Transparency in elections involves making information available to participants and the public to increase understanding, confidence, and credibility in the electoral process. Information and communication technologies can enhance transparency by providing voters and participants with more election information more easily, such as online voter verification, SMS polling place information, and posting forms, complaints, and results online. ICT is appropriate when the problem is clearly identified, the costs are justified, stakeholders are consulted, and implementation fits the electoral body's schedule and is financially sustainable. A case study from Indonesia found that scanning and posting results forms online within 5 days of an election increased transparency and credibility of results after previous issues with manual tabulation and conflicting unofficial counts. ICT could potentially harm transparency if not implemented correctly

1. Using ICT to Enhance
Transparency in Elections

2. What is Transparency and Why Does it Matter?
Transparency in Elections = Availability of Information
Why is Transparency Important?
• Understanding of election processes by participants and public
• Confidence of participants and public in every step of the process
• Credibility of results
• Accountability of electoral administration and electoral participants

3. How Can ICT Increase Transparency?
By giving voters and participants more information, more easily
Examples:
• Online voter data verification
• Information by SMS on polling place
• Posting election complaints, case status and decisions on-line
• Posting financial disclosure forms on-line
• Positing candidate and party information online
• Posting results forms
• Live streaming of voting and counting

4. When is ICT Appropriate?
1. When the problem has been clearly identified
2. When the expected results justify the anticipated costs
 all costs, full lifecycle
3. When there has been appropriate consultation
4. When the implementation schedule fits with EMB workload
5. When it is financially sustainable

5. Case Study: Indonesia
Problem: manual tabulation of results is slow
• Period of uncertainty, conflicting 3rd party “quick counts”
• Lack of transparency in tabulation  worry about accuracy
Unsuccessful measures in 2009

6. Case Study: Indonesia
2014 Solution = Scan and post C1 results forms
Public Participation through Kawal Pemilu
Results
• Unofficial preliminary results available within 5 days of polling
• public can verify results
• Greater credibility of results

7. Can ICT Harm Transparency?
Can ICT Harm Transparency?

8. Questions?