thanks very much.
i read the report and thought it was a great, independent, fair, balanced, and very human-level report with sound analysis and good recommendations.
i am embarrassed for america to have needed this report.
I strongly recommend reading it to everyone who is interested in the US election.
Two further reports should (or can) be expected from the OSCE/ODIHR on the US elections: The first will be - or, goes by the name of - the "Preliminary Report". This will be issued the day after the election (that is a nail biting exercise, and delicate balancing act, usually both electorally and politically, as you need to get it out in time for the initial press conference, delivered usually at around 4 pm the day after the election, in the capital of the country where the election has been held, but every fact must have been verified and comments and criticisms discussed; I've been up all night writing sections of such reports, and, of course, the outcome of the election might not be clear, nor the counts concluded, by the time it is published).
The Preliminary Report is followed - usually around six to ten weeks later - by an exceptionally detailed and usually quite meticulous Final Report.
However, the Preliminary Report is exceptionally important, especially in the context of the current US election, and, above all, in any election where competing narratives as to the validity of the electoral process exist, or occur.
Of course, the irony is that normally, it is the incumbent dictatorship, or authoritarian regime, - with all of the advantages of incumbency - including what is coyly termed in official reports "an abuse of administrative resources" (and this - to my astonishment - has also arisen in the current US election) - i.e. the incumbent has used government (rather than party political) resources to seek re-election - that will attempt to argue for the validity of the entire electoral process, while the excluded opposition will seek to present arguments as to why it cannot be deemed a free and fair election and why the results or outcome should not be recognised nor allowed to stand.
Thus, for the OSCE, it will be important for them to have their initial, immediate, post-election narrative released as soon as is practicable, or possible, so that other, alternative "fake" or "false" narratives are not dominating - or allowed to donate without being challenged by alternative, credible, reports from reputable sources - the airwaves first.
It is most unusual for an incumbent - with all of the advantages of incumbency at their disposal - to cry "foul" and "fraud" persistently, and to seek to sow discord and disbelief in the actual capacity of very institutions of the state in advance of an election, by questioning their ability to be able to run an election properly, and to query their capacity to count the votes - and record the votes counted - fairly and accurately, in a way that reflects the votes cast by the electorate.
Anyway, I've worked for (with) the OSCE in the field of election observation since the first elections were held in Bosnia in the mid 1990s, after the signing of the Dayton Accord formal put a end to the Yugoslav civil wars, and, in that time, have observed (or supervised, or monitored - the verb used depend on your mandate) over 25 elections across three continents; I've also worked with the EU as an elections' specialist, and political counsellor (adviser).