International Foundation for Electoral Systems and Democracy International An audit tends to be much less straightforward than a recount and entails a wider variety of activities. Whereas a recount is intended to confirm the accuracy of the tally, an audit is undertaken to investigate alleged fraud or malpractice. An audit may involve a full or partial recount, but it also includes other actions to evaluate whether the electoral process has been conducted according to the rules and regulations. Audit investigators may focus on whether or not certain voters were eligible to cast ballots, for example. Audits may focus on the mechanics of the vote or on broader issues such as the integrity of the voter list. 6 As a practical matter, an audit can be a standard component of an electoral certification process. For instance, in elections that use electronic voting equipment, a hand count may be required in a certain percentage of polling stations. The decision to conduct an audit can also be made after a highly contested election in which the results lack legitimacy. Here, the audit can be a means of moving the process forward and determining a winner. Audits have been used for this purpose in several elections in recent years, including in Sierra Leone (2007), Kenya (2007), Haiti (2010), and Afghanistan (2009 and 2014). While a well-conceived audit can make significant contributions to the electoral process and its integrity, audits that have not been conceptualized and planned for in advance can have the opposite effect. Electoral frameworks should clearly articulate the reasons a post-election audit might be necessary and the procedures for carrying out an audit. If the legitimacy of an election’s outcome is questioned by unsuccessful candidates or the public, an audit may be needed for reasons beyond what was specified in the electoral framework. In such cases, the audit may be an integral means to restore legitimacy to the electoral process or the credibility of the election management body. One of the major problems with such an audit is that the election commission is starting from a position of weakness. When an unsuccessful candidate or political party succeeds in having the election process audited, it casts doubt on the credibility of the EMB. The audit forces the EMB into a defensive position, from which it must prove that the election was conducted fairly and according to established laws and procedures. Essentially, the electoral process is considered guilty until proven innocent, often undermining public confidence in the electoral system. Even when an electoral authority can show that the election results are credible, skepticism may linger. Supporters of a candidate who has alleged that the election was fraudulent may refuse to accept the outcome, regardless of how extensive or objective the audit. Audits are too often used by losing candidates as last-ditch efforts to overturn an unsatisfactory result or to extract political concessions from the winning candidate or the government. It is essential to avoid a situation in which an audit is used as a tactic to prolong an electoral contest or delay a political transition. Unlike recounts, for which the process is much more straightforward, an ad hoc audit that does not follow clearly delineated international standards may not have a clear decision point. The candidates or party requesting the audit may draw it out by changing their requests for the audit’s scope. Not only does a drawn-out process require the investment of considerable resources, it also undermines public trust in the election. The longer an audit process, the more frustrated all parties – including voters – tend to become. A prolonged process often further erodes the credibility of electoral authorities and confidence in the outcome of the election. 5