The U.S. presidential elections-2000.
Report on the experiences of ACEEEO’s election observers
The Association of Central and Eastern European Election Officials (ACEEEO) established in 1991, will celebrate its 10th anniversary next year. ACEEEO was set up in Budapest with the participation of election officials from eight countries in the region. The organization was established after a conference, where the political and professional experiences of the first free elections after the political transformation were discussed. During the discussions, the need for a regular international exchange of ideas was strongly emphasized. The founders, among them election experts of the former-Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, aimed to set up extensive educational (training) programs for elections officials in the region, in order to develop democracy effectively, to prevent and minimize election fraud and to avoid technical errors in the organization of elections. Hungarian officials needed to learn from the experience abroad, since the first round of the 1990 parliamentary elections became notorious for having “no data”. The creation of the association was supported both morally and financially by the Washington-based “The International Foundation for Election Systems” (IFES), who were also organizers of the conference in Budapest.
The working practices of the ACEEEO evolved gradually: first, only professional conferences were held on the legal, technical and information technology aspects of fraud prevention. From 1996 on, however, the association took on the role of being international observers in the countries of the region under the auspices of the OSCE-ODIHR. ACEEEO sent more than seven hundred observers to ten nearby countries, recently sixty of our colleagues participated in Kosovo and sixty eight of our experts assisted in the Bosnian elections, respectively. The association has eighteen member countries, and recently Turkey and Macedonia requested to be admitted to membership.
Prior to their traveling, election observers will learn the electoral rules and familiarize themselves with the political institutional system of the countries to be visited. Long-term observers will arrive 3-6 months prior to the elections to oversee the preparation of voter registration rosters (an opportunity for mass fraud), and the work of media (a potential hotbed of governmental misuse).
Short-term observers focus on the election day itself and are there to observe its legality. The international election observers write down their experiences; in case they observe illegal activity they cannot take any direct steps, however, they have the right to report the problems encountered to the election committee and publicize them in the press. Additionally, our experts have taken part in the preparation and organization of elections as members of delegations in various international organizations.
What international sanctions have been introduced to counter illegal elections activity? Actually, they are the expression of political opinion by foreign countries and international associations concerning the legality and legitimacy of power in a given country. This kind of a political ‘sanction’ could have a serious effect on a country, especially if it is one of the emerging democracies.
In 1990, European heads of states and prime ministers signed an international convention enabling every European country to take part in the election of any other European state by allowing them to send observers. The by-laws of the ACEEEO state that every member country has the right to participate as an international observer in an other member country. The U.S. is not a participant to the European convention, but it is a supporting member of the ACEEEO. The U.S. has now also made it possible for the ACEEEO (with Russian and Hungarian representatives) to take part in the 2000 U.S. presidential elections as international election observers.
The electoral rules
Since 1783, the American president has been elected through an electoral system. The original intent of the framers of the constitution was to virtually exclude the populace from participation in the presidential elections and instituted a form of an indirect election that was to be the prerogative of a narrow political (economic) elite. Those empowered with this right were called electors, elected in each state according to a number determined by the electorate. After a century of evolution, as the number of those with the right to vote has expanded, and today even though every American citizen over eighteen years of age may vote directly for a presidential candidate, this constitutional rule continues to remain unchanged for the past 200 years:
it is not the sum of the popular votes on a federal level that counts, but it is the 538 member electoral college that has the right -formally- to elect the president. This formal act will take place on the 18th of December 2000, after the voters had voted for the presidential candidates on the 7th of November 2000. If both candidates receive an equal number of electoral votes, Congress will elect the president with each state entitled to one vote. The essence of this electoral system needs some explanation, since nothing of the kind exists in Europe. The population of the U.S. is two hundred and fifty million people. Out of this number, theoretically a hundred and sixty million would be eligible to vote should they request to be registered. For a number of reasons, not everyone of those who have the right to vote requested to be registered, and not all the registered voters cast their votes either, so the number of the actual voters is about a hundred million.
Nominations
If one wants to be a presidential candidate, first one has to attain the nomination within his own party. In each of the fifty states of the U.S., each party selects its own candidates who, -still within the party - are pitted against each other in primary elections. After these qualifying rounds, each state decides who will be the candidate of the Republican, Democratic and other parties, that its voters would be able to cast their votes for. The system of state nominations already has an interesting point: in different states, different candidates can appear on the presidential ballot. As there are only two big parties who are able to support the same candidate in every state, the Republican and the Democratic candidates are able to appear on the ballot of every state. On the federal level, the other parties cannot muster this much strength, so they can field candidates in “only” some of the states. In this way, they can attain certain positions, but they have no chance to win the presidency.
From the standpoint of the articulation of the American political party system, it cannot be called a two-party system, but rather a bi-polar party system. There are lot of independent parties in the U.S., which either due to tradition, or because of their significantly less political (or economic) support, enter into alliances with one of the two bigger ones. The candidates of these independent parties (e.g. Nader-Green Party, Buchanan-Reform Party) decrease the chances of the big parties in each state, as they take some votes away from them. The aim of the Green Party was precisely to break this bi-polar party system, because they feel that the Republicans and the Democrats are both “captives of big money”, and that a “clean force” is needed in the U.S..
The majority systems of the states
The citizens vote for their candidates in each state. The election has one round and is based on a relative majority. In each state, the presidential candidate who wins, gets all the electoral votes. The number of electoral votes each state has is defined by law. According to the number of its population, the smallest states have three each, the largest one (California) has fifty four electoral votes. The number of electoral votes set a higher value on the states with a smaller number of inhabitants and set a lower value on the states which have larger number of inhabitants, so there are big differences in the number of votes behind an electoral vote. In the smaller states fewer votes are enough for an electoral vote. The winning candidate is awarded all the electoral votes within the state (majority system).
The results of the presidential elections are tallied on the federal level by adding up the electoral votes from each state. The maximum number votes in the federal electoral college is 538. The candidate who obtains the majority - at least 270 - of the 538, will become the president of the U.S. The majority system of the states includes the possibility that a candidate with a smaller number of ballots in the popular vote becomes president, due to the distorting effect of the electoral system. Everyone is aware of this contradiction, and although most of the parties would be willing to modify the system, tradition continues to hold sway over reason.
The method of voting
In each state, the system of voting is different from the other, since the determination of the conduct of the election is not made by the federal government. In different states the legislatures pass laws governing their elections. In some places they cast their ballots the way we do, in other places the punch-card system is used. There are states where “one-armed bandits”, or touch-screens are used. A law called “electronic signature” recently signed by President Clinton provides for voting from a personal home computer.
The introduction of machine voting was compelled by politics. On election day, a citizen has to decide on an average of between ten to fifty questions. For instance, besides the president, he can vote for a federal congressman, senator, governor, judges, local office-holders, even on questions subject to a referendum. (In Hungary, the number of such choices is usually two in the parliamentary elections, and five at the most, in local-government elections conducted in the capital.) The widespread use of the punch-card system for examinations in the elementary and middle schools as well as in institutions of higher learning, has contributed to the widespread mechanization of voting: e.g., Washington D.C., Missouri, Illinois etc. According to this method you do not have to use a pen to mark your votes on the ballot, but a hole must be punched at the proper place with a small pin. The punching procedure is explained in a booklet (e.g., in Chicago 87 questions had to be decided upon), which physically helps and serves as a guide, so the voter will not loose his way in the maze of several questions and choices. Of course, should the booklet be wrong or misleading, one must be pretty sharp indeed to be able to fill it out correctly. (Hungarian voting terminology is insufficient to comprehend the system of voting used in the U.S.) A ballot is considered valid, if the voter’s will could be determined from it. (The same rule also was in effect in Hungary until 1997, however, the new election rules define the term of a valid ballot more unequivocally than before, obviating frequent recounts.
In the precincts, it is the committee’s responsibility to organize the voting: checking the registry, insuring that the conditions for secret balloting and the proper functioning of voting machines exist. After the closing of the polls, the votes are not tallied up at the individual precincts, but are collected in a number of different ways (for example, in Washington D.C. they use cleaned-up and plastic-lined trash hauling trucks). They are then centrally counted with the help of punch-card reading machines. The capacity of a machine is ten thousand ballots per hour. The computerized results are certified by two Republican and two Democratic representatives.
The determination of the results
Three kinds of results of the elections are published: 1.exit polls, 2. preliminary computer results of the vote tallying, 3. authorized (officially verified) final results.
The elections take place on the first Tuesday of November, every four years. The casting of the electoral votes takes place on the third Monday of December, and the new president’s inauguration and his oath of office is on the 4th of January. He officially enters office on the 20th of January.
Since the U.S. is a federation of states and the determination of the results of electoral votes is not under the authority of the federal government, but the right of the individual states, there is an interesting solution in operation. The result of the presidential election is not determined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but is published by the computer systems of newspapers and television stations. (The FEC’s responsibility is to determine the amount of money collected and used by the presidential candidates and to search for the possible misuse of election funds.)
The computer networks used by the American public administration and the media can tally up the approximately five billion choices cast by the hundred million voters (average of 50 per person) within five hours. (By comparison, the Hungarian elections information system can forward eight million votes to television stations and the Internet within four hours. )
The campaign is still not over
As short-term observers, we arrived in St. Louis (Missouri) on the 3rd November 2000, at the end of the election campaign. Our schedule included one day of traveling each way, four days of working and a one-day side trip. On our first working day we already had a surprise: we were invited to program events organized by both parties. Our hosts could not understand our hesitation concerning our acceptance to attend these party programs, but they argued that if one did not get a sense of the party campaigns from up close, one could not possibly comprehend the essence of the American election system. Afterwards, we had to admit that they were right. These programs indicated a quintessential reality from different points of view: The presidential candidates (senators, representatives, etc.) were not talking about their political program agendas, but we were able to partake in a special show where –just as in the entertainment programs on Hungarian television stations-, it was all sunshine, laughter, applause and success. We also came under its influence and after the professional preparations we could hardly wait for the candidates to show up and hold their speeches. The speeches incorporated the slogans that were already hammered into the audiences by television and radio stations previously and consisted of praise being bestowed upon those present (the whole thing took five minutes) than came the flood of balloons, the music and the applauding audience started to eat and drink and eventually left with their children in their cars. The conduct of such campaign meetings is very similar to those of baseball, basketball or rugby games. Politicians are marketed through this political PR just like detergents or automobiles.
Media and the Internet
The major part of the campaign is conducted by the media itself or by the parties through the media. Soap operas, news, weather-forecasts and sports dominate the hundreds of television and radio stations. Certainly, if one does not want to watch/or listen to the campaign, one does not have to, but one needs to make a serious commitment not to, for the media-campaign is ubiquitous: in public service programs, sponsored advertisements, entertainment programs, and political folklore.
During the election campaign there are very few rules concerning media participation. Most of the states require some sort of minimum equal broadcast time on the evening before the elections , but these programs - a half a minute to one minute in duration per candidate - were the same low-quality type programs, that were broadcast as the “equal time for each party” programs prior to the 1990 Hungarian elections: schematic, incomprehensible and boring.
In the U.S., public service television is virtually non-existent, yet the commercial stations handled the candidates of the two big parties pretty much equally and to much the same extent. The reason for this is that on the one hand, the parties buy roughly the same amount of advertisements from the media, and on the other, the media continuously broadcast the results of public opinion polls; a third reason is, that all media will rely on the winner to get information for their future programs, which in and of itself acts as a restraining force.
The parties ready themselves to write campaign-letters to every voter (they actually do this), they also make phone calls and send e-mails to the voters. 50% of the families in urban areas have Internet access, so the respective parties can reach them through their electronic mailboxes.
The candidates going from door to door - except for some independent ones- are also committed to one of the two big parties. The local candidates are committed because they get moral and financial support from the big parties. In fact, sometimes the big parties support the independent candidates as well, so that their “message” will reach everyone.
The most spectacular campaigning style is the so-called “handshake tour”, wherein the candidates shake hands with thousands of voters; however, their most effective supporters are the local candidates, who knock on the door of almost all the voters on their candidates’ behalf. In return for their diligent family-visits, the local candidates receive “messages”, money and leaflets from one of the leading parties of the bi-polar political system. In Hungary, this system is referred to as “the collecting of pre-election notes of support” or “woodpecker-action”, but since the local and the parliamentary elections are six months apart, the “chain-reaction effect” is missing: the central, regional and local representatives of one party lose the reinforcing effect that could have been exerted on the voters in a truly joint campaign.
The negative campaign
The party symbols are difficult to describe in European terms. The Republicans use the elephant since 1900, and the Democrats have their donkey since 1930. Perhaps, the elephant symbolizes power, while the mule is supposed to stand for pugnacity. Although I asked many people about this, I never got a real answer. “Tradition”, was heard most often.
The parties methodically take advantage of discrediting each other. A popular way is to twist the meaning and make fun of the other party’s slogans. It already has its own genre: political folklore. The distortion of the candidate’s photographs, his representation on small and large figures is a common phenomenon, and sometimes it can be quite funny indeed. For instance, you could see the approximately three foot tall, plastic cutouts of Al Gore everywhere, and just like in the comic strips, the little white cloud coming out of his mouth saying: “It does not matter what I say, as long as I win!”. Naturally, such caricatures were made of Bush as well.
A lot of programs similar to the Hungarian “Cucumber”(a moppet show) are made for television which are of an entertaining nature but they also keep hammering the slogans of the candidates into the mind of the electorate. According to a catchy phrase used by a television station, Hillary Clinton won in New York because “Even Monica voted for her!”. The rival party can place advertisements to highlight the negative aspects of the other party’s program. For instance, Al Gore appears on screen and according to the caption he says: “The price of gas should be raised to three dollars a gallon !”
A usual part of the negative campaign is to pry into the secrets of the other side, and to exaggerate and publicize previous mistakes. A positive campaign is also being waged ever since the results of the previous elections became known: obviously, the party in power is in a more advantageous position as it wants to be seen as the caring government, mustering all the help accorded it, through the public relations benefits emanating from its budgetary policies, and wants to make the opposition look like some sort of a demon. These roles are already established ones. “Just like the Greeks, in the old days...” it is just a new technique being re-applied.
Specific campaign rules
In the U.S., there is no campaign ban on the day before the election, in fact on the day of the election the campaign is still being waged in high gear. Campaigning is forbidden only at polling-stations and the states have the statutory right to set the distance from the precinct doors, where campaigning is allowable (generally 10-30 meters).
The exit-poll results and the partial results are not allowed to be publicized on the day of the election before precinct closings within each state. However, there are several time-zones in the United States, and if the election is finished in one state (usually at 7 p.m. local time), the publication of the results begins immediately in the media and on the Internet as well. Therefore it is impossible to preclude that it will not influence the election in those states where the voting has not yet been finished.
Volunteers
It is crucial for every party to have enough reliable volunteers during the election campaign. A volunteer works for the candidate of his choice, whom he supports at his own cost (food, gas), and in his own free time: registering, going from door to door, working at an election phone-bank and Internet-center, distributing leaflets and posters, etc. However, those volunteers become especially highly valuable, who become specialized in a specific campaign-topic and become well-versed enough to be able to address a specific issue in the press, e.g., youth, education, and social insurance. The politicians appreciate their work, because without them, the goals of the campaign could not be realized. An important issue for the politicians is also the fact, that the contribution of volunteer time is not included in the total figures that are limited by the laws on campaign financing .
Civil servants involved with the election
In the U.S., the local public administrative organizations, their operations and activities are the responsibility of the individual states. Customs vary, so it is very difficult to describe the work of the individual office holders. This much is certain, the providing for election administration needs is a continuous activity everywhere (in mayors’ offices, as well as at county organizations) for there are elections and by-elections held every year. Without the regular and precise definition of the responsibilities of elections officials, it would be impossible to hold an above-board election. The office-holders are usually committed to one of the main parties but this fact cannot be perceived in their work at all. They organize the work of the committees, who do manage and run the vote tallying system. Their decisions can also be contested in the courts.
Elections officials were present in large numbers at party organized events. They do their job independently from the parties -theoretically- but the support of the Republicans or Democrats is needed for elections officials at the middle and upper management levels, moreover, some of these positions are also elective offices. The parties need expertise for themselves which they also like to control. A special type of shifting of positions takes place among elections officials and party activists: from time to time, in order to move up in the hierarchy, one has to be able to perform the other’s job also.
If one was an elections officer in a mayor’s office of a small town, he could become a campaign organizer for a politician, and if he did his job well, he could land a public administration position as a manager. It must also be taken into consideration that even a low-level civil servant and his family can manage on the salary they are paid - probably modestly by American standards, but quite well by Central-European ones.
Campaign financing
The 2000 campaign expenditures are being estimated to be around $1 billion by journalists and experts. This amount cannot be too far off the actual amounts incurred, since according to the Federal Election Commission, the Republicans spent 207 million, the Democrats 171 million dollars respectively, on their election campaigns in 2000. How do they have so much money to spend? Their income is derived from citizens and business organizations, but according to the General Accounting Office, government officials generally use their official cars for shopping and also for campaign purposes.
The individual states decide as to how much money can be accepted by the parties from individuals or corporations. This amount is usually a thousand dollars, that a person is allowed to contribute for a dinner plate, while corporations can spend up to ten thousand dollars for the same. Large corporations usually support both candidates. The parties have to account for their income and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which stores the data in a public computer database. In the customer service area of the FEC in Washington, D.C., there are two-hundred computer work-stations available for the general public and there is a constant line of people waiting for them. Every candidate and journalist wants to know how much money the other has and where he got it from. If the FEC finds illegal management of funds or comes across dirty money, they usually “have a talk” with the candidate, who often ceases his campaign citing ill health as a reason. The main point of the FEC’s work is that the voters could clearly see which sector of the economy (or which companies) made donations to the individual candidates.
According to public opinion, politicians are deemed corrupt, moreover some parties announced their intent to reform campaign financing. The Green Party (Nader) holds both big parties to be basically corrupt and demands the return of clean financing practices and clean politicians to public life.
(Of course, they consider themselves to be the right ones.) Nader added skeptically: “It will be probably the only the next generation who will be able to attain clean-handedness.”
The Democrats suggest that moneys for election campaigning should only come from state budgets and the parties should not be allowed to accept funds or donations from the citizenry and business organizations. They argue that this is the only way to achieve transparency between the sources and uses of campaign funds, furthermore this procedure would ensure an increased level playing field for all candidates. At the same time, an opposing movement has been formed, whose slogan is: “Not a dollar of taxpayers’ funds to dirty politicians !” Rapid changes should not be expected in this regard, since there are elections being held every year whose campaigns must be financed by the parties, and the winners from previous elections are already in the majority of the legislatures of the individual states.
Campaign issues
The presidential candidates convince the voters with simple (simplified) questions and answers. The media like these short and striking statements. News headlines are not conducive to extensive discussion. Behind the slogans, there are certainly well-constructed social and economic programs, but only a remote and obscure picture of them is projected to the voters. The program details will only become actually clarified during the course of future governmental activity. On election day, the voter makes his decision on the basis of the previous four years of the governmental experience and the emotional motivation induced by the campaign, with the latter getting increasingly more emphasis.
The local representatives, who hardly ever appear even in the local media, are in effect forced to handle local problems of substance. However, since even independent local representatives will belong to one of the two big parties, they pick from among local problems to be their main campaign issues: education, social insurance, local taxes, bridge- and road construction. These concrete issues are the ones that really split the candidates and voters. The same way as in Hungary, “ the big parties do not have their feet firmly planted on the ground”, thereby enabling representatives of the smaller parties to gain a foothold in local politics.
Election day
Before election day, the international election observers met with representatives of the electoral committees of the City of Chicago, Marion County, St. Louis County and the City of Hannibal. (In European terms, there are no committees to speak of, since these are public bodies of 2-4 people, which include the representatives of the two big parties, each member representing an electoral district and they arrive at their decisions with a simple majority, which is subject to judicial review). The electoral bodies are well-prepared for the organization of the elections, there was manifest evidence of the high-level of training accorded to election officials and auxiliary personnel as well. We experienced only one technical error in the electoral office in Chicago: the voting machine could not safely guarantee that a vote cast by a citizen was actually registered as a vote for the intended candidate. (Our observation was presumably deemed useful, as there were no instances of technical errors the following day.)
On election day we visited six electoral districts. We were able to observe the opening and closing of the polls, absentee balloting, administration of problems concerning the right to vote and the central vote tallying computer system in the area. After the voting, we proceeded to “victory” celebrations, and were informed of the results on CNN and national and local television stations.
The electoral bodies willingly provided us with information about their activity, they gave an interview to a Hungarian Television (Médiamix) crew, except for one place where they requested them to leave. (This did not happen to any of the international observers.)
The first signs
It was obvious before the elections, that a balanced and close vote could be expected. All the same, the media promised to release the exit-poll results continuously on election day. After the first (East Coast) partial results, however, the releasing of exit-poll results began to be less frequent and finally it was held up. We came to the conclusion that the vote was very close (within the minimum margin of error). According to the first reports from Florida, they were unequivocally pointing to a Gore victory, but then the television programs did not show Florida for hours even though the electoral districts there were closed the earliest.
Before closing of the polls in St. Louis county (traditionally a Democratic district) the Democrats asked for an extension and a judge (a Democrat) acceded to this obviously illegal request. The Supreme Court annulled his decision within forty minutes and the electoral districts were closed. A Republican senator’s victory celebration was broadcast live on television and a half hour after he finished, it was announced that his rival -who died two weeks before the elections- was the actual winner.
The vote tallying system in the U.S. processed a total of five billion items voted on, within five hours of elapsed time, and at 1:20 a.m. Central Time Bush was declared to be the winner (with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 249), then at 2:00 a.m., the next announcement declared Al Gore to be president!
Recounts
Bush’s victory was announced based on the computer data the television stations had but without the results from two states. The announcement was legally correct for it contained the above facts. Victory celebrations could be seen on television and a lot of people went to bed being certain of a Republican victory. The announcement of Gore’s victory was very similar. At 4:00 a.m. on the 8th, things suddenly changed: Gore asked for a recount of the votes in Florida and Oregon, where the electoral boards acceded to his request.
It was difficult to see clearly in the maze of contradictory news: found ballots (which were never lost), manual inspection of punch-card ballots (which are impossible to be re-inspected this way), polling-stations closed and guarded by the police (which were already empty), etc. At 9:00 a.m. it was announced that final results would be released the following evening (Thursday). At 10:15 a.m., a senator stated that fraud (not errors) took place during the election. The television stations discovered that there was also absentee balloting (there were still ten days before that deadline). At 11:00 a.m. another announcement: six million votes would have to be recounted. Then the advantage held by Bush began to gradually evaporate: first it was 1743, later 275. At 4:00 p.m. Gore declared that the system of the presidential elections was outdated, but that the Democrats considered the two hundred year tradition acceptable. As time went by (for there were no other essential news to report) the media concentrated on technical problems (civil servants have never had this much television exposure), and the representatives of smaller parties, who could not get in a word during the campaign, now had their opportunity to give long speeches (e.g., Nader) on the purity of elections and tout their own programs as well. As there are no verifiable results, the media began to report exit-poll data: 78% of Afro-Americans voted for the Democrats, 50% of the Latin-Americans cast their votes for the Republicans. President Putin jokingly offered the Russians’ help in counting the votes...
The international observers’ time was up, there were no funds for further travel (e.g., to Florida), it was time to pack up and return home to write this report.
Summary
1. The international legal and democratic principles of the UN covenant and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are manifest in the American constitutional system : universal and equal suffrage with secret balloting. The principle of indirect elections however, is deflected by the electoral system. The U.S. constitution ensures the conditions for a multi-party system, the parties can act freely. The election laws ensure the preconditions for the conduct of transparent and fair elections. The requisite staff and the technical requirements are generally available as needed . The result of the elections can be appealed to and reviewed by the courts.
2. The system of the presidential elections is outdated and incorrect from the professional point of view in that, the majority system that exists in the individual states distorts the votes. This phenomenon, however, is well-known and accepted by everyone. From the professional point of view it would be reasonable to have the entire U.S. considered as one electoral district and the tallying of the votes done on the federal level. This alternative would restore the principle of direct elections. The professional argument, however, is only to be pondered by the legislators since they are not bound to enact it into law. (In Hungary, we also have similar problems, such as voting on the basis of party lists consisting of two rounds of balloting, also a mistake from the professional point of view).
3. On election day, some minor irregularities occurred. Such irregularities can be found all over the world. (In Hungary, too.) It is proof positive, however, that the system is operational, in that the errors were discovered, and were being redressed, which was the main reason as to why no final results have been forthcoming as yet.
It is also the government’s responsibility that the capacity and the integrity of the vote tallying system would be at a maximum and meet the technical requirements of the age, fulfill the demands of domestic public opinion, and satisfy the information requirements of foreign countries. In this regard, mistakes were obviously made, and their consequences must be borne. The subsequent “questing” for the voters’ will, which allows for subjective decision making - for the objective truth could only be discovered through a breach of the secrecy of balloting - could be eliminated by stricter legal regulation. (this was enacted in Hungary in 1997.)
5. In the U.S., public opinion polls indicate that the voters are usually dissatisfied with the rules that govern election campaign financing by the political parties. This issue is alive in every state and is still waiting to be resolved.
6. ACEEEO would like to express its gratitude to our host (IFES) for the opportunity
to participate in the observation of the elections and extend our congratulations
to the civil servants for their work in the preparation and the organization
of the elections. ACEEEO hereby declares solidarity with those of our colleagues,
who could not perform their jobs properly due to a partial lack of legal and/or
technical prerequisites.
Utilization of experiences
The leadership of ACEEEO decided to discuss the following issues at its next conference ( to be held in October of 2001, at Zagreb, Croatia) with the participation of election officials of its eighteen member countries:
1. Exploration and prevention of technical errors that were manifested in the voting and tallying systems.
2. Comparative analysis of campaign financing rules.
3. Summary of experiences of the elections in the Balkan states.
Everyone interested in these subjects is welcome to attend our conference.
Our ACEEEO colleagues will participate as international observers during the Romanian elections to be held on the 26nd of November, 2000.
On November 10, 2000
Zoltán Tóth István Zsuffa