The Quick Count and Election Observation

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