Vote-buying and voter intimidation are costly, complicated, and risky ways to manage elections. Why, then, do hybrid regimes utilize such tactics rather than ballot stuffing or election falsification? Such methods to mobilize voters require the construction of patronage networks that can be used to mobilize or demobilize clients beyond the election, and to display the incumbent's organizational strength. These networks are most valuable in places where opposition groups are active; consequently direct voter pressure should be more common in competitive areas. This paper uses data from Russia's 83 regions during the 2011 election to compare patterns of extra-legal mobilization with patterns of ballot stuffing and falsification. I conclude that local political competitiveness structures the mix of electoral manipulation tactics employed.

The risk of popular protest is one of the few deterrents against election manipulation in authoritarian regimes and unconsolidated democracies, but why are some fraudulent elections met with popular protest while others are not? We use data from elections in 108 countries, from 1980 to 2004, to show that the regime’s choice of election manipulation tactics affects the likelihood of post-election protest. Leaders signal their strength and resources by manipulating elections, but some manipulation tactics send stronger signals than others. We find that opposition groups are more likely to protest when relatively cheap administrative fraud is employed, but not when more costly forms of manipulation – extra-legal mobilization and voter intimidation – are used. This study demonstrates the importance of accounting for variation in electoral manipulation tactics, and the information communicated by those tactics, in explaining post-election protest and the stability of electoral authoritarian and newly democratic regimes.

This chapter focuses on Northern Ireland, a jurisdiction within the UK acutely affected by the nature of the Brexit debate and the process. It is a contested region that is divided along ethno-national lines and still emerging from a violent conflict. Removing Northern Ireland from the EU against its wishes will have long-term consequences that remain difficult to predict. One result is a more intense discussion of the region’s place within the UK, with Irish reunification acknowledged to be a way to return to the EU. The chapter then analyses the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement which regulates the single most controversial issue in the Brexit process: namely, the Irish border question. It looks at the difficulties connected to the fragile peace process in Northern Ireland and explains the creative solution that was ultimately agreed in the withdrawal treaty to prevent the return of a hard border in the island of Ireland through regulatory alignment, while also indicating the challenges that the Protocol creates.

No abstract