Site Menu1.6 Revision – Section 1: Conduct of the Electoral EventConduct of the Electoral Event – Returning Officers' Report of Proceedings Summary – 44th General Election
One-stop service model
19. The one-stop service model worked well.
Text version of "19. The one-stop service model worked well."
The bar chart shows that out of 338 ROs:
- 189 strongly agree with the statement
- 117 agree
- 20 are neutral
- 8 disagree
- 4 strongly disagree
306 ROs agreed or strongly agreed with the above statement. On the other hand, 20 were neutral, while 12 disagreed or strongly disagreed.
What went well
- The one-stop service model provided quick and efficient service to electors seeking revision and/or special ballot services.
- Electors appreciated being able to go to the RO office and receive both revision and special ballot services.
- SAs appreciated serving electors through the one-stop service model. In fact, they mentioned that their training covered this process well and allowed them to be effective.
What could be improved
- Ensure on-time opening of RO offices. The late opening of RO offices negatively affected the one-stop service model, as it requires the RO office to be fully operational.
- Further promote the one-stop service model to electors to maximize its use. In this respect, special ballot voting and its conditions should also be emphasized.
Effectiveness of revision procedures
20. There were no issues or challenges with revision procedures (i.e., general guidelines, targeted revision, revision at the RO office or at the AARO office [if applicable]).
![20. There were no issues or challenges with revision procedures (i.e., general guidelines, targeted revision, revision at the RO office or at the AARO office [if applicable]).](res/rec/eval/pes2021/rorps/images/fig45_e.png)
Text version of "20. There were no issues or challenges with revision procedures (i.e., general guidelines, targeted revision, revision at the RO office or at the AARO office [if applicable])."
The bar chart shows that out of 338 ROs:
- 96 strongly agree with the statement
- 173 agree
- 49 are neutral
- 16 disagree
- 4 strongly disagree
269 ROs agreed or strongly agreed with the above statement. On the other hand, 49 were neutral, while 20 disagreed or strongly disagreed.
What went well
- In general, the procedures for revision were clear, relevant and effective. In fact, they allowed the revision activities to be completed within the established time frame.
- The budget allocated to ROs was more than adequate to carry out the revision activities effectively. A sufficient number of hours was allocated to the staff positions responsible for revision (e.g., SAs, ACs, SPSs).
What could be improved
- Develop a contingency plan to alleviate the pressure on SAs during very busy periods.
- Provide hands-on training to a number of SAs during PEAs on procedures and forms related to revision.
Other notable comments
- The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the short election calendar greatly influenced targeted revision (TR). In fact, little TR took place, which brought its own challenges during advance polling days.