Summary of the preliminary findings of the Election Observation Mission (EOM) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - ref. 
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf - on the US Elections of 2 Nov 2004. Note that the Mission was terminated at the moment the polls closed.
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf - on the US Elections of 2 Nov 2004. Note that the Mission was terminated at the moment the polls closed.
The EOM calls attention to "a number of significant issues" threatening the idea that "the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the authority and legitimacy of all government."
In particular, the EOM observed the following during the pre-electoral period:
1. "Allegations about voter disenfranchisement and so-called voter suppression were ... widely aired. It was claimed that such practices included non-processing of voter registration applications, the improper removal of eligible voters from voter lists, harassment and intimidation of voters." However, "while recognizing the seriousness of the above allegations, the EOM was not provided with first-hand evidence to substantiate {or otherwise} them or to demonstrate that such practices were widespread or systematic."
2. There were "no uniform standards for processing absentee ballots."
3. In a number of states, citizens who have been convicted of any felony (a criminal offence more serious than a misdemeanor) suffer a "restriction on the right to vote {which} is not made proportionate to the seriousness of the criminal offence," while, in general, "voters in different states do not enjoy equal suffrage."
4. The regulations on provisional ballots are "ambiguous as to whether the voter must cast the ballot in his/her allocated precinct for the provisional ballot to be counted" and as such are open to abuse. In fact "deadlines for verification and counting of provisional ballots vary widely from state to state and have the potential to delay announcement of final results at the federal level."
5. Furthermore, "there are no uniform certification procedures."
And during the election itself:
1. "Long queues and pressure on poll workers at some polling stations ... deterred or prevented some voters from participating in the election." - {disenfranchisement or lack of universal suffrage}.
2. Some "poll workers {may not have} received sufficient training to perform their functions," and there were doubts about the "secrecy of the vote" in some precincts, since "political party observers were present in many polling stations, although domestic non-partisan observers often had no legal right to such access. "The EOM also noted in this context that "the way in which election administrators are appointed may raise questions of possible conflict of interest." - {possible intimidation and dirty tricks}.
3. The EOM observed "considerable confusion and varying approaches from one state to another regarding the use of provisional ballots." - {open to abuse}
4. There were "faults and breakdowns of DRE (direct recording electronic) machines" and many voters had "difficulties with newer voting technologies." - {must be investigated}
In general, the EOM:
1. Observed that "Allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression, primarily among minorities, were widely reported and presented to the EOM in the pre-election period."
2. Recommends the "prompt introduction of a paper audit trail" in all precincts.
3. Regrets that EOM observers were permitted "in a number of states, sometimes only in specific counties," while "in other states, access was not possible or was limited... " {elipsis in the original}
4. Suggests the following concerns should be addressed:
- "provisional ballots"
- "problems with DRE (direct recording electronic) machines"
- "polling stations lacking the capacity to ensure a reasonably prompt throughput of voters"
- "voting {during} ... working hours"
Source: EuroObserver, Democratic Underground, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=131893
In particular, the EOM observed the following during the pre-electoral period:
1. "Allegations about voter disenfranchisement and so-called voter suppression were ... widely aired. It was claimed that such practices included non-processing of voter registration applications, the improper removal of eligible voters from voter lists, harassment and intimidation of voters." However, "while recognizing the seriousness of the above allegations, the EOM was not provided with first-hand evidence to substantiate {or otherwise} them or to demonstrate that such practices were widespread or systematic."
2. There were "no uniform standards for processing absentee ballots."
3. In a number of states, citizens who have been convicted of any felony (a criminal offence more serious than a misdemeanor) suffer a "restriction on the right to vote {which} is not made proportionate to the seriousness of the criminal offence," while, in general, "voters in different states do not enjoy equal suffrage."
4. The regulations on provisional ballots are "ambiguous as to whether the voter must cast the ballot in his/her allocated precinct for the provisional ballot to be counted" and as such are open to abuse. In fact "deadlines for verification and counting of provisional ballots vary widely from state to state and have the potential to delay announcement of final results at the federal level."
5. Furthermore, "there are no uniform certification procedures."
And during the election itself:
1. "Long queues and pressure on poll workers at some polling stations ... deterred or prevented some voters from participating in the election." - {disenfranchisement or lack of universal suffrage}.
2. Some "poll workers {may not have} received sufficient training to perform their functions," and there were doubts about the "secrecy of the vote" in some precincts, since "political party observers were present in many polling stations, although domestic non-partisan observers often had no legal right to such access. "The EOM also noted in this context that "the way in which election administrators are appointed may raise questions of possible conflict of interest." - {possible intimidation and dirty tricks}.
3. The EOM observed "considerable confusion and varying approaches from one state to another regarding the use of provisional ballots." - {open to abuse}
4. There were "faults and breakdowns of DRE (direct recording electronic) machines" and many voters had "difficulties with newer voting technologies." - {must be investigated}
In general, the EOM:
1. Observed that "Allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression, primarily among minorities, were widely reported and presented to the EOM in the pre-election period."
2. Recommends the "prompt introduction of a paper audit trail" in all precincts.
3. Regrets that EOM observers were permitted "in a number of states, sometimes only in specific counties," while "in other states, access was not possible or was limited... " {elipsis in the original}
4. Suggests the following concerns should be addressed:
- "provisional ballots"
- "problems with DRE (direct recording electronic) machines"
- "polling stations lacking the capacity to ensure a reasonably prompt throughput of voters"
- "voting {during} ... working hours"
Source: EuroObserver, Democratic Underground,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=131893
Homepage:
