The Quick Count and Election Observation

CHAPTER SIX: THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENT OF THE QUICK COUNT
96 Searching for Systematic Patterns
Step 1 procedures will indicate if anything has gone wrong, where it has gone
wrong and what is the potential scope of the problem. Step 2 is essentially a
search for systematic patterns. It begins by a statistical search for patterns of
regularities, or irregularities, for those cases that step 1 analysis has identified
as “problem cases.” Recall that if the problem cases are distributed randomly
If the problem cases
are distributed randomly
and the scale is
not large, then the
likely cause of the
problems is simple
human error.
and the scale is not large, then the likely cause of the problems is simple human
error. However, this has to be determined systematically, and there are two
ways to proceed. What needs to be determined, first, is whether the problem
cases are clustered in any one region of the country or not. This can be established
by cross-tabulating all of the problem cases by region of the country
and within region, by district.
If the problem cases are clustered, say in the capital city, or in a particular
region, then the reasons behind this should be explored. A clustering of problem
cases may signify an administrative problem within a particular district.
In those cases, it is useful to alert the emergency team about the problem and
to contact the observer groups’ regional or municipal supervisors to generate
local information about why these problems arose. Regional or municipal supervisors
are usually in the best position to get to the bottom of a localized
problem—not least of all because they will be in contact both with the local
observers and the local election commission officials.
A clustering of problem
cases may signify an
administrative problem
within a particular district.
District supervisors
or coordinators are usually
in the best position
to get to the bottom of
a localized problem
While these local inquiries are being initiated, analysts should continue to analyze
the data by cross-tabulating the problem cases with all other response to
questions in the qualitative forms. That strategy is important because it can
shed light on the shape and depth of the problems with these cases. For example,
if the polling station was “not installed” (Question 1, response E) then it
should follow that people should not have been able to vote (Question 10,
response E). A simple cross-tabulation of these two sets of question can establish
definitively whether this was the case.
These cross-tabulation checks will also enable the analyst to determine if most
of the problems across most categories are concentrated within the same
polling stations, or if they are not. This is a critical line of investigation. Once
again, an example helps to illustrate the point. If the analysts takes the problem
cases where polling stations were “not installed” (Question 1, response
E) and crosstabulates these with the responses to Questions 2-4, and Questions
6a-6f which concern the presence of polling station officials and election materials,
then the results will allow the analysts to rule out, or isolate, certain
reasons for why the polling stations were not installed. So if, for the majority
of cases of non-installed polling stations, the analyst finds that the answer to
questions 6a-6f is uniformly “no” (the materials were not present), but the
answers to Questions 2-4 were “A” (all nominated polling station officials were
present), then the analyst would conclude that the problem of non-installation
was not the absence of polling station officials, but probably was the
absence of proper election materials. Such a finding should be communicat-