"So we were there to be witnesses to an election that may go against the oligarchs, and indirectly, against American politicians. But countless Salvadorans want fairness and clean elections. And ... we were there because the Salvadoran Election Tribunal invited us. To be witnesses not to the success of one party, but to the success of the system."
As one of our SHARE monitors, Robert LeLeux, said, 'You can´t quantify the power of witness. Our tax dollars are already sending a message to this community. We have a moral obligation to counter that message.'"
The observers´day started with a wake-up call at 3:45 a.m. so we could straggle down to a boxed breakfast and bus to the CIFCO Convention center in the capital city of San Salvador.
The doors were supposed to pen for setup at 5:00, but they didn´t get going until 5:30. Inside there were 69 tables with corresponding voting booths. Each table had an administrative team who were from different parties. They received a sealed box of voting materials which was only to be opened in the presence of all three. In addition they had "vigilantes" or "watchers" from each party.
Because past elections saw so much fraud and corruption, the system has been set up to be as foolproof as possible. Each table has two lists of the same 500 names, each name with a picture of the voter. Voters find their table (alphabetical order and their National ID is matched to the 1st list. Illiterate voters are assisted.
One of the officials asks the voter to show their hands, because when someone has voted they get indelible ink on their thumb. Then he or she stamps the space next to their name on the 1st list. Another official signs and stamps a numbered ballot and gives it to the voter. The voter goes to a booth, marks it and puts it in the ballot box. Then they sign list number two and dip their thumb in the ink.
Safeguards, Accommodations and Risks at the Polls
Blind voters are given a template with braille so they can identify where to make their mark. The ballots are illiterate-friendly. Instead of names,they had five colored flags of the five parties,and the voters just make a big X over the flag they wanted to vote for. (This election was only for the president, so it didn´t have to be long and complicated.)
While I was watching, a woman came up who had some sort of stain on her index finger. The officials were really suspicious. Eventually they smelled her finger and finally let her vote. I asked if the ink had a particular smell. Yes. Could I smell it? Yes, but be careful. The"careful" came a second too late as I got a noseful of pungent, stinging smelling salts!
A few problems occurred because people showed their vote to others after leaving the booth. The reason this is strictly forbidden is because, when vote-buying occurred in the past, the buyers wanted proof that the voter had actually voted for the one he was paid to vote for. The booths were sort of funny - they had a paper curtain with a little flap in it, so the voter stood outside, stuck the ballot inside, peered over the top of the curtain and marked it that way. We had to watch to make sure no one slipped a phone out of their pocket to photograph the ballot paper (another way of proving who they´d voted for).
Blind voters are given a template with braille so they can identify where to make their mark. The ballots are illiterate-friendly. Instead of names,they had five colored flags of the five parties,and the voters just make a big X over the flag they wanted to vote for. (This election was only for the president, so it didn´t have to be long and complicated.)
While I was watching, a woman came up who had some sort of stain on her index finger. The officials were really suspicious. Eventually they smelled her finger and finally let her vote. I asked if the ink had a particular smell. Yes. Could I smell it? Yes, but be careful. The"careful" came a second too late as I got a noseful of pungent, stinging smelling salts!
A few problems occurred because people showed their vote to others after leaving the booth. The reason this is strictly forbidden is because, when vote-buying occurred in the past, the buyers wanted proof that the voter had actually voted for the one he was paid to vote for. The booths were sort of funny - they had a paper curtain with a little flap in it, so the voter stood outside, stuck the ballot inside, peered over the top of the curtain and marked it that way. We had to watch to make sure no one slipped a phone out of their pocket to photograph the ballot paper (another way of proving who they´d voted for).
Counting, Wrap Up and Observations
At the end of the day, the two lists were counted (my table had a discrepancy of one,and they had to go through them one by one to find the glitch). Then the unused ballots were counted and stamped "unused."
Finally the ballot box was opened, and in the presence of all the officials and "vigilantes" the ballot papers were taken out one by one, the vote read out, the paper shown to all and then handed to the head vigilante of the relevant party. Disputed ballots were argued over and only handed over when the vigilantes and officials all agreed. If they couldn´t agree, it was voided. Our table had one voided ballot.
When the box was empty, each party counted their ballots and reported the total, which was tallied against the number of unused ballots. The results were entered onto multiple copies, for all the parties, the electoral commission and it almost seemed, the chief commissioner´s cat. The numbers were finally reported to the electoral recorder and all the unused materials, stamps, etc., sealed into the box they came in and returned.
It was a labor-intensive process with constant checks and counter-checks. Nothing could be decided by any one person, or even any one party. But it pretty much guaranteed that everyone knew what had happened at that particular table, and what the results were, and even how disputes had been resolved.
Waiting times? At CIFCO, there was never a line waiting to get in, except at the beginning. Voters came in a steady stream, all day long. People at the door directed them in the general direction of their table. Those in wheelchairs were helped by the Boy Scouts. There were 69 tables in the Center, with an average of 250 voters at each during the day, so about 17,250 people voted in the course of the day. I never saw a line at a table longer than about 6 people.
One thing that surprised the observers was the almost carnival-like atmosphere. Outside the center, there was a constant stream of cars honking, and music playing. The sidewalks were crowded with vendors calling their wares. Cookies, cookies! Pop! Party souvenirs, best prices! Mango-mango-mango! Inside, whole families came to accompany a voter. The vendors didn´t make as much noise inside but they were still there. I spoke to some Finns from a group of election monitors from Europe, and they were saying, "In Finland, when we vote we´re so silent, it´s like going to church!"
At 5:00 a.m., when the center was supposed to open, both the major parties already had tents up and were making lots of noise.
I have to say the party of the Right had a lot more money to spend on tents, balloons, signs, drums, banners, food, etc. Their music had a triumphal, bouncy, we´ve-already-won air. I also noticed a certain racial divide: none of the right-wingers had "Indian" features, most of them had a middle-or-upper class air, and a lot of them were tall, fat and/or had big booming voices. (I think the reps were chosen partly for that.)
The workers´ / ex-guerrilla party had more country people, and more that looked Indian, and none that were fat. Or tall or overbearing. Their music was strong, serious, and determined - in a minor key but very upbeat.
Though I´d been prepared for some disorder, people were enthusiastic but purposeful. There were only one or two fights that had to be prevented that I know of. I was almost wondering why the election monitors were needed in the first place, when I got to talking to some who had been there for previous elections, when ballot destruction was wanton and voter intimidation was totally out in the open. In every year, the voting has gotten more and more fair and transparent.
The USA has for many years supported one party in Salvador: the right-wingers. Our government has validated the Right´s use of blatant electoral fraud and recognized the Right as the "legal" government of El Salvador even when the other party won. As Robert Leleux, one of our fellow SHARE monitors said, "You can´t quantify the power of witnessing. Our tax dollars are already sending a message to the Salvadorean community. We have a moral obligation to counter that."
At the end of the day, the two lists were counted (my table had a discrepancy of one,and they had to go through them one by one to find the glitch). Then the unused ballots were counted and stamped "unused."
Finally the ballot box was opened, and in the presence of all the officials and "vigilantes" the ballot papers were taken out one by one, the vote read out, the paper shown to all and then handed to the head vigilante of the relevant party. Disputed ballots were argued over and only handed over when the vigilantes and officials all agreed. If they couldn´t agree, it was voided. Our table had one voided ballot.
When the box was empty, each party counted their ballots and reported the total, which was tallied against the number of unused ballots. The results were entered onto multiple copies, for all the parties, the electoral commission and it almost seemed, the chief commissioner´s cat. The numbers were finally reported to the electoral recorder and all the unused materials, stamps, etc., sealed into the box they came in and returned.
It was a labor-intensive process with constant checks and counter-checks. Nothing could be decided by any one person, or even any one party. But it pretty much guaranteed that everyone knew what had happened at that particular table, and what the results were, and even how disputes had been resolved.
Waiting times? At CIFCO, there was never a line waiting to get in, except at the beginning. Voters came in a steady stream, all day long. People at the door directed them in the general direction of their table. Those in wheelchairs were helped by the Boy Scouts. There were 69 tables in the Center, with an average of 250 voters at each during the day, so about 17,250 people voted in the course of the day. I never saw a line at a table longer than about 6 people.
One thing that surprised the observers was the almost carnival-like atmosphere. Outside the center, there was a constant stream of cars honking, and music playing. The sidewalks were crowded with vendors calling their wares. Cookies, cookies! Pop! Party souvenirs, best prices! Mango-mango-mango! Inside, whole families came to accompany a voter. The vendors didn´t make as much noise inside but they were still there. I spoke to some Finns from a group of election monitors from Europe, and they were saying, "In Finland, when we vote we´re so silent, it´s like going to church!"
At 5:00 a.m., when the center was supposed to open, both the major parties already had tents up and were making lots of noise.
I have to say the party of the Right had a lot more money to spend on tents, balloons, signs, drums, banners, food, etc. Their music had a triumphal, bouncy, we´ve-already-won air. I also noticed a certain racial divide: none of the right-wingers had "Indian" features, most of them had a middle-or-upper class air, and a lot of them were tall, fat and/or had big booming voices. (I think the reps were chosen partly for that.)
The workers´ / ex-guerrilla party had more country people, and more that looked Indian, and none that were fat. Or tall or overbearing. Their music was strong, serious, and determined - in a minor key but very upbeat.
Though I´d been prepared for some disorder, people were enthusiastic but purposeful. There were only one or two fights that had to be prevented that I know of. I was almost wondering why the election monitors were needed in the first place, when I got to talking to some who had been there for previous elections, when ballot destruction was wanton and voter intimidation was totally out in the open. In every year, the voting has gotten more and more fair and transparent.
The USA has for many years supported one party in Salvador: the right-wingers. Our government has validated the Right´s use of blatant electoral fraud and recognized the Right as the "legal" government of El Salvador even when the other party won. As Robert Leleux, one of our fellow SHARE monitors said, "You can´t quantify the power of witnessing. Our tax dollars are already sending a message to the Salvadorean community. We have a moral obligation to counter that."
The Value of Election Monitors
The thing is, Election Monitors are a part of the process. Our witness has in the past forced electoral reform, little by little, until now it seems to produce a more honest and transparent result.
For years, the USA has supported the Right wing party and accepted the results of fraudulent elections. I even met one guy who told me if we "LET" the other party win, we´re helping the communists.
The trouble is, the USA has confused Nationalism with Communism. The left is only "left" because they´re against having their land taken away, their freedoms taken away and their countrymen killed by the ones who identify themselves as "Right" and as "Friends of America" even though their actions are profoundly un-American. The oligarchs in El Salvador have duped America into supporting them, and our country hasn´t gone into the nitty-gritty deeply enough to tell the difference.
So we were there to be witnesses to an election that may go against the oligarchs, and indirectly against American politicians. But countless Salvadorans want fairness and clean elections. And if we help them have it, they´re one step closer to being the kind of country we SHOULD want to create. The "American Dream" is a dream many Salvadoreños have - a country that gives everyone a chance even if they´re on the bottom of the heap, and a country that plays by the rules.
Lastly, we were there because the Salvadoran Election Tribunal invited us. To be witnesses not to the success of one party, but to the success of the system.
As one of our SHARE monitors, Robert LeLeux, said, "You can´t quantify the power of witness. Our tax dollars are already sending a message to this community. We have a moral obligation to counter that message."
The thing is, Election Monitors are a part of the process. Our witness has in the past forced electoral reform, little by little, until now it seems to produce a more honest and transparent result.
For years, the USA has supported the Right wing party and accepted the results of fraudulent elections. I even met one guy who told me if we "LET" the other party win, we´re helping the communists.
The trouble is, the USA has confused Nationalism with Communism. The left is only "left" because they´re against having their land taken away, their freedoms taken away and their countrymen killed by the ones who identify themselves as "Right" and as "Friends of America" even though their actions are profoundly un-American. The oligarchs in El Salvador have duped America into supporting them, and our country hasn´t gone into the nitty-gritty deeply enough to tell the difference.
So we were there to be witnesses to an election that may go against the oligarchs, and indirectly against American politicians. But countless Salvadorans want fairness and clean elections. And if we help them have it, they´re one step closer to being the kind of country we SHOULD want to create. The "American Dream" is a dream many Salvadoreños have - a country that gives everyone a chance even if they´re on the bottom of the heap, and a country that plays by the rules.
Lastly, we were there because the Salvadoran Election Tribunal invited us. To be witnesses not to the success of one party, but to the success of the system.
As one of our SHARE monitors, Robert LeLeux, said, "You can´t quantify the power of witness. Our tax dollars are already sending a message to this community. We have a moral obligation to counter that message."
No comments:
Post a Comment