The following is a contribution from James Long, from the University of California San Diego, and a Democracy International observer.

Now that voting has finished, what is the next step in the process to count votes?

Ballots of president and provincial councils were counted fairly quickly at each polling station. Tallies and ballots were then transferred to provincial capitals, before the tallies are forwarded onto the Independent Elections Commission (IEC) headquarters in Kabul for the count and final certification. Over the past two days, Democracy International (DI)  has observed this tally process. The IEC plans to begin to release the first results on August 25^th.

What did you observe at the tally center?

The tally center is open to international observers and media, although the first day we visited we were the only monitors there and on the second day, we only saw a couple other observers. We observed boxes of polling station final vote tallies being received and opened by IEC officials. Party agents monitor at this stage, and we saw party agents and the IEC record which envelopes of final tallies were in the boxes being opened. An agent from the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) reported that one box from Kunar Province had been “quarantined” today and set aside for further examination, but he would not say what was wrong with the box or how it was received.

What happens after the tallies are received?

A first team of about 35 (at our count) data clerks enter the tallies into the computer, a process we could view. A second team of clerks will perform a “double-blind” entry, where they enter the same vote totals as team one, but are unable to see how the data has already been entered. If no discrepancies occur in that process, the data is recorded. If a difference exists between the two codings an IEC official goes back to the original tally form to reconcile the problem.

What were your impressions of the data entry?

The IEC allows observers to watch this process from a platform away from the data clerks. From what we could see, things were calm and running smoothly and professionally. But because only IEC officials are allowed on the floor near the clerks and computers, it is impossible to directly observe data entry.

But there is already a backlog in the number of tally sheets that have been received at the center but not entered into the computer tally. So while the count process is generally slow in Afghanistan given the geographic and security challenges of receiving votes from provinces back to headquarters, the entering of data is incurring significant delays in Kabul. The tally center is not open around the clock and could probably use additional data entry clerks. The size and design of the ballot also makes coding difficult. We timed one clerk who took 28 minutes to enter the presidential and provincial results from one polling center.

Did you learn of any other challenges or delays?

We were told by another international observer that about half of the total ballots had been received as of last night (Monday), with about half of the provinces remaining. The IEC has received the tallies from Kabul, but is apparently waiting to begin processing them and instead focus on other provinces. We were told that once tallies are received in Kabul, they can be recorded in three days.

Thinner media coverage pickings in the past 24 hours. Will be interesting to see what happens today.

Eric Bjornlund, a DI co-founder, appeared on PBS’ Worldfocus, which is also carried by The Huffington Post and Herald de Paris

Jim Moody, our head of delegation, was quoted in The Washington Times by David W. Jones:

Jim Moody, a former U.S. congressman who headed a 60-member observer group from Democracy International Inc., told The Washington Times that more analysis will be required to finalize conclusions.

"Our preliminary conclusion is that it is conceivable that this was a fair election," he said. "It is hard to tell. A lot of people voted properly."

..

Mr. Moody said his delegation, which was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, observed proper voting at a number of polling places in Kabul and other major cities, "but we heard some pretty horrific stories" about irregularities in more remote areas. "Whether they were enough to sway the outcome, we don’t know."

"There was good and bad," he added. "There were a lot of security issues," including Taliban threats to cut off the fingers of anyone who voted. "Bombs went off." Even members of his observer group had to wear bulletproof vests, though none was hurt. "But some of them couldn’t get out to their polling places," he said.

Mr. Moody added that there were "some" cases of fraud or ballot stuffing, "but whether it was enough [to change the outcome] we can’t be sure."

Nevertheless, he said, he found the voting "very uplifting. This is a country that has never before had anything resembling democracy. And here they were, running their own election."

The piece also quoted DI:

Democracy International described the credibility of the elections as "vital to the consolidation of democracy in Afghanistan and a critical component in the Afghan peoples ongoing struggle for peace."

Interesting piece from Aunohita Mojumdar, an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul, who wrote on the website EurasiaNet:

While the lack of official statistics from the IEC is certainly a constraint for diplomatic missions and international observers, even the right questions are not being asked at this stage, experts say.

Of half a dozen observer groups and a plethora of diplomatic representatives, only Democracy International (DI), pointed out the problems related to the IEC’s decision to withhold the vote count until five days after Election Day, terming it "unfortunate." DI has noted that releasing the partial results would be a way to enhance confidence in the process by increasing transparency.

The New Sabah Times:

“Violence and intimidation disenfranchised voters in a significant portion of the country,” US-based election monitor Democracy International said.

“In more secure areas, however, Afghans generally were able to cast votes freely,” it said.

More mentions of Democracy International in the media (earlier ones here and here)

Steve Herman of VOA quotes Bill Gallery:

The senior program officer of Democracy International, Bill Gallery, says his organization is concerned about the delay in announcing the election winner.  He said the Election Commission should publish results as they come in "to help increase the transparency of the process."

Ian McPhedran of News International quotes Glenn Cowan:

Monitors have warned the election should not yet be declared a success. "We don’t have a sense of the scope of the problem and we don’t have a sense of the scale of problem," Glenn Cowan, head of a monitoring team from U.S.-based Democracy International said.

"We know as little now as we did on Wednesday (the day before the poll), other than some people in some places got out and voted."

Lynne O’Donnell of AFP quotes our preliminary findings:

US-based election monitor Democracy International said, ”Violence and intimidation disenfranchised voters in a significant portion of the country.”

”In more secure areas, however, Afghans generally were able to cast votes freely.”

Brian Katulis is quoted by The Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama administration’s policy hinges on whether a legitimate leader emerges from this election," says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank, who observed the Afghan vote. "Without a legitimate civilian leadership here you’ll have a shaky foundation for the whole policy."

In the past 24 hours DI was also quoted in La Croix, Голос Америки, Liputan, La Stampa, the Mail and Guardian, SBS, Pakistan’s The Nation, American Chronicle, The Scotsman

The fifth in a series of videos from Democracy Internationals Election Observation Mission to Afghanistan. These videos provide a window into Democracy Internationals observation mission, and focus on the election itself, the security situation, the role of election observers, the media, the participation of women, and the results of the election. In this video, DI’s chief spokesman, Brian Katulis, visits polling stations in Kabul to observe and report on the process and talk with voters. These videos are produced by the Democracy International Afghanistan media team. For more information, please visit www.democracyinternational.com/afghanistan, follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/DemocracyIntl, or email us at press@democracyinternational.com.

Some more mentions of Democracy International in the past day or two (last one here):

From the New York Times’ website, a piece by Carlotta Gall: Two Claim to Lead Afghan Race for President

Democracy International expressed concern that withholding preliminary results until Tuesday would heighten uncertainty in the political environment and raise tensions.

Reuters: Afghan Election Fair, But Not Free – EU

Independent election observers like election monitoring group Democracy International urged a quick end to the counting. …August 22, 2009 – By REUTERS – World

AP: Karzai, Abdullah Both Claim Lead in Afghan Vote

One American election observer said the delay in announcing results was fueling rumors and allegations that threaten to poison the atmosphere at a time when Afghans need to come together to deal with the problems facing their country.

Glenn Cowan, the co-founder of the U.S.-funded observer group Democracy International, said announcing results more quickly would serve as a ”pressure valve release.”

”Instead what you get is a buildup,” Cowan said. ”What’s very interesting to us is that we don’t know very much more about this election today than we did on Wednesday. The paucity of information is really incredible. You’ve had no election returns whatsoever.”

The Washington Post website carried Ethnic tension a factor in Afghan vote: envoy by Adam Entous of Reuters:

…election observers like election monitoring group Democracy International urged a quick end to the counting. "I…

Jonathan Landay’s piece for McClatchy Newspapers had Glen Cowan as its lead quote (the story was picked up by two McClatchy papers, the Miami Herald and the News & Observer):

KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan’s second-ever presidential election was marred by vote-rigging, voter intimidation and low turnout in many areas and should not be declared a success until the full extent of problems is known, election monitors and other experts said Saturday.

The warning reflected concern that the United States and its allies, anxious to claim progress after eight years of war, are rushing to endorse a contest that may turn out to be flawed.

"We don’t have a sense of the scope of the problem and we don’t have a sense of the scale of problem," said Glenn Cowan, the head of a monitoring team from U.S.-based Democracy International. "We know as little now as we did on Wednesday (the day before the election) other than some people in some places got to go out and voted."

Bloomberg’s James Rupert quoted Marvin Weinbaum:

Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) — Presidential voting in southern Afghanistan was subject to little attention from international observers because of attacks by Taliban guerrillas, raising the possibility of fraud there, independent monitoring groups said.

Voter turnout was “particularly low in the south,” the European Union’s election monitoring mission said in a statement today, and election observers said it may have been as little as 10 percent in Kandahar province. A free vote in the south “was not the case,” said the mission’s chief, Philiipe Morillon, at a press conference in Kabul.

Low turnout in the south may have shifted the vote’s result against President Hamid Karzai, whose main support base is there, and undermined the credibility of the election, said Marvin Weinbaum, an election observer with Democracy International, Inc. The Obama administration and its allies are seeking a credible election result that would politically boost the next Afghan administration as it fights the Taliban.

Another AP story quoted Glenn Cowan (a story picked up here, here, here, here, here and here):

One American election observer said the delay in announcing results was fueling rumors and allegations that threaten to poison the atmosphere at a time when Afghans need to come together to deal with the problems facing their country.

Glenn Cowan, the co-founder of the U.S.-funded observer group Democracy International, said announcing results more quickly would serve as a "pressure valve release."

"Instead what you get is a buildup," Cowan said. "What’s very interesting to us is that we don’t know very much more about this election today than we did on Wednesday. The paucity of information is really incredible. You’ve had no election returns whatsoever."

The Sunday Herald quotes Glenn Cowan in an uncredited piece:

"I can’t think of an election that was this opaque, where no-one seems to have a good sense of how many people voted, whether they felt restricted or not in their ability to vote, what the breakdown between men and women was, what the support of various candidates was," said Glenn Cowan, a principal with Democracy International. "All that information tends to act as a pressure release. You’re not getting that here."

Brian Katulis, our chief spokesman, writes on the AfPak Channel at Foreign Policy:

As a member of an international observer delegation organized by Democracy International, I’ve been asked questions that simply can’t be answered at this point, because no one has enough information to know what actually transpired in Thursday’s elections.

NPR’s Corey Flintoff quotes Eric Bjornlund:

"The security challenges are very significant," says Eric Bjornlund of Democracy International, an election monitoring group based in Bethesda, Md., that has 62 observers in Afghanistan.

The Khaleej Times picks up a Reuters wire story quoting Glenn Cowan:

Independent election observers like election monitoring group Democracy International urged a quick end to the counting.

“I think it is unfortunate that the IEC has decided to withhold the vote count as long as they apparently intend to,” said Glenn Cowan, a Democracy International governance expert.

“While we understand this is a difficult environment in which to hold an election, at the same time the political environment is uncertain,” he said in comments emailed to Reuters, adding an early release of results would help relieve pressure.

The AFP’s Bronwen Roberts quotes Glenn Cowan in a story picked up by The Jakarta Globe:

Other observers have raised concern about the length of time before the results are announced, warning this might stoke tensions. "One way to release that kind of political tension is to provide the public with information about election returns," said Glenn Cowan from US-based election monitors Democracy International.