Key Findings: • The administration of the poll was generally smooth and most regulations were followed: 71% of observers reported that the voting process was efficiently handled. Infractions were observed in many polling stations, though probably not on a scale that would significantly shift the overall result of the election. • Regulations on the counting process were not strictly adhered to. At 30% of polling stations the counting process was not conducted in front of the public, though to some extent this problem was mitigated by the presence of party agents, who provided some measure of oversight. • Some polling officials carried out their duties competently and neutrally, more so than expected. However, when complaints arose from voters, parties, or candidates, they appeared unwilling or unable to handle such problems. • Concern about the conduct of advance voting is widespread. How it has been carried out varies significantly from place to place. Voters have expressed worry that the secrecy of their advance votes was not guaranteed. • Election-related violence appears to have been very limited, both on election day and during the pre-election period. • In general the pre-election environment was constrained in significant ways: through a restrictive legal framework, by a politicised Union Election Commission (UEC), and within a government controlled media environment. But at the same time, the election represented an opportunity to voice more alternative political views which parties took advantage of, particularly in urban areas. • The abuse of state resources was one of the most widespread problems during the campaign period. 97% of observers reported that the state?s financial and material resources were not equally used by political parties and candidates for campaign activities. This is primarily a reflection of the longstanding close relationship between USDP and the government. The extent to which voters were actually swayed by the USDP?s greater resources is not yet known. • Voter education was severely lacking. The average voter in Myanmar was not at all well informed about parties and candidates, how to vote, what they were voting for, or what their rights as voters are. The UEC?s voter education materials were politically neutral but their campaign was far too short to be effective. This contributed to the disengagement of some voters and also left them more susceptible to coercion.