The Quick Count and Election Observation
The Quick Count and Election Observation
The Quick Count and Election Observation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHAPTER SIX: THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENT OF THE QUICK COUNT<br />
98 to watch the vote count. A vote count might qualify as “transparent” at any<br />
particular polling station when party agents representing at least two different<br />
<strong>and</strong> competing political parties are present <strong>and</strong> can actually observe ballots<br />
being removed from the ballot box, the determination of for whom they should<br />
be counted <strong>and</strong> the recording of the results.<br />
By combining the<br />
qualitative data with<br />
the numeric quick<br />
count data, it is possible<br />
to evaluate the<br />
issue of transparency<br />
systematically.<br />
By combining the qualitative data with the numeric quick count data, it is possible<br />
to evaluate the issue of transparency systematically. Questions 6a-6c on<br />
Form 2 above <strong>and</strong> Questions 9a-9c on Form 1 indicate which party agents<br />
were present at which polling stations. And Questions 9a-9f on Form 2 indicate<br />
vote results. Using the qualitative data, analysts can identify precisely,<br />
first, which polling stations had fewer than two party agents present <strong>and</strong> also<br />
identify what was the vote count result from that polling station.<br />
Following this approach makes it possible to determine the answer to important<br />
questions: Did vote counts at polling stations with fewer than two party<br />
agents have vote results that were systematically different from the results<br />
from polling stations where there were two or more party agents present? Did<br />
presidential c<strong>and</strong>idate A, systematically win more votes in those polling stations<br />
where an agent from party A was the only party agent present? If the<br />
answers to those questions is “yes,” then the data should be probed further.<br />
One possible reason for that finding might simply be that Party A is stronger<br />
in that region of the country. That outcome, then, does not necessarily mean<br />
that fraud has taken place. <strong>The</strong> data should be further analyzed, however, to<br />
determine whether the same finding holds for polling stations in the same<br />
region/district where there are two or more party agents present at polling<br />
stations. Further, analysis will be able to determine: 1) just how many polling<br />
stations in the sample had fewer than two party agents present; 2) what is the<br />
size of the vote “dividend” (if any) to Party A where Party A agents are the<br />
only party agents present; <strong>and</strong> 3) whether the size of that “dividend” could<br />
have had any impact on the overall outcome of the election. 5<br />
<strong>The</strong> general point concerning how to use the combination of the qualitative<br />
results <strong>and</strong> the count results is made using the case of “transparency.” Exactly<br />
the same kind of combined analysis could be used with a number of other<br />
combinations. For example, analysts can examine the impact of irregularities<br />
on vote count results (Form 2, Question 2). <strong>The</strong> very same principle applies<br />
when a party contests the results from a polling station (Form 2, Question 10).<br />
In that case, it can be systematically determined whether all, or most, challenges<br />
were issued by the party in second place. 6<br />
5<br />
Here the size of the sample is very important. If a national sample is small, with corresponding relatively<br />
large margins of error, it will not be possible to conduct this type of analysis with a significant<br />
degree of confidence, <strong>and</strong> certain problems could even not be detected.<br />
6<br />
<strong>The</strong> qualitative data provide a sound basis upon which to draw inferences about the severity of identified<br />
problems or the importance of the absence of significant problems. However, groups must use<br />
caution when speaking publicly about problems identified <strong>and</strong> the likely impact on the overall quality<br />
of election-day processes. Statements or reports should be carefully crafted so the significance of the<br />
qualitative data is not over-extended. For additional information on public statements, see Chapter<br />
Eight, <strong>The</strong> “End Game.”