Key Considerations: Post-election Audits
Last updated on December 17, 2013
For Implementing Bodies
- Does the legal framework make clear how the audit process takes place, the number of locations, the ways in which the locations are selected and informed, when the audit takes place, the people who may be present during the audit, how the results of the audit are reported, and the consequences of any difference between electronic and paper records?
- Is a randomly selected sample of locations chosen for audits, and only informed after the close of polling or counting?
- Will audits take place as soon as possible after the election?
For Oversight Actors
- Is there a way to compare the electronic and auditable versions of the results to confirm whether the technologies worked properly and to verify the results, such as through the use of a voter verified paper audit trail?
- Is a random manual audit conducted, during which the audit trail is manually counted and the results compared to the electronic results generated in a random selection of polling stations? Is it conducted as soon as possible after the election, and is it fully observable by election observers, the media and political party and candidate agents? Are the results made publicly available?
- If a difference is found during the audit, is there a robust process to determine the cause of the difference and to address the cause(s) to the extent possible?