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC), is empowered bythe Nigeria constitution through Electoral of 1996.

y INEC is the only body that is makes law for the country regarding theorganization an election,

y Registration of political partiesy Initiating policies in the interest of the masses to regulate political parties

formulationy Organize and conduct a free and fair election that will reflect the wish and

opinion of the voters and the common man.

y Provide a conducive environment for a free and fair election where everyregistered voter is able to cast their votes without fear, intimidation, favour,

harassment, prejudice, threat and any form of inducement

y Prosecution of electoral offenders.y Conducting election and issuing of certificate of returns to winners

NIGERIA AS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY

LIST OF REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES SINCE INDEPENDENT

Fourth Republic (1999-present)

y Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)y Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD)


5/28

5

y African Democratic Congress (ADC)y Alliance for Democracy (AD)y All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP)y All People's Party (APP)y All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA)y Democratic Alternative (DA)y Democratic People's Party (Nigeria) (DPP)y National Democratic Party (NDP)y New Democrats (ND)y People's Democratic Party (PDP)y People's Redemption Party (PRP)y People's Salvation Party (PSP)y United Nigeria People's Party (UNPP)y Fresh Democratic Party (FDP)y Communist Party of Nigeria (CPN)y Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA)y People Progressive Party (PPP)y Masses Movement of Nigeria (MMN)y National Conscience Party (NCP)y Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)y African Renaissance Party [ARP]y Conscience People's Congress

Political parties (1996-1998)

y National Democratic Coalition (NADECO)y Committee for National Consensus (CNC)y Democratic Party of Nigeria (DPN)y Grassroots Democratic Movement (GDM)y National Centre Party of Nigeria (NCPN)y United Nigeria Congress Party (UNCP)y Justice Party (JP)

Abortiv

e Third Republic

y National Republican Convention (NRC)y Social Democratic Party (SDP)

Second Republic (1979-1983)

y Greater Nigerian People's Party (GNPP)


6/28

6

y National Party of Nigeria (NPN)y Nigeria Advance Party (NAP)y Nigerian People's Party (NPP)y People's Redemption Party (PRP)y Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN)y Movement of the People Party (MPP)

First Republic (1960-1966)

y Action Group (AG)y Borno Youth Movement (BYM)y Democratic Party of Nigeria and Cameroon (DPNC)y Dynamic Party (DP)y Igala Union (IU)y Igbira Tribal Union (ITU)y Kano People's Party (KPP)y Lagos State United Front (LSUF)y Mabolaje Grand Alliance (MGA)y Midwest Democratic Front (MDF)y National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons/National Council of

Nigerian Citizens (NCNC)

y Niger Delta Congress (NDC)y Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP)y Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU)y Northern People's Congress (NPC)y Northern Progressive Front (NPF)y Republican Party (RP)y United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC)y United National Independence Party (UNIP)y Zamfara Commoners Party (ZCP)

The current party affiliation of the 36 state governors is:

y 26 People's Democratic Party (PDP)y 4 Action Congress (ACN)y 3 All Nigeria People's Party (ANPP)y 2 All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA)y 1 Labour Party (LP)


7/28

7

List of current state governors party representation

The current party affiliation of the 36 state governors is:

State CurrentGovernor

Party Elected/Tookoffice

PastLeaders

Governor'sWebsite

Abia State Theodore Orji APGA 2007 List

Adamawa

StateMurtala Nyako PDP 2008 List

Akwa Ibom

StateGodswill Akpabio PDP 2007 List [1]

Anambra

StatePeter Obi APGA 2010 List


8/28

8

Bauchi

StateIsa Yuguda PDP 2007 List

BayelsaState

Timipre Sylva PDP 2008 List

Benue State Gabriel Suswam PDP 2007 List

Borno State Ali Modu Sheriff ANPP 2003 List

Cross RiverState

Liyel Imoke PDP 2007 List

Delta State Emmanuel

UduaghanPDP 2007 List

Ebonyi

StateMartin Elechi PDP 2007 List

Edo State Adams

Oshiomhole ACN 2008 List

Ekiti State Kayode Fayemi ACN 2010 List

Enugu State Sullivan Chime PDP 2007 List

Gombe

State

Mohammed

Danjuma Goje PDP 2003 List

Imo State Ikedi Ohakim PDP 2007 List


9/28

9

Jigawa State Sule Lamido PDP 2007 List

Kaduna

State

Patrick Ibrahim

Yakowa PDP

2010 List

Kano State Ibrahim Shekarau ANPP 2003 List

Katsina

StateIbrahim Shema PDP 2007 List

Kebbi State Usman SaiduNasamu Dakingari

PDP 2007 List

Kogi State Ibrahim Idris PDP 2003 List

Kwara State Bukola Saraki PDP 2003 List

Lagos State Babatunde Fashola ACN 2007 List

Nasarawa

StateAliyu Doma PDP 2007 List

Niger State Mu'azu Babangida

Aliyu PDP 2007 List

Ogun State Gbenga Daniel PDP 2003 List

Ondo State Olusegun Mimiko LP 2009 List


10/28

10

Osun State Rauf Aregbesola ACN 2010 List

Oyo State

Christopher Alao-

Akala PDP

2007 List

Plateau

StateJonah Jang PDP 2007 List

Rivers State Rotimi Amaechi PDP 2007 List

SokotoState

Aliyu Wamakko PDP 2008 List

Taraba State Danbaba Suntai PDP 2007 List

Yobe State Ibrahim Geidam ANPP 2007 List

Zamfara

State Mahmud Shinkafi PDP 2007 List

Territory Current Minister Party Took officePast

Leaders

Abuja

F.C.T.Bala Muhammed ... 2010 List

Nigeria electoral history since independence to date (1960 2010)


11/28

11

Elections in Nigeria since independence were characterized by malpractices, which

often had corruptive influence on democracy.

The federal election of 1964 and 1965 were full of rigging, acrimony and

violence.

The 1979 national elections were however conducted under a relatively calm

atmosphere but were equally characterized by malpractices of different sorts.

By historical circumstance and outcome, the 1983 general election was

controversial and the results were characterized by malpractices.

The discontent that followed the outcome of the election however, led to eruption

of crises in different parts of the country. The development brought the failure of

the second attempt at instituting enduring democracy in Nigeria.

The freest and the most peaceful election in the annals of the nation was the 1993

presidential election which was held under two party system as a radical departure

from the previous multi party system. In annulling the 1993 presidential election

results, the military administration led by General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida

insisted that there were irregularities in the electoral process and there were also

lack of judicial consensus as courts were delivering conflicting and contradicting

judgements before and after the election. Hence, the results of 1993 election which

still remains the best election to be held in Nigeria were aborted by the military.

The cancellation of the results of the 1993 general elections aggravated inter-ethnictension and hostility, which eventually culminated in the demise of the third

attempt at instituting enduring democracy in Nigeria.

On May 29, 1999 Nigeria successfully transited to civil rule after almost two

decades of prolonged and protracted military dictatorship. Yet, the transition

programme which culminated into enthronement of democracy in Nigeria in 1999

were not without flaws. Another transition programme was organized to

consolidate the gains of democracy by president Olusegun Obasanjo's

administration in 2003. The 2003 elections were widely adjudged to have been

marred by widespread irregularities and large scale rigging. The international

observers were dismayed and scandalized by the ruling party's open and brazen

resort to manipulation and forgery of election results.

The worst elections ever, were held in the year 2007. The conduct of 2007 general

elections was accompanied by a worsening contraction of the democratic space and


12/28

12

it negates virtually all the rules and tenets of free and fair electoral procedure.

Indeed, the 2007 elections were characterized by vote rigging, ballot snatching at

gun points, criminal manipulation of voters' list and brazen falsification of election

results. The 2007 election was indeed a product of do or die affair, the outcome of

which is the abolition of the Nigeria electorate and it was a case of raped electoral

process. According to Professor Adebayo Williams (The Nation, Oct. 8 2009,

pages 41 and 42), the 2007 elections have been adjudged as the worst in the history

of the nation and arguably mankind since the advent of liberal democracy. Never

in the history of the nation has an election brought so much pains and misery to the

people. The elections have been disputed and legally contested at all levels. The

President, Alhaji Umar Musa Yar'adua himself was left off the hook by a split

decision of the Supreme Court, but the burden of legitimacy remains.

With the ridicule of the nation's electoral process, by the election riggers, the call

for electoral reform becomes an issue of national emergency. It is evident that thenation is drifting into the state of anomie and political anarchy. While the Nigerian

populace are appreciative of the government efforts toward political and electoral

reforms, there are fear and apprehension about the outcome of the reform

considering the interference of special interests on what should be the form,

colouration and contents of the proposed electoral reforms.

Electoral fraud

This is the illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect

vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote shareof the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates or both.

Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter

registration, intimidation at polls and improper vote counting. What electoral fraud

is under law varies from country to country. Many kinds of voter fraud are

outlawed in electoral legislation but others are in violation of general laws such as

those banning assault, harassment or libel. Although technically the term 'electoral

fraud' covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to

describe acts which although legal, are considered to be morally unacceptable,

outside the spirit of electoral laws or in violation of the principles of democracy.Show elections, in which only one candidate can win, are sometimes considered to

be electoral fraud although they may comply with the law.

In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the effect of a coup d'tat

or corruption of democracy. In a narrow election a small amount of fraud may be

enough to change the result. If the result is not affected, fraud can still have a


13/28

13

damaging effect if not punished, as it can reduce voters' confidence in democracy.

Even the perception of fraud can be damaging as it makes people less inclined to

accept election results. This can lead to the breakdown of democracy and the

establishment of a dictatorship.

Electoral fraud is not limited to political polls and can happen in any election

where the potential gain is worth the risk for the cheater; as in elections for labor

union officials, student councils, sports judging, and the awarding of merit to

books, films, music or television programmes.

Despite many instances of electoral fraud, it remains a difficult phenomenon to

study. This follows from its inherent illegality. Harsh penalties aimed at deterring

electoral fraud make it likely that individuals who perpetrate fraud do so with the

expectation that it either will not be discovered or will be excused.

Challenges to democracy in Nigeria politics

Electoral malpractices The major challenge of Nigeria democratization process is

electoral malpractices. Electoral malpractices include any unapproved and

unethical behaviors that usually manifest during elections. Also, electoral

malpractices are actions, behaviors, and attitudes that violate the laid-down

electoral rules and regulations. The concept of electoral malpractices could also be

viewed as violation of Electoral Act. It is pertinent to emphasize that electoral

malpractices are usually committed by the politicians with the connivance of the

National electoral body and the Security Agencies. These collaborators oftensupported manipulation of election results for selfish interest. The election riggers

in perpetrating the offence of electoral malpractices do induce voters, stuff the

ballot boxes, manipulate the election results, engaging in multiple counting ofvotes and outright falsification of election results.


14/28

14

Characteristics of electoral fraud

Given the past electoral experiences of the nation, the political class engage in

electoral malpractices due to the inherent and observable weaknesses in the

electoral system. There are different forms of electoral malpractices and offences,

the principal among which are: offences in relation to voters' registration, offences

in respect of nomination of candidates for election, disorderly behaviour at

political meetings etc. Specifically, the behaviours and actions that constitute the

electoral malpractices includes among others:

y Impersonationy Voting when not qualified.y Extending the voting period beyond stipulated time in the electoral

regulation

y Over votingy Deliberate delay of voting on the day of electiony The use of force and threats with the intention to influence voting patterny Any political communication on the day of election aiming at influencing

the voting pattern

y Campaigning in the vicinity of a polling unit or collation centre on the dayof election is

y Dereliction of duty equally constitutes an electoral offencey False election results when released officially in favour of any candidate is a

form of electoral malpractices

y Voting by unregistered persony Multiple-registration of voters,y Registration of ghost namesy Prevention of opponents from voters' registrationy Disorderly conducts during electionsy Snatching or destroying the election materials;y Use of any vehicle bearing the colour or symbol of a political partyy Shouting slogans concerning the election;y Possession of any offensive weapony Wear any dress or have any facial or other decoration which in any event is

calculated to intimidate voters

y Bribery during an election directly or indirectly himself or by any otherperson on his behalf, receives, agrees or contracts for any money, gift, loan,

or valuable consideration, office, place or employment, for himself, or for

any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing

to refrain from voting at any such election.


15/28

15

y Conspires, aids or abets with exhibiting, wearing or tendering any notice,symbol, photograph, or party card referring to the election

Reward for electoral offences

According to the Electoral Act 2006, any person who commits the offences ofimpersonation or who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of that

offence, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of

N100, 000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both.

Electoral Act 2006 stipulates that any person who delivers or causes to be

delivered a false certificate of return knowing same to be false to any news media

commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 3 years.

With due reference to the Electoral Act 2006, any person who knowingly votes or

attempts to vote in a constituency in respect of which his name is not on the

register of voters commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum

fine of N50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of 6 months or both.

Techniques of electoral fraud

Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most

commonly occurs during election campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting. The two main types of electoral fraud are preventing eligible voters from

casting their vote freely (or voting at all); and altering the results. A list of threats

to voting systems, or electoral fraud methods, is kept by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology.[1]

Electorate manipulation

Most electoral fraud takes place during or immediately after election campaigns,

by interfering with the voting process or the counting of votes. However it can also

occur far in advance, by altering the composition of the electorate. In many casesthis is not illegal and thus technically not electoral fraud, although it is sometimes

considered to be a violation of principles of democracy.

Gerrymandering is the drawing of electorate boundaries in order to produce a

particular result. Typically, electorates will be organized so that one group of

people (for example poor people or a particular ethnic or religious group) is


16/28

16

concentrated into a small number of electorates. This means that parties favoured

by that group will win by a large majority in those electorates, but lose more

narrowly in a larger number of electorates. This may result in one party gaining the

most votes overall but still losing the election. Gerrymandering is most common

under plurality voting systems, in which the winner must win the most electorates

rather than the most votes overall.

In many cases gerrymandering occurs within, or is the result of, electoral law.

However it may sometimes take the form of true electoral fraud, for example if

laws governing the drawing of electoral boundaries are broken, or officials are

bribed or otherwise coerced into altering boundaries in a way which favours a

particular group.

Manipulation of demography

In many cases it is possible for authorities to artificially control the composition of

an electorate in order to produce a foregone result. One way of doing this is to

move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example

by temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in flophouses. Many countries

prevent this with rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an electorate for a

minimum period (for example, six months) in order to be eligible to vote there.

However, such laws can themselves be used for demographic manipulation as they

tend to disenfranchise those with no fixed address, such as the homeless, travellers,

Roma, students (studying full time away from home) and some casual workers.

Another strategy is to permanently move people into an electorate, usually through

public housing. If people eligible for public housing are likely to vote for a

particular party, then they can either be concentrated into one electorate, thus

making their votes count for less, or moved into marginal electorates, where they

may tip the balance towards their preferred party. One notable example of this

occurred in the City of Westminster under Shirley Porter.[5]

In this case the

electoral fraud relied on gaming the United Kingdom's first past the post electoral

system, as in such a system it does not matter how much a party wins or loses by.

The fraudsters calculated which wards they had no hope of winning, which theywere sure of winning and which wards were marginal. By manipulatingWestminster Council's public housing stock the fraudsters were able to move

voters more likely to vote for their electoral enemies from marginal wards to the

wards that they were going to lose anyway. In the ensuing elections the opposition

could only win their safe seats with the small Conservative leads in the marginal

wards being enough for them to win these wards, and therefore maintain their


17/28

17

majority position and control of the council. In her defence Porter raised the

history of the provision of public housing in London and the context of Herbert

Morrison's boast to "...build the Conservatives out of London" by building new

public housing in marginal Conservative seats.

Immigration law may also be used to manipulate electoral demography. An

example of this happened in Malaysia when immigrants from neighbouring

Philippines and Indonesia were given citizenship together with voting rights in

order for a political party to "dominate" the state of Sabah in a controversial

process referred to as Project IC.

A method of manipulating primary contests and other elections of party leaders is

related to this. People who support one party may temporarily join another party in

order to help elect a weak candidate for that party's leadership, in the hope that

they will be defeated by the leader of the party that they secretly support.

Disenfranchising

The composition of an electorate may also be altered by disenfranchising some

types of people, rendering them unable to vote. In some cases this may be done at a

legislative level, for example by passing a law banning convicted felons, recent

immigrants or members of a particular ethnic or religious group from voting, or by

instituting a literacy or other test which members of some groups are more likely to

fail. Since this is done by lawmakers, it cannot be election fraud, but may subvert

the purposes of democracy. This is especially so if members of the disenfranchisedgroup were particularly likely to vote a certain way.

In some cases voters may be invalidly disenfranchised, which is true electoral

fraud. For example a legitimate voter may be 'accidentally' removed from the

electoral roll, making it difficult or impossible for them to vote. Corrupt election

officials may misuse voting regulations such as a literacy test or requirement for

proof of identity or address in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for

their targets to cast a vote. If such practices discriminate against a religious or

ethnic group, they may so distort the political process that the political order

becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-Reconstruction or Jim Crow era

until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make it impractical or

impossible for them to cast a vote. For example, requiring people to vote within

their electorate may disenfranchise serving military personnel, prison inmates,


18/28


19/28

19

y Attacks on polling places: Polling places in an area known to support aparticular party or candidate may be targeted for vandalism, destruction or

threats, thus making it difficult or impossible for people in that area to vote.

y Legal threats: In this case voters will be made to believe, accurately orotherwise, that they are not legally entitled to vote, or that they are legally

obliged to vote a particular way. Voters who are not confident about their

entitlement to vote may also be intimidated by real or implied authority

figures who suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be

imprisoned, deported or otherwise punished.[9][10]

For example in 2004, in

Wisconsin and elsewhere voters allegedly received flyers that said, If you

already voted in any election this year, you cant vote in the Presidential

Election, implying that those who had voted in earlier primary elections

were ineligible to vote. Also, If anybody in your family has ever been

found guilty of anything you cant vote in the Presidential Election. Finally,If you violate any of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your

children will be taken away from you.[11][12]

Another method, allegedly used

in Cook County, Illinois in 2004, is to falsely tell particular people that they

are not eligible to vote.

y Economic threats: In company towns in which one company employs mostof the working population, the company may threaten workers with

disciplinary action if they do not vote the way their employer dictates. One

method of doing this is the 'shoe polish method'. This method entails coating

the voting machine's lever or button of the opposing candidate(s) with shoepolish. This method works when an employee of a company that orders him

to vote a certain way votes contrary to those orders. After the voter exits the

voting booth, a conspirator to the fraud (a precinct captain or other local

person in collusion with the employee's management) handshakes the voter.

The conspirator then subtly check's the voter's hand for any shoe polish and

notes that the voter has left some shoe polish after the handshake. Soon

afterward that unfortunate voter gets fired or faces other unpleasant

consequences.

Vote buying

Voters may be given money or other rewards for voting in a particular way, or not

voting. In some jurisdictions, the offer or giving of other rewards is referred to as

"electoral treating". In Mexico, Queensland and several other places, voters willing

to sell their vote are asked to take a picture of their ballot with a cell phone camera


20/28

20

to validate their payment. Vote buying may also be done indirectly, for example by

paying clergymen to tell their parishioners to vote for a particular party or

candidate. Vote buying is generally avoided by not providing a "receipt" for the

counted vote, even if it's technically possible to do so.

Misinformation

People may distribute false or misleading information in order to affect the

outcome of the election. Most commonly, smear campaigns (the circulation of

false rumours) are made against a particular candidate or party. Smear campaigns

are not necessarily illegal and can therefore not always be considered election

fraud. However in some countries smear campaigns may violate libel or slander

laws and in others, as the Philippines, such campaigns are specifically illegal. In

2007 British politician Miranda Grell was convicted under the Representation of

the People Act 1983 for making a false statement about another candidate in orderto gain electoral advantage.

Another way in which misinformation can be used in voter fraud is to give voters

incorrect information about the time or place of polling, thus causing them to miss

their chance to vote.

Misleading or confusing ballot papers

Ballot papers may be used to discourage votes for a particular party or candidate,

using design or other features which confuse voters into voting for a differentcandidate. For example, in the United States presidential election, 2000, Florida's

butterfly ballot paper was criticised as confusing some voters into giving their vote

to the wrong candidate. Ironically, however, the ballot was designed by a

Democrat, the party most harmed by this design.[14]

Poor or misleading design is

not usually illegal and therefore not technically election fraud, but can subvert the

principles of democracy.

Another method of confusing people into voting for the wrong candidate is to run

candidates or create political parties with similar names or symbols as an existing

candidate or party. The aim is that enough voters will be misled into voting for the

false candidate or party to influence the results.[15]

Such tactics may be particularly

effective when a large proportion of voters have limited literacy in the language

used on the ballot paper. Again, such tactics are usually not illegal but often work

against the principles of democracy.


21/28

21

Ballot stuffing

Ballot stuffing occurs when a person casts more votes than they are entitled to. In

its simplest form, ballot stuffing literally involves 'stuffing' multiple ballot papers

into the ballot box. Another method is for voters to cast votes at multiple booths,

on each occasion claiming that it is their only vote. In some countries such as

India, El Salvador, Namibia or Afghanistan voters get a finger marked with

election ink to prevent multiple votes. In Afghanistan's elections of 2005, this

method failed as the ink used could easily be removed.

A more subtle technique is impersonation, in which a person pretends to be someone

else. The person whose vote is being used may be legitimately enrolled but absent,

a real but deceased person, or entirely fictitious.[16]

A particularly unsubtle form of

ballot stuffing, known as booth capturing, sometimes occurs in India. In these

cases a gang of thugs will 'capture' a polling place and cast votes in the names oflegitimate voters, who are prevented from voting themselves.

In jurisdictions with absentee balloting, an individual or a campaign may fill in and

forge a signature on an absentee ballot intended for a voter in that jurisdiction, thus

passing off the ballot as having been filled out by that voter. Such cases of voter

fraud have resulted in criminal charges in the past.

Misreporting of votes

Many elections feature multiple opportunities for unscrupulous officials or 'helpers'to record an elector's vote differently from their intentions. Voters who require

assistance to cast their votes are particularly vulnerable to having their votes stolen

in this way. For example, a blind person or one who cannot read the language of

the ballot paper may be told that they have voted for one party when in fact they

have been led to vote for another. This is similar to the misuse of proxy votes;

however in this case the voter will be under the impression that they have voted

with the assistance of the other person, rather than having the other person voting

on their behalf.

Where votes are recorded through electronic or mechanical means, the voting

machinery may be altered so that a vote intended for one candidate is recorded for

another.


22/28


23/28

23

powers due to the Enabling Act of 1933, and achieved the necessary two-thirds

majority to pass the Act by arresting members of the opposition. Later, the

Reichstag was packed with Nazi party members who voted for the Act's renewal.

In many legislatures, voting is public, in contrast to the secret ballot used in most

modern public elections. This may make their elections more vulnerable to some

forms of fraud, since a politician can be pressured by others who will know how he

or she has voted. However, it may also protect against bribery and blackmail since

the public and media will be aware if a politician votes in an unexpected way.

Since voters and parties are entitled to pressure politicians to vote a particular way,

the line between legitimate and fraudulent pressure is not always clear.

As in public elections, proxy votes are particularly prone to fraud. In some

systems, parties may vote on behalf of any member who is not present in

parliament. This protects those people from missing out on voting if they areprevented from attending parliament, but also allows their party to prevent them

from voting against its wishes. In some legislatures, proxy voting is not allowed,

but politicians may rig voting buttons or otherwise illegally cast 'ghost votes' while

absent.[17]

Fraud prevention in our electoral process

The two main fraud prevention techniques can, ironically, be summarised as

secrecy and openness. The secret ballot prevents many kinds of intimidation and

vote selling, while transparency at all other levels of the electoral process preventsmost interference.

The secret ballot, in which the general public does not know how individuals have

voted, is a crucial part of ensuring free and fair through preventing voter

intimidation or retribution. Although it was sometimes practised in ancient Greece

and was a part of the French Constitution of 1795, it only became common in the

nineteenth century. Secret balloting appears to have been first implemented in the

former Australian colony -- now a state -- of Tasmania on 7 February 1856. By the

turn of the century the practice had spread to most Western democracies. Before

this it was common for candidates to intimidate or bribe voters, as they always

knew who had voted which way.

Transparency

Most methods of preventing electoral fraud involve making the election process

completely transparent to all voters, from nomination of candidates through casting


24/28

24

of the votes and tabulation.[18]

A key feature in insuring the integrity of any part of

the electoral process is a strict chain of custody.

To prevent fraud in central tabulation, there has to be a public list of the results

from every single polling place. This is the only way for voters to prove that the

results they witnessed in their election office are correctly incorporated into the

totals.

End-to-end auditable voting systems provide voters with a receipt to allow them to

verify their vote was cast correctly, and an audit mechanism to verify that the

results were tabulated correctly and all votes were cast by valid voters. However,

the ballot receipt does not permit voters to prove to others how they voted, since

this would open the door towards forced voting and blackmail. End-to-end systems

include Punchscan and Scantegrity, the latter being an add-on to optical scan

systems instead of a replacement.

In many cases, election observers are used to help prevent fraud and assure voters

that the election is fair. International observers (bilateral and multilateral) may be

invited to observe the elections (examples include election observation by the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), European Union

election observation missions, observation missions of the Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS), as well as international observation organized by NGOs,

such as European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO), etc.).

Some countries also invite foreign observers (i.e. bi-lateral observation, as opposed

to multi-lateral observation by international observers).

In addition, national legislatures of countries often permit domestic observation.

Domestic election observers can be either partisan (i.e. representing interests of

one or a group of election contestants) or non-partisan (usually done by civil

society groups). Legislations of different countries permit various forms and

extents of international and domestic election observation.

Election observation is also prescribed by various international legal instruments.

For example, paragraph 8 of the 1990 Copenhagen Document states that "The

[OSCE] participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign

and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are

taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating

States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to

do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent

permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election


25/28

25

proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to

interfere in the electoral proceedings".

Critics note that observers cannot spot certain types of election fraud like targeted

voter suppression or manipulated software of voting machines.

Statistical indicators

Various forms of statistics can be indicators for election fraud e.g. exit polls which

diverge from the final results. Well-conducted exit polls serve as a deterrent to

electoral fraud. However, exit polls are still notoriously imprecise. For instance, in

the Czech Republic, some voters are afraid or ashamed to admit that they voted for

the Communist Party (exit polls in 2002 gave the Communist party 2-3 percentage

points less than the actual result).

When elections are marred by ballot-box stuffing (e.g. The Armenian presidential

elections of 1996 and 1998, All elections in Nigeria since independence till date),

the affected polling stations will show abnormally high voters turnout with results

favoring a single candidate. By graphing the number of votes against turnout

percentage (i.e., aggregating polling stations results within a given turnout range),

the divergence from bell-curve distribution gives an indication of the extent of the

fraud. Stuffing votes in favor of a single candidate affects votes vs. turnout

distributions for that candidate and other candidates differently; this difference

could be used to quantitatively assess the amount of votes stuffed. Also, these

distributions sometimes exhibit spikes at round-number turnout percentage value. ]high numbers of invalid ballots, over-voting or under-voting are other potential

indicators.

Prosecution

Strong laws and effective legal systems, lawsuits can be brought against those who

have allegedly committed fraud; but determent with legal prosecution would not be

enough. Although the penalties for getting caught may be severe, the rewards for

succeeding are likely to be worth the risk. The rewards range from benefits in

contracting to total control of a country.

In Germany there are currently calls for reform of these laws because lawsuits can

be and are usually prolonged by the newly elected Bundestag.[22]


26/28

26

In the United States one such case was in Pennsylvania where Bill Stinson won an

election based on fraudulent absentee ballots. The courts ruled that his opponent be

seated in the state Senate as a result.Back home in Nigeria, the nullification of the 2007

governorship

election result in some state is a victory for the judiciary and the a trophy for

democracy.

Electoral fraud and electronic voting machines

Although electronic voting machines may be able prevent some methods of fraud,

elections which use electronic polling equipment are prone to fraud in ways that

elections using simpler technology are not.[18]

Means of electoral fraud through electronic voting machines

Many methods of fraud using voting machines are simply variations on the generalmethods listed above. Others are specific to this type of technology.[18]

y Tampering with the software of a voting machine to add malicious code andalter vote totals or favor any candidate. A demonstration how this could be

done on a Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems)

AccuVote-TS was conducted by the Center for Information Technology

Policy, at Princeton University.[24]

Another demonstration with a different

voting system was shown on Dutch TV by the group "Wij vertrouwen

stemcomputers niet".[25][26]

y Tampering with the hardware of the voting machine to alter vote totals orfavor any candidate.

[27]

y Intentional misconfiguration of the ballot design to misidentify a candidatesparty.

y Abusing the administrative access to the machine by election officials mightalso allow individuals to vote multiple times.

Means of prevention

One method for verifying voting machine accuracy is Parallel Testing, the process

of using an independent set of results compared against the original machine

results. Parallel testing can be done prior to or during an election. During an

election, one form of parallel testing is the VVPAT. This method is only effective

if statistically significant numbers of voters verify that their intended vote matches

both the electronic and paper votes.


27/28

27

On election day, a statistically significant number of voting machines can be

randomly selected from polling locations and used for testing. This can be used to

detect potential fraud or malfunction unless manipulated software would only start

to cheat after a certain event like a voter pressing a special key combination (Or a

machine might cheat only if someone doesn't perform the combination, which

requires more insider access but fewer voters).

Another form of testing is Logic & Accuracy Testing (L&A), pre-election testing

of voting machines using test votes to determine if they are functioning correctly.

Another method to insure the integrity of electronic voting machines is

independent software verification and certification.[18]

Once software is certified,

code signing can insure the software certified is identical to that which is used on

election day. Some argue certification would be more effective if voting machine

software was publicly available or open source.

Certification and testing processes conducted publicly and with oversight from

interested parties can promote transparency in the election process. The integrity of

those conducting testing can be questioned.

Testing and certification can prevent voting machines from being a black box

where voters cannot be sure that counting inside is done as intended.[18]

THE HOPE OF A COMMON MAN AND HIS ONE VOTE

Governance is about rights, the rule of law and the manner in which they are

administered to the common man.

It is not enough to have good legal and constitutional protections considering the

cases of the gubernatorial elections in Edo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti (Nigeria). We

need rulers and administrators who respect the principles of the rule of law and

who want to see them at work in our everyday lives as the vote of a common man

is the key to development in any country in the world.

Of course, it is not all bad news. Let us cheer, for instance, the victory of the

common man, civil liberties campaigners and judiciary in Nigeria whose strident

protests and the cry of the common man, saw the judgment that ushered in a

legitimate government where the votes of the common man has already be stolen


28/28

All in all, these are challenging times. But the battle is not lost. Everywhere the

fight for One man One vote, and a restoration of rights is gaining ground. But it

is not just a battle for the masses alone and media people, the need for professional

groups to be involve must be added as a credit. We need to develop a new global

campaign in favour of a common man, pluralism and open government at the local,state and national and level.

We must raise our voice in favour of an obvious and self-evident truth, one that is

not heard in the current noise about the common man and his electoral right in

initiating good governance by exercising his franchise based on his conscience and

conviction that the way to beat electoral fraud is through general active

participation in politics, and the best way to defend democracy and open

government is through general populace participation in politics, democratic

process, democracy and the enthronement of more open government all over

Nigeria. When we settle for less, only the enemies of democracy can win.

One man One vote, the hope of a common man in democracy

Thank you

Ajibogun Olatubosun

Documents

One Man One Vote