Skip Navigation

Open Election Data

Elections are the basis for democratic legitimacy and are supported by international standards for transparency. Election data must be open to the public for citizens to participate in, understand, evaluate, and, ultimately, accept an election process and its outcome as representing their will. Elections generate a wide variety of data throughout the cycle, including information that citizens and stakeholders need to effectively participate in the process, hold institutions accountable, and improve government performance. Open election data is a critical tool in building confidence in democratic institutions, and supporting electoral integrity by promoting credible, transparent, inclusive and accountable processes.

The National Democratic Institute (NDI) authored this chapter of the Open Gov Guide.


Key Terms

Definitions for key terms such as credible elections and the electoral process.

  • Credible elections: Credible elections are characterized by the level of inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and competitiveness of an electoral process.
  • Electoral process: Elections are a process, not a single event. Every election comprises numerous elements and involves multiple actors throughout the pre-election, election day and post-election periods, all of which affect the election’s transparency, inclusiveness, accountability and competitiveness. The 16 aspects of the electoral process that are relevant to open data include areas such as election management body (EMB) composition and administration, voter list maintenance, and electoral complaints, disputes, and resolutions.
  • Open election data: Making election data “open” refers to sharing the data in ways that make the data freely and easily used, reused, and redistributed by members of the general public. In particular, open election data should be timely, granular, free, complete and in bulk, analyzable, non-proprietary, non-discriminatory, license-free, and permanently available.

The Evidence

Applying open data principles to election information promotes electoral integrity by enhancing participation, transparency, and accountability and increasing public trust in the electoral process.

  • Open election data improves voter participation by providing voters and stakeholders with credible information that they need to effectively participate in the process.
  • Open election data allows the public and key stakeholders to better understand the integrity of different elements of the electoral process, including opportunities for reform. One example is the publication of campaign finance data, which can shed light on whether political contestants comply with election finance rules during their campaigns.
  • Investments in open election data not only enhance the quality of information available to EMBs and governments, but can also improve election administration and other government processes. For example, polling station-level election data has been used to identify factors affecting political participation and investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Opening election data can build and reinforce confidence in electoral institutions and dissuade or counter election-related disinformation. Timeliness is an especially important aspect of opening up this data to build trust and counter disinformation, given the speed at which information travels on social media and other online networks.
  • The degree of openness of electoral data is itself a measurement of the transparency of an election process. Increasing participation, transparency, and accountability thereby enhances the integrity of the electoral process.
  • Open election data can help identify barriers to the participation and representation of women and other under-represented communities in political processes, for instance by analyzing candidate lists and the ballot qualification process, monitoring election-related violence and security data (including electoral violence against women), and increasing public scrutiny around quotas and the voter registry.

Key Election Process Categories of Open Data

According to NDI, the 16 aspects of the electoral process relevant to open data are:

  • legal framework,
  • boundary delimitation,
  • election management body (EMB) composition and administration,
  • EMB processes,
  • election security,
  • political party registration,
  • ballot qualification,
  • election campaigns,
  • campaign finance,
  • voter registration,
  • voter lists,
  • voter education,
  • polling stations,
  • election results,
  • e-voting and counting, and
  • electoral complaints, disputes, and resolutions.

Reform Guidance

The recommendations below represent reforms that national and local governments, representatives of civil society organizations, and others can consider for their action plans and the Open Gov Challenge. The reforms are categorized according to OGP’s principal values: transparency, civic participation, and public accountability. Reforms should be adapted to fit the domestic context, and involve and coordinate with other levels and branches of government.

Reforms across policy areas are also tagged by the estimated degree of difficulty in implementation. Though progress is often not linear, the recommendations have been categorized using these labels to give the reader a sense of how different reforms can work together to raise the ambition of open government approaches.

Recommended Reforms Key

  • Transparency: Transparency empowers citizens to exercise their rights, hold the government accountable, and participate in decision-making processes. Examples of relevant activities include the proactive or reactive publication of government-held information, legal or institutional frameworks to strengthen the right to access information, and disclosing information using open data standards.

  • Civic Participation: When people are engaged, governments and public institutions are more responsive, innovative, and effective. Examples of relevant initiatives include new or improved processes and mechanisms for the public to contribute to decisions, participatory mechanisms to involve underrepresented groups in policy making, and a legal environment that guarantees civil and political rights.

  • Public Accountability: Public accountability occurs when public institutions must justify their actions, act upon requirements and criticisms, and take responsibility for failure to perform according to laws or commitments. Importantly, public accountability means that members of the public can also access and trigger accountability mechanisms. Examples of relevant activities include citizen audits of performance, new or improved mechanisms or institutions that respond to citizen-initiated appeals processes, and improved access to justice.

  • Inclusion: Inclusion is fundamental to achieving more equitable, representative, and accountable policies that truly serve all people. This includes increasing the voice, agency, and influence of historically discriminated or underrepresented groups. Depending on the context, traditionally underrepresented groups may experience discrimination based on gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, age, geography, differing ability, legal, or socioeconomic status.

  • Foundational: This tag is used for reforms that are the essential building blocks of a policy area. “Foundational” does not mean low ambition or low impact. These recommendations often establish basic legal frameworks and institutional structures.

  • Intermediate: This tag is used for reforms that are complex and often involve coordination and outreach between branches, institutions, and levels of government, with the public or between countries.

  • Advanced: This tag is used for reforms that close important loopholes to make existing work more effective and impactful. Specifically, “Advanced” reforms are particularly ambitious, innovative or close important loopholes to make existing work more effective, impactful or sustainable. They are often applied in mature environments where they seek to institutionalize a good practice that has already shown results.

  • Executive: The executive branch of government is responsible for designing, implementing, and enforcing laws, policies, and initiatives. It is typically led by the head of state or government, such as a president or prime minister, along with their appointed cabinet members. The executive branch’s functions also include overseeing the day-to-day operations of the government, managing foreign affairs, and directing the country’s armed forces. In democratic systems, the executive branch is accountable to the legislature and the electorate, with its powers and limitations outlined in the constitution or legal framework of the respective country.

  • Legislative: The legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws and regulations and overseeing the functioning of the government. It typically consists of a body of elected representatives, such as a parliament, congress, or assembly, which is tasked with proposing, debating, amending, and ultimately passing legislation. The legislative branch plays a crucial role in representing the interests of the people, as its members are elected to office by the public. In addition to law-making, this branch often holds the power to levy taxes, allocate funds, and conduct certain investigations into matters of public concern. The structure and powers of the legislative branch are usually outlined in a country’s constitution or legal framework, and it serves as a check on the executive and judicial branches to ensure a system of checks and balances within a state.

Examples of Reforms from OGP and Beyond

The following examples are commitments previously made within or beyond OGP that demonstrate elements of the recommendations made above. Though open election data has been largely unexplored by OGP members as a whole, some countries have made promising commitments related to this topic.

OGP Reforms
  • BRAZIL Social Participation to Improve Open Electoral Data: Committed to improving collaboration with civil society and supporting public forums to improve electoral data transparency. This would include establishing participatory decision-making procedures bringing together civil society representatives and the Superior Electoral Court’s Open Data Management Commission to identify open election data needs and expectations. As of June 2024, Brazil established the framework for an Open Data Users Council of the Superior Electoral Court via an ordinance, but the actual establishment of the council is ongoing.
  • CROATIA Transparency and Financing of Referenda Activities: Consolidating and posting details regarding all the referenda taking place throughout the country—including at a regional and local level—in a Record of Referendum Activities to address the lack of publicly available information on ballot initiatives. This work relates to a previous commitment to make campaign financing more transparent, which saw major early results according to OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism.
  • NETHERLANDS National Portal for Transparent Election Results: Updated its electoral legal framework and election management procedures to ensure that polling station-level results are available on an online portal in open data formats to improve voter information and confidence in the electoral process.
Beyond OGP Action Plans
  • CÔTE D’IVOIRE Open Voters List for Verification: Over the past 10 years, the Independent Election Commission and civic activists have worked to make the voters list available to political parties and civil society in open data formats to increase scrutiny and verification in each election. Evidence-based, independent analysis of the list’s quality helped mitigate political allegations and bolster confidence in the voter registration process. An analysis comparing the voters list to census data also helped to identify gaps in voter registration, including age groups that were underrepresented on the list following conflict.
  • GUATEMALA Transparency in Online Political Advertising: Recently updated its election law requiring political parties to register social media pages and report social media spending. Expenditure information was made publicly available through a semi-government media monitoring body and utilized by observers to analyze online spending across platforms.
  • PHILIPPINES Open Data to Build Public Trust in Election Technology: Made detailed information regarding technology providers and procurement processes readily available to the public in the process of integrating new voting and counting technology. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has also invited civil society to participate in pre and post-election audits of voting machines, providing access to critical pieces of electoral data.

The Role of Local Governments

In some countries, aspects of electoral data may be collected at lower election administration levels, such as state or district election commissions. National EMBs should be transparent regarding local and state-level administration, including structures, contact information, mandates and other data. In addition, national EMBs and other government bodies should ensure local-level data collection and consolidation efforts follow open election data principles and develop mechanisms to ensure that all electoral data is still made available complete and in-bulk in a central space, ideally the national EMB website. To meet open election data standards, sites should avoid forcing users to navigate to individual district EMB pages to download and piece together data to make a complete nationwide dataset.


Who is working on this topic?

A
Argentina Argentina
Australia Australia
B
Brazil Brazil
C
Canada Canada
Costa Rica Costa Rica
Croatia Croatia
D
Denmark Denmark
E
Ecuador Ecuador
F
France France
G
Georgia Georgia
Germany Germany
Ghana Ghana
Guatemala Guatemala
I
Indonesia Indonesia
Ireland Ireland
J
Jordan Jordan
K
Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyz Republic
L
Latvia Latvia
Lithuania Lithuania
M
Malawi Malawi
Mexico State, Mexico
Mongolia Mongolia
N
Netherlands Netherlands
North Macedonia
P
Panama Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paris, France
Philippines Philippines
R
Romania Romania
S
Serbia
Sierra Leone Sierra Leone
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka
T
Tlalnepantla De Baz, Mexico
U
United Kingdom United Kingdom
United States United States
Uruguay Uruguay

This list reflects members with commitments in the “Elections” policy area of the Data Dashboard, which includes open election data-related initiatives.


Active OGP Partners

The following organizations have recently worked on this issue in the context of OGP at the national or international level. They may have additional insights on the topic. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are interested in national-level initiatives, please contact research@opengovpartnership.org.


Benchmarking Data

The OGP 2023-2028 Strategy sets out the Open Gov Challenge and aims to provide clear benchmarks for performance through reliable data.

While benchmarks for individual countries and Open Gov Guide recommendations are not yet integrated, for this chapter, interested individuals may rely on the following data sets:

Guidance & Standards

While the list below is not exhaustive, it aims to provide a range of recommendations, standards, and analysis to guide reform in this policy area.

  • The National Democratic Institute’s Open Election Data Initiative equips civil society, election administrators, and technologists with the concepts and tools to effectively advocate for, implement, and use election data that is truly “open.” The initiative identifies nine open election data principles and outlines the types of data and what open data may look like throughout 16 different stages of an election process, from the pre-election period through election day and into the post-election period.
Open Government Partnership