International election monitors can help boost people’s trust in the electoral process − but not all work the same way

International election observers from The Carter Center present their credentials to a soldier standing guard outside of a polling station in Caracas, Venezuela, during the presidential election on July 28, 2024. Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty Images^[18]

What election monitors do

Election monitoring most often involves independent and impartial people observing^[19] elections. Sometimes, these observers come from other countries and are part of international organizations such as the European Union^[20], as well as nongovernmental groups like the Carter Center^[21].

Credible foreign observers have the common goal of assessing whether an election is conducted fairly, transparently and in line with international standards for democratic elections^[22]. People can also observe elections within their own countries, according to related standards^[23].

Observers might check to see whether polling stations open and close on time on Election Day and whether eligible voters are casting their ballots freely and without intimidation. They can also track and publicize any inability to gather information. Their influence comes from their reputations as quality sources of information on election integrity.

During the October 2024 presidential election in Mozambique, for example, European Union election observers were critical^[24] of some parts of the process, because they “were prevented to observe tabulation processes in some districts and provinces.”

Governments in countries where an election is taking place generally invite international election monitors to observe. In other cases, countries are members of international organizations, such as the OSCE, whose members are expected to invite observers to their elections.

Nearly every country^[25] in the world has invited international election observers to its national elections at least once.

About 80% of national elections^[26] in countries including Bangladesh, Moldova, Nigeria and Ghana^[27] have had international election monitors present in recent years.

Well-trained international monitors observe the entirety of a country’s election cycle – not just on Election Day.

Before an election, monitors assess the political and media environment and gather information about voter registration and campaigning. On Election Day, they visit polling stations to ensure that voters are not being intimidated and the voting technology is working appropriately. In some countries, voting may occur over multiple days or even weeks. After the election, observers oversee the counting of ballots and resolution of election disputes.

Finally, they issue reports that detail their assessments about an election’s integrity and make suggestions about how election quality can be improved in the future.

Election monitoring usually strengthens democracy

High-quality election monitoring improves the quality of elections and ultimately strengthens democracy^[28].

First, election monitors can help deter fraud. Would-be cheaters do not want to be caught by monitors if they try to inflate vote counts. When international observers were present at polling stations in Armenia during the country’s 2003 presidential election, they were estimated to reduce fraud by about 6%^[29].

Second, when independent election monitors uncover evidence of wrongdoing, such as improper vote-counting procedures, they publicize it. This public attention can reach domestic and international audiences and generally leads to more accountability during and after an election.

International monitors criticized^[30] the election process in Serbia and Georgia in 2003. This attention helped the public mobilize^[31] and protest the flawed elections, ultimately leading to the ousting of dictators in Serbia and Georgia.

Monitors can also reassure the public that elections are genuinely democratic. We conducted survey research in Tunisia^[32] following the country’s 2011 revolution. The country’s first democratic elections^[33] that same year could have been mired in uncertainty given a long history of authoritarianism.

We found that international election observers’ presence and reports contributed to Tunisians’ beliefs that the elections were democratic, although the effects were dependent on the identity of the observers^[34] as well as the party identification of the Tunisian voter.

Election monitoring’s potential pitfalls

Still, election monitoring has a few downsides.

Protests about flawed elections might lead to government repression and violence^[35] against protesters, as happened in Kenya in 2007.

Second, even high-quality election monitors have their biases. Sometimes, they are less critical of flawed elections when they are worried about election violence^[36] or for other reasons^[37].

Finally, some authoritarian regimes – especially those connected with Russia^[38] – have increasingly invited sham observers^[39] who endorse flawed elections. This helps dictators create a façade of legitimacy for their elections.

Members of the European Union’s Election Observation Mission speak ahead of the presidential election in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in September 2024. Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP via Getty Images^[40]

Lessons for the US

Since the early 2000s, the U.S. has hosted international observers like the ones now observing the election who are part of – and trained by – the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe^[41]. The U.S. is a member of this group.

The OSCE observers have generally been complimentary about the democratic character of U.S. elections, although they also suggest areas for improvement. Their 2020 report issued immediately after the November presidential election was “pointed^[42]” in its criticism of Trump’s efforts to undermine trust in the election.

U.S.-based groups such as the League of Women Voters also train nonpartisan election monitors.

State laws vary greatly^[43] on whether and how observers can even monitor elections. Sixteen states^[44], including North Carolina and Pennsylvania, officially authorized only partisan poll watchers as of 2016 – although they may have unofficially allowed nonpartisan groups to observe.

Indeed, partisan poll watchers are more often seen at U.S. elections, and their presence may have mixed effects^[45] on voter confidence.

Some states that don’t allow nonpartisan election observers are missing a key opportunity to enhance transparency and accountability through a mechanism that has been proven globally to promote electoral reform. Just as important, Americans in many states are missing the chance to hear from the nonpartisan groups that are most likely to reassure them about election quality^[46].

Authors: Sarah Bush, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania

Read more https://theconversation.com/international-election-monitors-can-help-boost-peoples-trust-in-the-electoral-process-but-not-all-work-the-same-way-241715

• Prev
• Next