The head of the largest-ever international election observer team to deploy to the United States has shared with Newsweek concerns regarding the underlying conditions surrounding Tuesday's vote.
For the 11th time since 2002, the Organization of Security and Cooperation of Europe's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) sent a limited election observer mission to monitor the election process upon the invitation of the U.S.
This year's mission, led by former European Parliament Member Tamás Meszerics of Hungary, consisted of 164 personnel hailing from 25 OSCE participating states, all adhering to a universal curriculum.
Overall, Meszerics told Newsweek the mission noted "a good performance of the election administration" without any serious flaws that would undermine the actual execution of the vote. At the same time, however, he identified some ominous factors and trends that could hinder the integrity of U.S. democracy.
"Simply the fact that a very large number of people, almost one-third of the electorate, lost trust in the entire electoral process, is a really, really dark, worrying, warning sign," Meszerics said.
He also pointed to what the mission deemed to be "problematic" inadequacies in regulating campaign financing, particularly as they relate to political action committees (PACs) and super PACs. Another "regular issue" observed by the mission was mass disenfranchisement concerning those living in U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico, around 1.5 million people incarcerated or having been incarcerated on felony charges and others with disabilities that limit their ability to vote due to restrictions.
Meszerics hailed the steps taken by U.S. authorities in response to what he said were active threats to the process, including physical security measures and efforts to counter disinformation. Yet the actual language from the campaigns presented a problem.
"Ultimately, what was of significant concern was the tone of the campaigns, especially from one of the contenders," Meszerics said. "This was really much tougher, much harsher and much more violent than ever before."
These concerns were echoed in the mission's preliminary conclusions report issued Wednesday.
"The 5 November general elections demonstrated the resilience of the country's democratic institutions, with a well-run process in a highly polarized environment, candidates campaigning freely across the country, and voters engaging actively," the report said.
"The campaign was marked by disinformation and instances of violence, including harsh and intolerant language against women and immigrants by one candidate," it continued. "Repeated unfounded claims about election fraud negatively impacted the public trust."
President-elect Donald Trump, who emerged victorious against Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, has long claimed widespread instances of electoral fraud, stemming back to his successful run in 2016. No evidence has been found to back the allegations.
The claims accelerated in 2020 when Trump lost to President Joe Biden, leading to a crowd of Trump supporters violently storming the Capitol Building in a bid to prevent his opponent's win from being officiated in January 2021.
These events, paired with lingering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and other issues, led to a decline in various rankings of the health of U.S. democracy, including those published by The Economist Group, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the V-Dem Institute.
Trump acknowledged this September that he lost the 2020 race but still referred to the vote as a "fraud."
Harris officially conceded her loss in the 2024 election on Wednesday, saying in her speech that "a fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results."
She also congratulated Trump, who acknowledged "her strength, professionalism, and tenacity throughout the campaign, and both leaders agreed on the importance of unifying the country," according to the Trump campaign.
The events served to allay some immediate concerns over the potential fallout of the election, one that the observer mission reported noted was marred by political violence, including at least two assassination attempts against Trump, which took place in July and September.
"In general, the campaign was often marked by aggressive and confrontational rhetoric and inflammatory language," the report said. "The mutual accusations between the two leading presidential candidates further exacerbated the existing polarization."
"Additionally, there have been incidents of election violence, including assassination attempts on former President Trump. Instances of threats of violence or aggressive behavior targeting voters, including minorities, election administrators, officials, campaigners, and media representatives, were reported to IEOM [international election observer mission]," the report added.
Meszerics, who is also a historian, noted that the U.S. has a robust history of harsh, sometimes violent rhetoric in politics that began to wane in the early 20th century. However, he said that "the norms of civility have changed," creating a problematic atmosphere today.
"It's not just that it's more violent or harsher or even more personalized rhetoric than before, but that it contributes to the already extreme polarization of society," Meszerics said, "and that polarization is something which makes ordinary governing very difficult in most countries if it happens."
Moreover, given the instances of actual violence observed during the campaigning period, he warned, "There is a very sort of thin line that separates violent rhetoric from then morphing into violent action on someone else's behalf."
The observer team is set to produce a final report, likely early next year, detailing their findings while monitoring the 2024 U.S. election.
As the report is being deliberated, Meszerics emphasized that the criteria through which the teams operate are general and are not drawn up specifically by country.
"We work on the basis of a methodology which has been tried and tested a number of times," Meszerics said, "and we are developing systematically over the years, but we use the very same methodology everywhere we do the very same thing and look for the very same aspects of the election process."
"Most people think that these are geared to the specific election," he added. "No, we are using a very standardized methodology across the board."
One metric not included in this methodology is the oft-used phrase "free and fair," as ODIHR spokesperson Katya Andrusz explained.
"Our election observation missions are generally on the ground for at least a month, and they observe a huge range of issues in the lead-up to election day," Andrusz told Newsweek. "Because we're looking at a complex process with so many moving parts, 'free and fair' would be inadequate to describe the election as a whole."
English (US) ·