Electoral fraud and the paradox of political competition

Abstract

Why are some elections more fraudulent than others? While much work has been devoted to understanding the structural conditions under which election quality can suffer, little is currently understood about election-specific dynamics that shape the conduct of polling day. This study assesses the impact of a more proximate determinant of election day fraud: the anticipated closeness of the race. In doing so, the paper sheds light on a potential paradox of political competition; highly competitive elections are seen as a healthy sign of democratic functioning, yet they may also lead to a reduction in the integrity of the process. Using novel pre-election polling data for 109 presidential elections around the world between 1996 and 2016, results suggest that ex ante closeness incites electoral fraud. In democratic contexts, closer electionsand elections in which the incumbent's prospects are ambiguousare associated with greater levels of ballot box manipulation as attempts are made to get over the finish line. This is the case largely irrespective of whether the incumbent is marginally ahead or behind in the race, suggesting that it is the mere uncertainty of the election result that can encourage election day fraud.

Unmasking the Tape of Electoral Fraud in Grassroots Nigeria: Evidence from the Management of the Local Council Elections by the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs)

“…The perpetrator will want it hidden from the public scrutiny while the victim wants it popularised (Lehoucq, 2003). Dawson (2020) while totally accepted the above interpretation of electoral fraud by Lehoucq (2003), he expanded the concept as a broader term than the previous conceptualisation and thus, sees electoral fraud as "as a temporally and substantively distinct form of electoral manipulation". Factors responsible for the fraud include the intensity of the competition, absence or low presence of observers and civil societies, availability of resources to be deployed for the act and level of political culture and voters' behaviour (Dawson, 2020).…”

“…Unfortunately, the elites in democracies continue to device some scintillating moves that aid them in manouevering their way into power at all cost including electoral fraud. Although, many individuals will mistake electoral fraud as an affair that is the exclusive practice of emerging democracies, the phenomenon is reported worldwide including the advanced democracies of America and England (Dawson, 2020). Politicians in their bid to secure power at all cost sometimes sacrifice democratic values on the altar of fraud and subversion of the standard practice (Nwanna, 2010).…”

The Enigma of Ethics: Code of Ethics Enforcement on Covid-19 Health Protocol

“…Various violations of the Regional election -outside of the COVID-19 health protocol violations-such as administrative irregularities in the form of errors in counting ballots, inaccurate voter lists, manipulation of the number of ballots, intentional destruction of ballots (Linebarger & Salehyan, 2020); encourage shared expectations to uphold ethical values in a series of Regional election processes. Upholding the truth through the principle of integrity requires broad consensus from various components in order to create ethical infrastructure (Dawson, 2020). In Indonesia, the functionalization and infrastructurization of ethics are carried out by bringing up the novelty of the election management organ; which is called the Honorary Council for Election Organizers (hereinafter referred to as DKPP).…”

The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda

“…In this study, we use data from the British Election Study Internet Panel (BESIP) 2 . This is one of very few large-scale representative surveys to include explicit questions about the perceived fairness of elections since the widely used Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) surveys from the late 1990s 3 (for a discussion of the CSES data collection, along with countries covered and perceived fairness values, see the Appendix of [14]; and [15]) 4 . BESIP is also important for including explicitly prospective questions about the expected fairness of elections, which allows for a true evaluation of the impacts of fairness beliefs, unaffected by the winner-loser and outcome favourability effects discussed above.…”

“…This sometimes requires facilitation to aid citizens who would otherwise find it difficult to partake in the electoral process, such as disabled citizens who may face barriers to participation [1,2]. Inclusivity also presumes that electoral processes are conducted fairly, without manipulation and with accurate reporting of electoral results [3,4]. Moreover, an election may fail to be inclusive if it imposes differential psychological barriers on citizens-such as through differential beliefs about whether the election itself will be free and fair.…”