It is now better understood that it is not worthwhile for all elections to be observed by international organizations, in particular the intergovernmental organizations. It may be the case that elections are run under conditions where the overall conclusions of observation are inevitable from the outset. If, for example, the conditions for standing as a candidate are so exclusive that much or all of the real opposition is eliminated before the elections start, the rest of the electoral process may have limited significance, as in the presidential election in Iran in 2005. Iran is also an example of a case of elected bodies being overshadowed by the powers of the non-elected Council of Guardians, and where international observation, if conducted, could have had the effect of rubber-stamping a result in a situation where even a correctly conducted election did not support a multiparty democracy.

However, even though the conditions for an election are such that an assessment of the legal framework may conclude that the playing field cannot be level, observation may still be organized, not least to show the civil society of the country concerned that there is a focus on the elections, and there may be a long-term objective in building up capacity for the conduct of fair elections in the country. It has therefore been seen to be worthwhile to observe elections in Belarus, Pakistan or Zimbabwe, even though the conditions at the outset might have been assessed to be far from ideal.