Comment by bloppe
1 year ago
Which criterion specifically was violated during that election? A lot of people seem to think there was a delay in reporting results, but there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay. Most districts report counts incrementally, so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted.
Also, a crucial difference in the US is that each party sounds poll watchers to every single polling station to watch people count the results.
Would be very interested to know if there are any serious claims that any of these other criteria were violated
"so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted."
Exactly. The criterion is delay in announcing results, but the election was legitimate so there's an issue with the criterion.
"there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay."
not relevant to the standard
I would say there's a very meaningful difference between "they're still counting the results, and releasing incremental counts, and all is being watched by poll watchers" vs. "we've finished counting, but we're not releasing the results for a while, and nobody is monitoring the process". The former sounds great. The latter sounds very suspicious.
Maybe it's just an issue in how the standards are interpreted by some people.