ELECTION WATCHDOGS 5/30/17 11:29 AM procedures, an impartial and authoritative election management body (EMB), a robust complaint adjudication process, and high levels of public trust in governing institutions, among other things. As the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security has noted, elections that lack integrity can lead instead to unaccountable institutions and illegitimate governments. In developed democracies, existing laws and regulations generally trigger predictable procedures that confirm results, adjudicate complaints, and produce respected election outcomes. In developing democracies, on the other hand, legal frameworks are often more ambiguous and susceptible to dispute, and processes and procedures may be less resilient to manipulation. Fraud allegations, poor election administration, and a general climate of insecurity, impunity, and unaccountability only compound these challenges. As a result, close elections in developing democracies are often far more contentious and require the commitment and ethical leadership of electoral authorities to navigate to peaceful and respected outcomes, and patience on the part of the public to allow the authorities to do their jobs. Enter the large-scale post-election audit. When conducted in response to contentious elections, effective audits have the potential to increase the credibility of the final outcome and to ensure that results are accepted. On the other hand, poorly-administered audits can actually undermine these objectives. As will be described in this chapter, large-scale audits should be used only in limited circumstances and according to well-defined and transparent regulatory frameworks, to ensure that they meet international standards and to avoid compounding existing levels of mistrust. International standards are often presented as a benchmark by which to judge the electoral process, but for these standards to be meaningful, they should also reinforce the principles of transparency, accountability, and compliance discussed throughout this volume. Recent elections in which such audits were used illustrate the challenges inherent to conducting highstakes post-election audits in developing countries. Most notably, in Afghanistan in 2014, an audit was conducted to help verify the outcome of the presidential race, applying ad hoc procedures in an effort to respond to significant political tension and insecurity. This audit was conducted amid allegations of widespread fraud and with the credibility of the electoral management bodies in question. 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 political turmoil is not uncommon in developing and post-conflict states, it leaves the process vulnerable to ad hoc processes and decision-making (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 2014). These challenges in 2