Page 22

FINAL REPORT

Observation Mission for the Presidential Election in the Republic of Moldova on 30 October 2016

21

Table 1.  The accuracy of the signature sheets submitted by registered candidates Valid signatures as a percentage of all validated signatures (%)

No

Name and surname of the nominated candidate

1.

Valeriu Ghiletchi (IC)

96.19

2.

Silvia Radu (IC)

94.94

3.

Igor Dodon (PPPSRM)

93.23

4.

Dumitru Ciubasenco (PPPN)

93.05

5.

Marian Lupu (PDM)

91.63

6.

Ana Gutu (PP DREAPTA)

90.66

7.

Andrei Nastase (PPPDA)

89.19

8.

Maia Sandu (PPPAS)

88.83

9.

Iurie Leanca (PPPPEM)

83.48

10.

Maia Laguta (IC)

81.52

11.

Inna Popenco (PPMSPR)

79.41

12.

Mihai Ghimpu (PL)

76.52

The State Registry of Voters/ voter lists. The quality of the data in the SRV is still an issue that puts the electoral process at a risk of being corrupted. Before the election campaign started, the CEC presented data from the SRV on the number of voters several times (Table 2). Promo-LEX EOM draws attention to the fact that how the information was shown – the presentation of the data without any explanatory comments, the continued growth in the number of voters, and the number of voters without residence – has caused society to distrust the integrity of the voter lists and, therefore, the entire electoral process. Table 2.  Information from different sources on the number of citizens eligible to vote Total population, including ATUs on the left bank of Nistru River

Total population, excluding ATUs on the left bank of Nistru River

Voters, including ATUs on the left bank of Nistru River

Voters, excluding ATUs on the left bank of Nistru River

CEC/SRV, 31.03.2016

-

-

3,233,100

3,013,775

CEC/SRV, 22.08.2016

-

-

3,237,032

3,015,432

3,237,072

3,015,230

CEC/SRV, 13.09.2016 CRIS Registru, 01.08.2016 National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 01.01.2015

3,951,827

3,655,025

3,589,302

3,312,543

-

3,553,056

-

2,678,955

During the monitoring period, Promo-LEX observers found and reported at least 51 first-level ATUs where problematic situations were found with the SRV by the responsible registration operators. The following types of shortcomings were identified: mismatches between the address indicated in voters’ identity documents and that in the SRV; the registration of unknown persons in the SRV; voters registered in the SRV in different ATU than their domicile; the registration of foreigners; and the registration of deceased people in the SRV. We found these same systematic issues repeated from one election to another. We reiterate that this situation is serious because of the repetitive nature of the issues. Most of the abovementioned issues in the SRV were found in the voter lists as well. Promo-LEX EOM also found two major issues regarding the number of voters on the main lists. First, the number of voters on the main lists was different between the first and second rounds of the elec-

Final Report: Observation Mission for the Presidential Election on 30 October 2016  

Published on 26 January 2017.

Final Report: Observation Mission for the Presidential Election on 30 October 2016  

Published on 26 January 2017.

Advertisement