be dismissed for technical reasons without being substantive consideration, while the number of frivolous and vexatious cases is also rising. Increasingly, poor EDR systems exacerbate problematic elections, triggering constitutional crises, fueling politically-motivated violence, and/or precluding the successful transfer of power. As highlighted by initial IFES field research, the right to a remedy can reside in the legal framework; however, access to an effective remedy remains elusive in many countries around the world. But, what is meant by an “effective remedy?” As stated above, the right to an effective remedy is well established in international law, and stems from the fundamental rights of political participation and universal suffrage. When remedies are not “effective,” this weakens the fundamental rights of political participation and universal suffrage. Yet, to date, the definition of “effectiveness” is not clear to election practitioners. Nor is it clear how to properly measure if an EDR system is effective in providing resolutions or remedies that protect these rights and that preserve the integrity of the process. With this in mind, there is an acute need for evidencebased approaches to understanding, measuring and applying effective remedies. III. What is being remedied? No election is perfect. Democracy is messy and human-centered, and elections in particular require enormous organizational efforts by Election Management Bodies (EMBs). This is illustrated by the Indian context, where elections involve operating 800,000 polling stations in multiple phases over a period of weeks, and have been called “the largest democratic undertaking in human history.”21 In Indonesia, elections require the support of more than 4 million polling staff spread over thousands of islands in the archipelago. This organizational complexity is compounded by the fact that successful elections also rely on the behavior of groups and individuals that may be well beyond the control of the EMB. Such challenges can make it difficult, or in some cases impossible, to ensure a level playing field for electoral contestants. In addition, as political campaigns become more sophisticated, narratives of widespread fraud may be used to undermine or stabilize the process as a whole. Hence, effective remedies are needed to respond to mistakes and violations, ranging from administrative malpractice to criminal acts, by different actors.22 These types of mistakes or violations vary depending on the phase of the electoral process and the relevant actor. As outlined in subsequent chapters of this volume, a range of different remedies, both criminal and administrative, exist for different parts of the electoral process, and for different types of complaints within that process. Some remedies may be provided for in the law, while others can arise out of judicial discretion, or from the authority vested in the EMB to address irregularities in the process. The provisions of these different types of remedies, and their effectiveness in redressing the issue at hand, are important for protecting the integrity of the electoral process as a whole. One approach to analyzing challenges to the integrity of the election process, used by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), distinguishes between violations related to 21 Fred Dews, Democracies Should Celebrate Indian Elections, the Largest Democratic Undertaking in Human History, BROOKINGS (Dec. 13, 2013, 5:11 PM), http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2013/12/democraciesshould-celebrate-indian-elections. 22 Chad Vickery & Erica Shein, Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: Refining the Vocabulary, in IFES WHITE PAPER 9 (2012), http://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/assessing_electoral_fraud_series_vickery_shein.pdf.