PRINT

I. FINAL RESULTS FROM VOTE TABULATION BY THE Promo-LEX EOM

1.1. Comparative analysis of the data from the vote tabulations provided by the Promo-LEX EOM and the Central Electoral Commission

The preliminary results of the election were tabulated by the Promo-LEX EOM using SMS messages sent by observers present in 1981 PS within the territory of the Republic of Moldova.

The final results presented by the Promo-LEX EOM on the number of valid votes cast for each electoral candidate were calculated using data on the results of the vote count written in 1981 reporting forms from the polling stations within the territory of the Republic of Moldova, given to Promo-LEX EOM observers and manually verified by the Observation Mission.

1.2. Accuracy of the reporting forms for the results of the vote tabulation

As part of the monitoring effort for Round Two of the Presidential Elections of the Republic of Moldova, the Promo-LEX EOM analyzed the accuracy of the reporting forms for the results of the vote count. To this end, 1981 reporting forms (which had been given to Promo-LEX observers by EOPS presidents) were examined.

The total number of reporting forms that contained errors in at least one verification formula, or incomplete data is 34. Among these, 3 reporting forms did not contain data relating to the number of valid votes cast for candidates. Another 31 reporting forms were completed with errors in at least one verification formula (1.56%). This number is lower than in the first round of presidential elections, when 3.06% of reporting forms contained errors, which were found using the verification formulas.

The accuracy of the reporting forms was verified using the formulas embedded in the text of the reporting forms: c ≤ a + b; c ≥ d; d=f+h; e=c-d; f=d-h; h=g1+g2+g3+g4+…+gn; i=c+j; j=i–c. The results, from a statistical point of view, are presented in the following way:

The formula c ≤ a + b, which assumes that the number of voters who took ballots must be smaller than or equal to the sum of the number of voters on the main electoral lists and on the supplementary electoral lists, was incorrect for 16 reporting forms out of 1981. This error suggests that more voters received ballots than were written on the electoral lists (both main and supplementary).

The formula c ≥ d indicates that the number of voters who received ballots (calculated using the signatures on electoral lists) should be equal to or greater than the number of ballots taken out of the ballot boxes. Sixteen reporting forms out of 1981 have been identified in which this formula was not respected, which suggests that more ballots were taken out of the ballot boxes than were issued.

The formula d=f+h was not correct in 16 reporting forms. In these cases, it was not successfully demonstrated that the number of ballots taken out of the ballot boxes equals the sum of the valid and invalid ballots cast. This could raise doubts regarding the accuracy of the tabulation of valid ballots cast, and, therefore, the result for each candidate.

The formula e=c-d could not be demonstrated in 8 reporting forms. Thus, the number of signatures on the electoral lists did not equal the number of ballots taken from the ballot box in 8 polling stations.

The formula f=d-h checks that the number of ballots declared invalid is the difference between the total number of ballots and the number of valid ballots cast. Errors in the application of this verification formula are reported in 16 reporting forms. This validates the conclusions presented at the verification formula d=f+h.

The formula h=g1+g2+g3+g4+…+gn has not been complied in 10 cases. That is, the sum of the votes for each of the candidates did not equal the total number of valid votes cast, in these reporting forms. This calls into question the accuracy of the results for each electoral candidate.

The formula i=c+j could not be correctly applied in 16 reporting forms. The same situation was found with regard to the formula j=i–c. Thus, either unused and cancelled ballots or the signatures on the electoral lists were incorrectly counted. In addition, we ascertain that the expression “unused and cancelled” can cause confusion for EOPS members, who could confuse two distinct categories of ballots.

II. INCIDENTS NOTED DURING ELECTION DAY

2.1. Restricted access or the obstruction of the free observation process – 6 cases.

2.2. The presence of publicity materials, advertisements and billboards in the vicinity of the polling station (within 100 m of the PS) – 15 cases.

2.3. Ballot boxes were not sealed according to legal procedures. Tearing/damage or absence of seals on ballot boxes – 9 cases.

• PS 71 Chișinău. Initially only one ballot box was sealed; the polling station received 3 ballot boxes, but not enough seals. The other two ballot boxes were located in the basement. Finally, when the other ballot boxes were moved to the PS, one ballot box was sealed with a single seal and the other with two seals.
• PS 265 Chișinău. There were only three seals on a stationary ballot box. One seal was accidentally damaged, but was not replaced with a new seal, because there were no extra seals available.
• PS 287 Chișinău. One of the stationary ballot boxes was not sealed.
• PS 34 Bălți. One of the seals on the ballot box broke. Members of the EOPS filled in a reporting form and replaced the seal.
• PS 9 Bălți. The ballot boxes did not have four seals. The mobile ballot box was sealed.
• PS 25 Cimișlia. There were 4 ballot boxes in the polling station, of which only one was sealed. At that time only the sealed ballot box was being used.
• PS 7 Cimișlia. There were 2 ballot boxes in the polling station, of which only one was sealed. At that time only the sealed ballot box was being used.
• PS 25 Florești. The mobile ballot box was not sealed according to the regulations.
• PS 391 Iași, Romania.

2.4. The unjustified presence of unauthorized people on the premises or within 50 meters of polling stations – 55 cases in the following polling stations at least.

2.5. Rumors, attempts and incidents of material or monetary compensation being offered to voters within the perimeter and/ or on the premises of polling stations with the purpose of influencing voters – 10 cases.

2.6. Electoral campaigning or black PR within the perimeter and/ or on the premises of polling stations with the purpose of influencing voters – 20 cases.

2.7. Organized transport of voters – 39 PS, at least 160 vehicles including automobiles, minibuses and buses.

2.8. Acts of violence or intimidation of voters or other people – 19 cases.

2.9. Problems in the functioning of SIAS Elections– 42 cases in 46 PS.

2.10. Problems with the electoral lists– 27 cases.

PS 5 Fălești. On the basic electoral list 3204 voters were included.

2.11. The photographing of ballots– 84 cases at the following PS:

• PS 12, 13, 20, 27, 25, 33, 94, 103, 105, 111, 115, 119, 120, 123, 126, 131, 135, 137, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 155, 158, 180, 181, 182, 186, 194, 198, 203, 210, 230, 232, 248, 257, 263, 267, 296, 299, 302, 307, 309 Chișină,
• PS 2, 22, 50, 57 Bălți,
• PS 27 Briceni,
• PS 3 Călărași,
• PS 31 Căușeni,
• PS 15 Cimișlia,
• PS 7 Dubăsari,
• PS 2 Edineț,
• PS 52 Florești,
• PS 7, 8, 37 Ialoveni,
• PS 1 Leova,
• PS 38 Nisporeni,
• PS 3, 6, 66 Orhei,
• PS 16 Strășeni,
• PS 2 Ungheni,
• PS 12 ATUG,
• PS 350 Montreuill, France,
• PS 394 Brasov, Romania.

2.12. Problems with the electricity (for intervals of up to 3 hours) – at 46 PS.

• PS 260, 254, 301 Chișinău,
• PS 44 Anenii Noi,
• PS 2 Basarabeasca,
• PS 24, 39 Căușeni,
• PS 5 Călărași,
• PS 30, 40, 45 Cimișlia,
• PS 5, 24, 26, 31, 32 Criuleni,
• PS 1 Edineț,
• PS 10, 48, 49 Fălești,
• PS 1 Glodeni,
• PS 3, 28, 29 Sângerei,
• PS 59 Soroca,
• PS 6, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42 Șoldănești,
• PS 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 Ștefan Vodă,
• PS 20, 21, 22 Taraclia,
• PS 43, 75 Ungheni.

Polling stations open abroad. According to information from the page www.cec.md, the main electoral lists included 349 people in Round I of the election. In Round II of the election the main electoral lists included 363 people. Note, however, that the 3559 people who took advantage of preliminary registration were supposed to be distributed among polling stations abroad. In addition, according to the official page of the SIRC Register (updated November 10, 2016), there are 102813 citizens of the Republic of Moldova on register as having a permanent place of residence abroad; they should have been automatically registered on the basic electoral lists for outside the country.

2.13. Lines/Queues at PS outside the country – 10 PS.

• PS 318,319 Moscow, Russia,
• PS 355 Bologna, Italy,
• PS 325 Dublin, Ireland,
• PS 330 Bucharest, Romania,
• PS 3 Paris, France,
• PS 336 London, England,
• PS 359 Mestre, Italy,
• PS 375 Verona, Italy,
• PS 366 Parma, Italy.

2.14. List of polling stations abroad at which ballots ran out/ were close to running out before the closing of the polling station:

 2.15. Problematic situations relating to the use of identity documents in the voting process – at 15 PS.

The Promo-LEX Observation Mission consists of 42 long-term observers who monitor the electoral process in all constituencies of the Republic of Moldova during 31 August – 30 November 2016. On Election Day, Promo-LEX sent a short-term observer to each polling station in the country. The Promo-LEX EOM will also perform a Parallel Vote Tabulation in all polling stations. The Mission also observes the elections in 47 polling stations abroad. The observers involved in the monitoring process signed the Code of Conduct of the Promo-LEX Independent National Observer, committing to act promptly, in good faith and in a non-partisan manner.. The activity of all observers is coordinated by a central team consisting of 37 persons.

The activity carried out by Promo-LEX EOM and the “Come to Vote” campaign is currently funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the British Embassy in Chisinau, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Council of Europe. The opinions presented in the public reports of Promo-LEX belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the donors’ view.

For more details, contact: Tatiana Pascovschi, Communication Officer of Promo-Lex Election Observation Mission: GSM 060804022, e-mail: [email protected].