The decision of the Central Electoral Commission not to hold repeat voting in three polling stations where election results had been declared invalid resulted in the unlawful distribution of parliamentary mandates. This view was expressed by political scientist and former Speaker of Armenia’s National Assembly Tigran Torosyan.
Hypocrisy and a Crime
Torosyan recalled that when announcing the election results, the CEC briefly stated that repeat voting would not take place in those polling stations. Later, the commission published a separate justification for its decision, which he considers legally unfounded.
“An attempt is being made to explain why repeat voting should not have been held. The Constitutional Court and even the Venice Commission are being cited. But reality is completely different. Morally, this is hypocrisy; legally, it is a crime,” he stated.
What the Electoral Code Requires
According to Torosyan, the Electoral Code clearly defines what should happen when voting results at a polling station are declared invalid.
In his interpretation, if the invalidated votes are capable of affecting the final election outcome, a new vote must be held in order to eliminate the consequences of the violations.
He argues that the CEC presents the matter as if repeat voting is impossible in principle, whereas the law addresses only one issue — whether it is mandatory in a particular case.
“The Code clearly states that if these votes can affect the election results, repeat voting must be conducted. Therefore, the only remaining question is what exactly constitutes an election result,” he noted.
Torosyan reminded that Article 95 of the Electoral Code defines the substance of election results. According to him, the outcome of an election consists of two key elements: the validity of the election itself and the distribution of mandates.
In his view, the violation occurred precisely during the mandate allocation process.
“If mandates are distributed in violation of the law, then the election results themselves have already been compromised,” he said.
Prosperous Armenia Could Have Entered Parliament
According to Torosyan, the Prosperous Armenia Party lacked approximately 159 votes to overcome the four-percent electoral threshold.
At the same time, around 3,600 voters cast ballots in the three disputed polling stations.
“It is obvious that obtaining 159 votes out of 3,600 would not have been difficult. Moreover, during the previous vote the party received around 100 votes in one station and around 130 in another. Even if those results had simply been repeated, Prosperous Armenia would have crossed the threshold,” he said.
Torosyan believes this fact alone demonstrates that the votes from those three polling stations could have directly influenced the final election outcome.
Questions About CEC Vote Counts
The former parliamentary speaker also addressed the preliminary vote count, arguing that serious discrepancies emerged after complaints were reviewed.
According to him, it was initially announced that Prosperous Armenia had narrowly failed to pass the electoral threshold. Later, however, it became clear that a number of votes cast for the party had not been counted.
“It turned out that in some cases the Central Electoral Commission entered fewer votes into the final count than were recorded in the official polling-station protocols. After the review, it became evident that the party enters parliament,” he stated.
Only One Political Force Was Harmed
According to Torosyan, the consequences of the disputed decision affected only the Prosperous Armenia Party.
He noted that for other political forces the results from those polling stations would not have significantly influenced mandate allocation, while for Prosperous Armenia they were decisive.
“As a result, this party was deprived of the opportunity to receive parliamentary mandates. In other words, the distribution of mandates took place unlawfully,” he stated.
Torosyan insists that the Electoral Code unequivocally required the Central Electoral Commission to schedule repeat voting because the invalidated polling stations could have altered the final composition of parliament.