Abstract
Abstract Sleight of hand in manipulating the computation of results has become the new might for deciding who wins presidential elections. It appears that whoever controls the computation exercises a right to take advantage and win, and whoever loses or relinquishes control of the computation loses the election. As incumbents do not want to be identified with direct interference or rigging, hacking has become an alternative means. This raises a serious challenge for election management bodies (EMBs) and a new frontier for international observation. As electronic data management has become a key battleground, international observers cannot restrict their monitoring to the manual process alone. However, individual states may have data sensitivity concerns about granting electronic monitoring access to partisan international observers. Institutionalizing internationally agreed protocols that would allow real-time monitoring of EMBs’ computer systems by international observers or forensic audits of any stage of the electoral process to investigate interference, manipulation, hacking, and counter claims, is now a necessity. At the same time, the extent to which international monitors can be trusted to be non-partisan is of equal importance and could reduce forum shopping over time.
Highlights
Campaigning, vote-buying, and rigging all count towards winning elections, which have become sophisticated and complicated over time
We note from Nazar Boyko and Erik Herron that the effects of technical parties and partisan election management bodies (EMBs) on voting outcomes have become a real and increasing threat to election
We find ourselves at a new frontier whereby developments relating to computer hacking pose a major challenge for international monitors who do not as yet have the necessary electronic access to monitor EMB data management processes
Summary
The final result of 50.66 percent for the incumbent and 47.24 percent for Ping was announced surreptitiously at midnight on 23–24 September 2016.26 By this stage, the entire dynamics of the election management process[27] had already undermined the perceptions of integrity,[28] as was the view of the EU Election Observer Mission (EOM) who had already announced that the recount process conducted by the Constitutional Court lacked transparency.[29].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
