| Comparison of Observer Compilations for the October 25, 2015
Election |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
European Union |
NOAH-Haiti Democracy |
OAS |
RNDDH Form of
question |
|
| No. of accredited observers
reporting |
|
80 |
|
|
208 |
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
| Provinces covered |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
| Opening on time |
|
35% |
|
|
Not compiled |
|
|
|
16% |
|
|
| Opening - positive evaluation |
|
89% |
|
|
68% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Party poll watchers were
present |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| They represented both ruling
party & opposition |
|
74% |
|
|
99% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Limit of 10 poll watchers at a
time was respected |
|
75% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll watchers showed their IDs
to poll workers |
|
Close to 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll watchers wore their
proper accreditation badges |
|
84% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll watchers not allowed to
vote more than once |
|
Mostly |
|
|
97% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll watchers did not try to
influence voters |
|
84% |
|
|
Not compiled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Majority of voters were normal
voters, not poll watchers |
|
|
|
|
99% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Polling place had voters' list |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
98% |
|
|
| Voters' IDs were checked
against the list |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Voters had to sign before
voting |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Voting process - positive
evaluation |
|
85% |
|
|
96% |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
| Performance of electoral
personnel - positive |
|
72% |
|
|
Not compiled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll workers explained voting
procedure to voters |
|
43% |
|
|
Not compiled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Voters' understanding of
procedures - satisfactory |
|
56% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Security was adequate |
|
Generally |
|
|
89% |
|
|
|
86% |
Security forces present for count |
|
| Voters had no problem
accessing polling place |
|
|
|
|
86% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Voting secrecy respected |
|
|
|
|
88% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| There were no serious acts of
intimidation |
|
Generally |
|
|
90% |
|
|
|
81% |
No violent incidents |
|
| No illegal political acts |
|
Generally |
|
|
84% |
|
|
|
82% |
No direct pressure on voters |
|
| No presence of interruptors |
|
Generally |
|
|
92% |
|
|
|
81% |
|
|
| Closing - positive |
|
Mostly |
|
|
97% |
|
|
|
83% |
No one still in line to vote |
|
| Count - positive |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
| No poll watchers refused to
sign the completed return |
|
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Observers' sample similar to
overall published results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
|
|
|
| Observers' manual counts match
published results |
|
|
|
|
98% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Polling-return sample matches
published results |
|
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mission publishing its raw
observer reports |
|
No |
|
|
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
| Mission costs |
|
|
|
|
$25,000 |
|
|
$4.6 million (2010-11) |
|
|
|
|
| Notes |
|
| This table only captures data that have been compiled by the
organizations from all the polling places they observed. In general, only
numerical values are used, except when proportions were clearly indicated.
Narratives that describe but do not quantify aren't included. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.
Percentages refer to percentage of observers of that group with this finding |
|
| 2. Blank box = no data available from
this group |
|
| 3. Not compiled. Data exist but have not
been compiled |
|
| 4.
Observers' sample similar to overall published results: The OAS compiled all
the manual counts taken by its observers and found that they matched the
order and proportions of the overall results |
| 5.
Observers' manual counts match published results: This is a comparison of the
manual count from a BV to the published results for that BV only. Sample of
141 |
|
| 6.
Polling-return sample matches published results. Copies of returns received
from the polling place are compared to the results published on the central
board. Sample of 92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|