Showing posts with label question formulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label question formulation. Show all posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Southern Sudan 2011: ballot paper

The ballot used for the recently-held Southern Sudan referendum is the simplest ballot that has ever been used: see http://www.flickr.com/photos/usaidafrica/5386993117/

There were only two words that appeared on it: "unity" and "secession" (written in Arabic and English).  There was also a symbol to assist the illiterate: two hands clasped together to symbolize "unity" and a single open hand to sybolize "secession". 

Perhaps the most ingenious idea was that ballots are marked by a thumbprint.  This makes fraudulent ballot-casting more difficult because each mark must be unique, but because there is no fingerprint registry in Sudan, the ballots are also anonymous. 

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Proposed Scottish ballot question

The Referendum (Scotland) Bill, 2010 proposed the form of ballot paper at this link http://www.webcitation.org/5jgh02AMe and reproduced below.  The Scottish government announced in September that it will not be holding a referendum before 2011 elections, so this question will not be put to the voters for the time being.  Still, it is interesting (I will save my comments for later):

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER
The Scottish Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Scottish Government's proposal to negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom to achieve independence for Scotland:
Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box

I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with
the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an
independent state.

OR

I DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a
settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland
becomes an independent state.

Friday, November 5, 2010

East Timor Ballot

A picture of the ballot for the 1999 East Timor vote on independence is available here:

http://www.un.org/peace/etimor99/POSTERS/ballot.pdf

Without delving into the question, it is a well designed ballot.  It is in colour and has pictograms for illiterate people, it is written in four languages (English Portuguese, Tetun and Bahasa-Indonesian), and has arrows and coloured areas showing where to vote. 

That having been said, the question is very confusing.  The ACCEPT option is to remain part of Indonesia, while the REJECT option is for East Timorese independence.  One would normally expect the "Reject" option to be for the maintenance of the status quo.

Second, the pictogram is confusing.  The independence option shows East Timor connected to the rest of Indonesia, while the autonomy option shows the territory of East Timor on its own, quite the opposite of intuition.

Finally, I find the "Accept" option describes the legal arrangement incorrectly:  "Do you ACCEPT the proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia?"  My reading of the autonomy plan ( http://www.etan.org/etun/annex.htm ) have been for a special autonomous region with powers set out in "constitutional framework" annex of a treaty between Portugal and Indonesia, ie., having the force of internaitonal law.  A unitary state is one where all power remains with the central government and any power that it does not exercise is merely delegated and can be revoked at any time.  This could have led to misunderstandings had this option won the vote.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Ballot for Saarland referendum 1955

Saarland was a German state occupied by France after World War II.  Being rich in natural resources, France did not want the region to join the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) when it was formed in 1949, and wanted it to be incorporated in France.  Eventually West Germany and France compromised: they signed a treaty in 1955, where Saarland would become an autonomous state under the tutelage of the Western European Union.  In practice, it would become independent. 

The treaty, called the "European Statute for Saarland", required that Saarland's new status be put to a referendum of Saar residents.  A picture of the ballot is available here: http://www.ena.lu/ballot_paper_referendum_saar_statute_23_october_1955-2-3272

The question is either very convoluted or very difficult to translate with my rudimentary German: "Do you agree with the agreement on the government of Saarland between the government of the Federal Republic of Germand and the government of the French Republic of the 23rd of October 1955 agreed upon European Statute for Saarland?"

If someone can do a better translation, I would appreciate it. 

The ballot is very wordy, with a 16-word title and a 31-word question.  It also contains a reference to the European Statute, presupposing that everyone has read it.  It seems to me that "Do you agree with the European Statute for Saarland?" would have been shorter and .  "Do you agree with Saarland becoming an autonomous state under the auspices of the Western European?" would have been more direct and to the point.

As West Germany had a near-universal literate population, the black and white text-only ballot seems appropriate.  It may have been preferable to have a black ballot with white words and circles, in order to discourage people from making marks outside the designated areas.  This may have contributed to the relatively high spoiled ballot percentage (2.4%, or 15,725 of 641,132) votes:  http://www.ena.lu/results_referendum_saar_statute_23_october_1955-2-3072

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Question for 2011 Southern Sudan referendum

As part of the 2005 peace deal ending the Sudanese civil war, a peace treaty was signed which called for a referendum in 2011 to exercise the "right of self-determination" of the "people of Southern Sudan".  The provisions for a referendum can be found on page 8 of the treaty. http://www.aec-sudan.org/docs/cpa/cpa-en.pdf (you can see that page 8 of the treaty was subject to some last minute cut-and-paste, as can be seen by the misnumbered sections).   The two options of the referendum, according to section 2.5 of the treaty, will be "to confirm the unity of Sudan by voting to adopt the system of government established under the Peace Agreement; or to vote for secession."

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The 1995 Quebec referendum question

Despite the relatively straightforward design of Quebec's 1995 referendum ballot (a black ballot with two white boxes, one containing the wording in French and the other in English, with two equal sized circles at the bottom marked YES or NO), the ballot caused much controversy in the 1995 Quebec referendum campaign.  The wording of the ballot question was criticized by supporters of the "No" campaign for being confusing.  For instance, Lucienne Robillard, one of the main organizers of the committee, criticized the 54-word question for the language appearing after "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign", mainly because it made reference to a Bill on the future of Quebec and an agreement signed June 12, 1995.  She argued that most voters had not read the bill or the agreement and did not know what they contained.  Some went further and suggested that the wording was misleading because it referred first to "a formal offer to Canada for a new Economic and Political Partnership" and then later referred to a signed agreement, leading some to believe that an agreement with Canada on a new partnership had already been made (when in fact, the agreement was between leaders of the "Yes" campaign on what the offer to Canada would contain.)  Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, criticized the question for using the somewhat ambiguous term "sovereign" rather than "independent" or "separate" to describe what Quebec would become after a "YES" vote.

I do not agree that the question was misleading-- the contents of the bill and the agreement had been publicly known for months and copies had been mailed to every home.  Having examined the wording of other questions I would describe it as less than ideal because it is:
- long: at 54 words, it is difficult to imagine that most people read the question in the ballot box before voting;
- contains outside references to other documents
- uses technical and legal jargon (eg., "within the scope of the bill respecting").

I would also argue that the use of the term "sovereign" also fits into the category of legal jargon-- its meaning is relatively well known to public international law experts but not to the general public and thus best left out of a referendum question.  This is a politically charged issue in Quebec, unfortunately, because polls indicate that "sovereignty for Quebec" tends to be a more popular option than "independence for Quebec" or "separation from Canada", even though Lucien Bouchard, spokesman for the "Yes" campaign, was of course perfectly correct when he pointed out (after the referendum) that all three of these expressions mean in practice the same thing.  Because one option is more popular with voters than the others, "Yes" supporters call themselves "sovereignty" while "No" supporters tend to call it "separation."  Because of the close results of the 1995 referendum vote, this rather sterile debate over the terminology used on the referendum ballot has the potential to be a decisive factor in the outcome of the vote, if ever there were another independence referendum in Quebec.

The 1995 Quebec referendum ballot

A photo of the Quebec 1995 referendum ballot appears on this page.  It was black and white, with the question appearing in French on the left side and English on the right.  Empty space surrounding the question is blackened and two large equally-sized circles appear at the bottom, the top circle marked OUI YES and the bottom circle marked NON NO.

The reverse side was white with the logo of the National Assembly of Quebec appearing on the reverse (a 17-fleur-de-lys logo with the words "ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE" appearing underneath).  An example appears here: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/index.html I have never been able to determine why this logo appeared on the ballot, rather than, for example, the logo of the Chief Electoral Officer who was overseeing the vote.  The logo has not appeared on the reverse side of ballots of subsequent Quebec elections; they have been blank.