egypt-final-presidential-elections-2012

The Carter Center
Counting and Aggregation
For both rounds of Egypt’s presidential
election, counting was
conducted at the end of polling
on the second day at the polling-station
level, and the results then were aggregated
at the DGC level before being
transmitted to the PEC’s Cairo headquarters.
Presiding judges were required to
announce the results at the conclusion of
counting and to provide each candidate’s
agent present with a signed copy of the
results. In between the first and second
rounds, the legislature added the additional
requirement that presiding judges
at the DGC level provide a stamped copy
of the aggregated results to candidate
agents present. Providing polling-station
and general committee-level results to candidates’
agents promoted transparency and helped to instill
confidence in the final results by ensuring that agents
had verifiable information regarding electoral results
in their jurisdictions.
The major findings from
these polling stations during
counting were:
Procedural Irregularities in
Counting and Aggregation:
Procedural irregularities in
counting and aggregation
during the first round of the
presidential election were
witnessed in roughly onequarter
of polling stations.
During the second round,
the number of procedural
irregularities rose; there were
procedural irregularities noticed in roughly one-third
of polling stations visited. However, during both
rounds, these irregularities were mostly minor in
Poll workers count ballots after polls close on June 17, 2012.
In some cases, it was reported that
the judges presiding over the polling
stations appeared to have varying
interpretations of what constituted an
invalid ballot, including interpretations
that appeared to deviate from the law
and PEC instructions.
nature, not affecting the accuracy of the count.
The poor implementation of procedures for
ballot reconciliation (including failing to account
for spoiled ballots in some cases) and inconsistencies
in the determination
of invalid and valid votes
were among the more
common errors witnessed.
At several stations, witnesses
reported that candidate
agents, domestic witnesses,
or security officials were
actively participating in the
counting process, a worrying
encroachment on the roles
and independence of the
officials charged with administering
the election. Again,
in instances witnessed by
The Carter Center, this interference did not appear
to unduly affect the accuracy of the count. However,
irregularities such as these may still be potentially
Maurice Chammah
58