45 – 49 50 – 54 55 – 59 60 – 64 65 – 69 70 – 74 75 – 79 80 – 84 85 – 89 90 – 94 95 – 99 100 – 104 105 – 109 110+ Total 156413 95629 71047 56512 33125 17771 10131 4801 2104 497 144 19 3 2 1811578 330825 200459 216191 202693 156716 109850 79868 42006 28848 7790 4167 742 168 58 3884128 487238 296088 287238 259205 189841 127621 89999 46807 30952 8287 4311 761 171 60 5695706 2.7% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.8% 5.8% 3.5% 3.8% 3.6% 2.8% 1.9% 1.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68.2% When the number of registered voters is viewed by urban/rural location, the analysis showed that the majority of registrants (68.2%) are rural residents while only three in 10 (31.8%) stay in urban areas. Across all age bands, the FVR showed that more registered voters came from rural than urban areas. For the younger generations (39 years and below) this urban-rural difference in proportions of registered voters was even bigger. 7.2 Duplicates Cases in the Final Voters’ Roll To identify duplicates, ZESN’s analysis focused mainly on the voter’s national identity number (ID). The analysis pointed to suspicious cases with different permutations: 65536 voters with duplicate names; 4862 voters with duplicate names and date of births; 7416 voters with duplicate names and address; and 2 voters with the same name, date of birth, and address. 7.3 Comparison of the Final Voters’ roll with ZIMSTAT Census Data and Projections Generally, the FVR population of registrants was lower than census data, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.177, p>0.01). Table 7.3 below is a comparison of the eligible versus actual registered voters. Table 7.3: A Summary of Eligible versus Actual Registered Voters 43 | P a g e