How ‘high-quality’ observers disagree: unravelling election observation criteria through a text analysis of monitoring reports

Election monitoring organisations often issue conflicting assessments of the same election, and research attributes these divergences mainly to political interests or the poor reporting quality of unreputable observers. However, this study examines whether reputable observers’ evaluation criteria could also differ. Using a text analysis of over 1100 election monitoring reports, we examine three key dimensions: election day bias, stability bias, and the emphasis on international standards. We find that high-quality election monitoring organisations commonly grouped together such as the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and the Commonwealth differ substantially in the aspects of elections they emphasise. Notably, the European Union and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe consistently apply stricter and more comprehensive standards than the other organisations. These findings challenge the conventional binary classification between high- and low-quality observers, revealing the important variation within the former group. Our results highlight the need to disaggregate reputational categories and reconsider how election monitoring organisations are classified and interpreted in both academic and policy contexts.