egypt-final-presidential-elections-2012

The Carter Center
Presidential Election in Egypt
damaging to the credibility and impartiality of the
counting process and must be addressed through effective
training.
Inconsistencies in Determining the Validity of
Ballots: The issue of applying uniform criteria to
determine whether a ballot was valid or invalid was
a particular concern, as reported by Carter Center
witnesses. Inconsistencies in determining the validity
of ballots were reported by Carter Center witnesses
in a relatively small but consistent number of polling
stations. 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.
Future training of
judges should focus on
the criteria for determining ballot validity, in order to
minimize instances where a voter’s choice is wrongfully
denied.
Announcement of Results: Results were commonly
announced by the presiding judge to those present
at the polling stations in most of the polling stations
visited. During the first round, in all but one case,
candidate agents were provided with a copy of the
results by the presiding judge, and in the second
round, candidate agents were given a copy in all but
two polling stations. The provision of copies of results
forms to candidate agents is probably the single most
important step supporting the transparency of the
counting process, and thus the failure to provide a
copy to candidate agents is an issue that should be
rectified for all future elections.
Transportation of Sensitive Materials: Sensitive
material dispatch to the DGCs was reported as properly
implemented in nearly all cases where Carter
Center witnesses were present. No logistical difficulties
were witnessed. To minimize the risk of fraud still
further, The Carter Center repeats its recommendation
that future EMBs use tamper-evident bags to
transport sensitive electoral materials at all phases of
the process.
Aggregation
Witnesses were denied access to the
national-level aggregation of results.
The Carter Center noted some small improvements
in the aggregation process in the second round of
Egypt’s presidential election in comparison to the first
round. The process of aggregating vote results is one
of the most sensitive in an election and demands the
highest levels of transparency
to ensure confidence
in the integrity of the
process. Aggregation of
the count results was
conducted by DGCs
in each of 351 operational
electoral districts
throughout Egypt, where
polling station results were delivered personally by
the relevant presiding judges. After being aggregated
at the district level, results were then transmitted to
the PEC’s Cairo headquarters. The national aggregation
of results is conducted at the PEC headquarters,
which is the only official and authorized source of
final results.
The main findings regarding the aggregation
process are summarized below:
Witnesses Access to Aggregation: Witnesses were
denied access to the national-level aggregation of
results. The Carter Center made a request to be able
to have witnesses present at the PEC’s Cairo headquarters
during the aggregation of national results.
The PEC informed the Center that only election
officials can be present during this process. 169 The
169 The PEC explained to The Carter Center in a meeting on June
7, 2012, that, because Egyptian law did not explicitly authorize the
presence of candidate agents, witnesses, the media, or others during the
final tabulation process, none of these stakeholders would be allowed
to be present. (Egyptian law does expressly authorize agent and witness
attendance during polling-station counting and DGC tabulation.)
59