Well, the results are in (again). The Electoral Complaints Commission has published three important decisions, which confirm that major fraud occurred during Afghanistan's August Presidential election. At least a million votes will be thrown out -- and likely more.
There are three main areas where votes have been disqualified from the total.
1. Electoral Audit: On 8 September, after a two week investigation, the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) ordered that the ballots from a number of polling stations be audited for fraud. They were categorized into six categories (originally three, but an error in logic accidently left a number of ballots out, so three more were added)The polling stations that fell under these categories numbered 3377 out of a total of more than 26000 polling stations that were open on election day, about 13 percent. However, these stations, which largely had more (often many more) than 600 votes -- almost three times the average -- represents a significant chunk of the vote.
The process of auditing the 3377 suspected stations was done by "representative sample," with 10 percent of each of the six categories of fraud chosen (random selection of polling station number), and the proportions of fraud found there applied to the whole selection of stations.
Not surprisingly, most ballot boxes in the sampled polling stations had significant and obvious fraud, with all but one category (the widest net) breaking 70 percent of votes being identified as bogus.
A conservative estimate (using 600 for A1, A2, C1 & C2, 215 for B1 and 50 for B2) suggests that at least 960,000 votes are no good, about 17 percent of the overall vote total.
Bottom Line: The 3400 polling stations that were captured in the audit were the most blatant offenders. So it is possible that many more than 600 votes from many of them will be removed by the IEC from the total (see section three about 1000 vote stations). We do not yet know how many votes will be subtracted from each candidates total, but much of the disqualified vote is going to be coming out of Karzai's column here.
2. Electoral Complaints: More than 2500 specific fraud complaints, with more than 3000 allegations of fraudulent activity (7 types) were fielded by the ECC, with a wide geographic distribution. Only Priority A claims have been pursued so far.While focused in the volatile capital region and Baghlan, where heavy electoral violence was noted, electoral complaints of top concern were reported in all 34 provinces. The ECC's investigation resulted in a total of 359 invalidated polling station, however, 138 of them were covered in the above audit.
Using the above average of 215 votes per polling station, another 50,000 votes have disqualified because of specific electoral complaints. This, of course, is a conservative estimate, given that many of the stations were accused of ballot stuffing or number tampering, which would inflate totals farther. In addition, stations that were counted in the audit and only partially disqualified could be indeed further reduced by being caught in this category as well. Finally, this tally does not include priority B and C complaints, which add up to another 1500 challenged polling stations.
Bottom Line: Another at least 50,000 votes (likely 2 or 3 times that number in reality) are gone from the total. Based on the geography, Karzai likely suffers more, with perhaps 65-70 pecent of the lost votes coming from his column.
3. Other Fraud (IEC): The Independent Electoral Commission, which has widely been reported as being "pro-Karzai" also quarantined a number of polling stations that it deemed to have fraudulent characteristics. Some of these overlap with the ECC's list, others do not.In the first type, we will include just 400 votes in the estimate, since we can assume that these stations were caught in the audit in section one, capturing at least the first 600 votes. For the other three categories, we can use the average of 215 again. Again, at least 83,000 votes are disqualified here, likely more.
Bottom Line: Nearly every 1000 vote station publicly identified came from Karzai strongholds, as well as almost all the polling stations that did not open but still sent in results. The too many ballot syndrone (those not captured by the audit), could affect either candidate, but still impacts Karzai more given the run-off situation. Using our conservative affected-vote estimates, the situation remains fairly damning for Hamid Karzai. Assuming that the results are equal to or less favorable than our estimates, it seems likely that a runoff will ensue. With just four percent of cushion, it would take a miracle for him to walk away with a majority after this, where 20 percent of the vote is fraudulent, much from his tally. Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is in the strongest position he has been in thus far, and could conceivably win a run-off held in strict conditions.
Of course, strict conditions we do not have in Afghanistan, where winter is rapidly approaching. If another round of voting is ordered, it could be difficult or impossible to complete before the freeze brings movement around the country, outside of major cities, to a halt. Perhaps a coalition government or tribally negotiated solution is in store?
Nonetheless, the Afghan government and all internationals remain in a pretty tight spot.
Update: Democracy International (an experienced election observer) has done its own projections, which were able to take into account the split of disqualifications more effectively than I could. They suggest that about a million Karzai votes, 200,000 Abdullah votes and 120,000 other candidate votes were disqualified, putting the final split at Karzai 48.3% and Abdullah 31.5%.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
10.19.2009
Afghanistan Audit Doesn't Look Good For Karzai
by Renard Sexton @ 1:00 PM...see also afghanistan, elections, international
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

23 comments
In the first table, where it says "excluding B2" in the description of B2 should that be "excluding A2"? Because if B2 excludes B2, it should be very small. ;)
How many votes total were cast in the election?
Yesterday, Rahm Emanuel said that the administration is going to restart Afghanistan policy from scratch. I guess they really want Karzai to be gone. I wonder if this runoff would have been possible without american meddling.
jpm-
5.6 mil, see chart 1.
This is just too depressing, lets put in a tribal solution and drawdown and get the hell out of the Middle East.
Karzai should at the very least be disqualified from the runoff for trying to steal this election.
Karzai should at the very least be disqualified from the runoff for trying to steal this election.
On the one hand, it does seem like a casino catching a cheater, telling him exactly how they caught him, and then sitting him back down at the gambling table. :P
OTOH, Karzai isn't the only person accused of fraud here by a long shot. It's Afghanistan. Everyone's cheating.
"OTOH, Karzai isn't the only person accused of fraud here by a long shot. It's Afghanistan. Everyone's cheating."
Who else is being accused of widespread fraud? Who is doing the accusing? On what level is this 'fraud' compared with Karzai's attempts to steal the election? Why have all the reports I've seen of ballot stuffing specifically referred to Karzai's people as the perpetrators and Karzai as the beneficiary?
If you have evidence that Abdullah Abdullah or another candidate was engaged in widespread fraud, please present it. Because "It's Afghanistan. Everyone's cheating." is not an argument, it's a stereotype.
Who else is being accused of widespread fraud?
The other candidates.
Who is doing the accusing?
Renard Sexton.
On what level is this 'fraud' compared with Karzai's attempts to steal the election?
Unless your argument is that only the top perpetrator of fraud should be removed from an election, this is patently irrelevant.
Why have all the reports I've seen of ballot stuffing specifically referred to Karzai's people as the perpetrators and Karzai as the beneficiary?
Some of the reports, such as, to take a random example, the one you're commenting on right now, explicitly state that Karzai was not the only perpetrator of election fraud.
If you have evidence that Abdullah Abdullah or another candidate was engaged in widespread fraud
lol, I love that you have to add the word "widespread" to my argument to have any hope. So if Abdullah commits fraud and it's not "widespread", that's OK?
please present it
Thank you. It says repeatedly in the post which I presume you read at some point that not all the fraud was from Karzai.
much of the disqualified vote is going to be coming out of Karzai's column here.
Based on the geography, Karzai likely suffers more, with perhaps 65-70 pecent of the lost votes coming from his column
20 percent of the vote is fraudulent, much from his tally
HONESTLY, buddy. This is not THAT hard.
"It's Afghanistan. Everyone's cheating." is not an argument, it's a stereotype.
:rolleyes: There are polling places that didn't even open, yet reported results. There's at least one class of polling station mentioned in which 96% of the ballots are invalid. Mr. Sexton indicates that perhaps 1 in 5 ballots in the country are completely invalid. To suggest that cheating is not endemic to the system, that it is limited to one single candidate, is simply to further prove that you are not reading the articles.
To say that Karzai should be removed because he committed MORE fraud than other people is simply ridiculous. Either remove everyone suspected of fraud or no one.
Yet another complete mess Bush and the Republican administration left for the Democrats to clean up.
It seems like every time you turn around there is another mess left from their incompetence.
I sure hope all of these disasters are brought back to the voters attention come 2010. This is the result of modern day Republicanism.
Karzai should at the very least be disqualified from the runoff for trying to steal this election.
At this point there is no evidence that Karzai himself attempted to steal the election. To the best of my knowledge, there is no public data indicating who the fraudulent ballets were cast for, and who exactly was responsible for the fraud.
Even on the assumption that much of the fraud was in favor of Karzai, we can't really know for sure whether it was Karzai who organized the fraud, a rogue wing of his campaign who did it, or simply a number of individuals acting on their own volition in an attempt to sway the election for the candidate of their choice.
Karzai can't be disqualified from a runoff election unless there is solid evidence that he himself organized the election fraud. Otherwise it would be extremely easy to sway an election in your favor by committing blatant and obvious fraud for your opponent.
My god, you're a condescending asshole. And what's even worse, you didn't have the basic intelligence to go and learn anything about the subject before making your claims. You obviously haven't read a single thing about the election before this post. You don't even know why a discounted vote is not necessarily a fraudulent vote.
"On September 10, 2009, the ECC ordered the invalidation of tens of thousands of ballots, mostly votes for Karzai, from 83 polling stations from three provinces. These included all presidential ballots from 5 polling stations in Paktika Province, either all presidential ballots, all provincial council ballots - or in some case both - from 27 polling stations in Ghazni Province, as well as ballots from 51 polling stations in Kandahar Province. The chairman of the ECC, Grant Kippen, said there would be no re-voting and that the ballots would simply discounted from the final tally. A source at the ECC indicated this was just the beginning of a process, according to a BBC correspondent."
You fail to understand that the main reason other candidates are losing votes is because whole polling stations are having their results thrown out. Only an idiot would argue that every single vote in every single polling station being thrown out is fraudulent, especially WHEN THE POST ITSELF says that isn't true. Once again, so you get it through your brain: WHOLE POLLING STATIONS ARE HAVING THEIR RESULTS THROWN OUT, INCLUDING ANY VALID BALLOTS CAST AT THOSE STATIONS.
And I suggest you re-read the post carefully before claiming that Sexton accuses all candidates of engaging in fraud. He says no such thing.
Thank you. It says repeatedly in the post which I presume you read at some point that not all the fraud was from Karzai.
No, it says that not all the votes being discounted are for Karzai.
To suggest that cheating is not endemic to the system, that it is limited to one single candidate, is simply to further prove that you are not reading the articles.
What kind of idiot logic says that it's possible for one candidate to engage in widespread fraud across the country, but not for him to be able to stuff a few ballot boxes with 96% of the vote on his own?
Keep rolling your eyes all you want. Your ignorance of the subject is glaring.
Unrelated to this topic:
Does anyone know of a website that has information on what will be on local ballots in November? I've never gone to vote in an odd year, but I'm trying to be more politically active, or at least politically aware. I found ballotpedia, votesmart, and voteusa prior to last year's election, and they helped me make more informed decisions regarding the 3 questions on the ballot (I live in MA). But I'm having trouble finding much concerning 2009 (other than the thousands of "so-and-so for school committee" signs on every other lawn). It may just be that there's nothing going on and no reason to head to the polls, but this seems to be a pretty savvy group so I figured I'd ask. Thanks.
Alan:
Even on the assumption that much of the fraud was in favor of Karzai, we can't really know for sure whether it was Karzai who organized the fraud, a rogue wing of his campaign who did it, or simply a number of individuals acting on their own volition in an attempt to sway the election for the candidate of their choice.
Technically, you are right, but on the other hand, Karzai's behaviour during the election and his fury at insistence on a recount, complaints about foreign interference by the people designated to monitor the election and blatant attempts to stop the runoff seem to be clear evidence that he is behind the fraud, or at the very least attempting to use it to his advantage.
I'm also making the assumption that these reports are right and that the vast amount of disqualified ballots are for Karzai, indicating the he is the beneficiary of the fraud, and thus quite likely the perpetrator.
Karzai can't be disqualified from a runoff election unless there is solid evidence that he himself organized the election fraud. Otherwise it would be extremely easy to sway an election in your favor by committing blatant and obvious fraud for your opponent.
Purposefully engaging in fraud to bolster your opponent's vote count is a dangerous game to play when they control the government, the election apparatus and the commission assigned to oversee complaints of fraud. I would generously describe that claim as unlikely in the extreme.
Still, I support the spirit of your argument. Rather than exclude him from the runoff, then, how about postponing a runoff until an independent investigation of who conducted the fraud is complete? I hope that would satisfy your demand for evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Chris, I don't know of any such sites either, but I would suggest calling the office of your county clerk or elections commissioner (if you have those in MA). Otherwise you can contact the office of Secretary of the Commonwealth Elections Division at 617-727-2828 or email at elections@sec.state.ma.us
Let's face it, guys- the will of the voters in Afghanistan is meaningless. This election was blatantly rigged from the get-go What is happening is that the Administration is having second thoughts as to whether Karzai is the right face for the American presence. If he is, he'll stay. If not, he'll go or be shot.
Why is no one advocating a solution that would work? A tribally-elected king of Afghanistan. This is the only solution that can rule effectively and have legitimacy.
This silly Western democracy cannot work in Afghanistan.
juvanya said...
Why is no one advocating a solution that would work? A tribally-elected king of Afghanistan. This is the only solution that can rule effectively and have legitimacy.
I get the impression that that is effectively what is happening. A republic mascarading as a democracy, where whoever is in charge locally cooks the ballots for who they want. It's like a defacto EC, without actual rules. :)
this is starting to look a hell of a lot like VietNam circa 1963.
Let's get the hell out before we do something really stupid
Karzai…
The news tonight said just short of a million ballots of his were thrown out as fraudulent. His top challenger lost some 200k votes as I recall. At any rate Karzai’s total is officially under 50%.
Karzai is a weak crook, with no support across the country. (It’s not for nothing that he is known derisively as the “Mayor of Kabul”.) So now we will have a “runoff” with the same crooked electoral machinery in place. Gee—I wonder who’s gonna win…
After reading what I have on Afghanistan (Rory Stewart mainly, along with many articles) I don't think any single person has promoted the Taliban in Afghanistan more than Hamid Karzai. The failing of the national government, especially on the local level, positions the Taliban as a lesser evil for much of the population. Karzai initially had an incredible amount support and optimism behind him. To say he failed is an understatement (although his job was made significantly harder by the Bush administration effectively abandoning the situation after the quick victories were over). The US military can help an Afghanistan government defend itself and provide security, but we cannot provide legitimacy. Therefore, for the USA to be successful in helping Afghanistan stabilize and defeat the Taliban, a functioning central government that has legitimacy in the eyes of the population is absolutely necessary.
juvanya has it absolutely right. Restore the Shah, and get the heck out of Dodge. Now, Afghanistan is a legit country, dating back to 1747 - which is to say that it's not a phony country sutured together by ignorant Western diplomats, like Iraq, Yugoslavia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But the tribalism inherent in the Afghan political DNA makes it utterly unsuitable for Jeffersonian Democracy. The way it's worked in Afghanistan since the time of Cyrus the Great is this - some guy with a larger than usual army sits in Kabul and declares himself Shah, Emir, King, President, Commissar, Mullah, etc., and the people out in the territories cheerfully ignore him and go about their business. That's what we've got now! Let's declare victory and get out already.
@Jamison
If that was the purpose of being there, to put some particular form of government in place, then yes, it's a "win". But that wasn't the goal, right?
Do you remember the goal?
электронная почта без регистрации
Post a Comment