Defects in election counts and postal elections in Germany

Trust in the course of democratic elections is based on transparency, traceability and legal control. In recent years, however, there have been increasing indications of discrepancies in the handling of postal voting documents, non-transparent counts and insufficient controls that fuel doubts about the integrity of the election process. The historical maxim ofAmerican founding democracy – no taxation without political representation – illustrates the importance of fair and verifiable electoral processes, but in Germany these principles are increasingly coming under pressure.

Non-transparent procedures and error-prone procedures

Postal elections are officially considered an option to make elections barrier-free and convenient. In practice, however, they make it difficult to control because voting documents are lost by post, are incorrectly marked or submitted incompletely. The examination mechanisms of the electoral offices are often confusing, and the categorization of incorrect votes varies between federal states.This lack of uniformity means that an exact review of the votes is hardly possible and wrong decisions at administrative level are rarely noticeable.

Lack of transparency in counts

The evaluation of the postal votes is often done under conditions that make public control more difficult. Observers may be present according to the applicable election regulations, but the evaluation in collection points or central counting locations is hardly understandable for citizens. In addition, verification procedures are so complex that even obvious anomalies are often noted untilif the election result has long been final. This actually undermines the principle of transparency, one of the central pillars of any democracy.

Legal hurdles and limited control options

The existing deadlines for the election test set narrow limits for citizens and parties. According to the current election examination law, objections can only be submitted within a few weeks. If an applicant fails to do so, the objection is considered inadmissible – later subsequent submissions will not be taken into account. Even if Parliament decides itself on the validity of the election, this leadsRegulation often on a conflict of interest: A chamber that benefits politically from the legality of an election result is reluctant to check its own legitimacy.

Indifference and institutional disinterest of the judiciary

While individual citizens and smaller initiatives try to legally work through irregularities, the judiciary is often hesitant. Public prosecutors and courts are often characterized by advance cadaver obedience and tend to stop proceedings early if they do not recognize any significant evidence. Political and institutional restraintprevents a more in-depth investigation into possible election manipulations, which creates distrust in the rule of law. The result is a growing social skepticism about the independence of the judiciary and its willingness to critically examine state action.

Loss of trust and political consequences

A lack of information about possible deficiencies in the elections means that the citizens’ trust in the state decreases. If election results are presented as incontestable even though there are ambiguities, the impression arises that political control and legal accountability have lost their credibility. On this basis, even a legitimately elected government can lose authority becauseThe social recognition of the election as a fair trial is crumbling. In a democracy based on co-determination, such a breach of trust is like a creeping erosion of political consensus.

Democratic principles under scrutiny

The dispute over postal voting, counting transparency and legal indifference is more than a formal debate about proceedings. It concerns the foundation of political legitimacy – the right of every citizen to be sure that his vote counts and remains verifiable. As long as deadlines, lack of transparency and political self-examination procedures, preventIrregularities are fully clarified, a shadow on democratic credibility remains. Only through consistent openness, control and independent judiciary can trust in free and fair elections be restored.