International Foundation for Electoral Systems and Democracy International poorly administered election or a general climate of insecurity and impunity. As a result, close elections in developing democracies are often far more contentious and require the commitment of electoral authorities to navigate to peaceful and respected outcomes, and patience on the part of the public to allow the electoral authorities to do their job. In both developed and developing contexts, election recounts and audits have become common practice to settle disputes about outcomes. In developed democracies, election regulations often require a recount or audit when specific thresholds have been met or surpassed. 2 Regulations in developing countries, where the environment is usually more complex, often fail to adequately anticipate the range of potential outcomes, particularly in close and disputed contests, or when there are allegations of fraud on a large scale. Recent elections in Afghanistan illustrate these challenges. In both 2009 and 2014, audits were conducted to help verify the outcome of the presidential races, applying ad hoc procedures in an effort to respond to significant political tension and insecurity. In the contexts of these elections, audits and recounts were conducted amid allegations of widespread fraud and with the credibility of the electoral management bodies in question. In 2014 in particular, international observer missions reported that electoral authorities and the international community were compelled by a political agreement to begin the audit in haste, which made it challenging to properly address key considerations, including the criteria that should be used to invalidate votes and which organization should have ultimate authority over the process. While this kind of response to serious political turmoil is not uncommon in developing and post-conflict states, it leaves the process vulnerable to ad hoc processes and decisionmaking. 3 A closer examination reveals how audits and recounts can be used as conflict mitigation tools. But the challenges faced during these processes demonstrate also that they should be used only in extraordinary circumstances in which accepted international standards can be applied. There are no perfect elections or electoral systems, and while inevitably there are irregularities, these should not necessarily threaten an election’s credibility or integrity. Rather, irregularities threaten the integrity of an election only if they are extensive, systematic, and decisive in a close race. 4 To mitigate this threat, preventative measures ideally should be put in place before an election, following comprehensive scenario mapping. Such preventative measures should include an electoral integrity management plan. Equally important are effective and timely remedial measures to address allegations of fraud or malpractice via an effective electoral complaints adjudication system. Reflecting on lessons from Afghanistan, Haiti and Kosovo, audits may ultimately facilitate peaceful and largely accepted election outcomes, but may harm the longer-term consolidation of democracy in the country, requiring new leaders and the election bodies to gradually rebuild public trust. While serious political and security turmoil can arise in elections, the assertion that unique circumstances call for unique solutions can lead to the adoption of ad hoc processes – a scenario that should be avoided through extensive prior planning, preparation for contingencies, and adherence to established procedures. 3