The Year in Elections, 2014

Norris, Pippa; Coma, Ferrán Martínez i; Grömping, Max

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2577376

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results suggest that, compared with these countries, US elections raised the greatest concerns among experts about electoral laws, voter registration, the process of drawing district boundaries, as well as the regulation of campaign finance. 58 Finally, are these problems perceived just by technical election experts, or do these flaws matter also for ordinary citizens and the general public? Evidence from the sixth wave of the World Values Survey demonstrates that electoral integrity often has important consequences for public trust and confidence in the electoral process and institutions, support for democracy, civic engagement, and political representation.…”

Section: Iii: Comparing Electoral Integrity Within and Across Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to expert estimates developed by EIP, the 2012 and 2014 elections in the United States displayed the worst performance among all Western democracies. 1 Without urgent reform, these problems risk damaging the legitimacy of American elections-further weakening public confidence in the major political parties, Congress, and the US government, depressing voter turnout, and exacerbating the risks of contentious outcomes fought through court appeals and public protests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

Norris¹

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synopsis:Concern about how American elections work has risen since 2000 and has been exacerbated by events during the 2016 campaign. To understand these issues, the first section examines several major challenges facing U.S. elections, including deepening party polarization over electoral procedures, the vulnerability of electronic records to hacking, and the impact of deregulating campaign spending, compounding the lack of professional standards of electoral management. For a broader perspective, section 2 clarifies the core concept and measure of 'electoral integrity', the key yardstick used in this report to evaluate the performance of American contests. Section 3 compares cross-national evidence from expert surveys, finding that recent US elections have the worst performance among two-dozen Western democracies. Section 4 considers pragmatic reforms designed to strengthen U.S. electoral laws and procedures, recommending expanding secure and convenient registration and balloting facilities, improving the independence and professional standards of electoral management, monitoring performance, and strengthening impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. The conclusion summarizes the core argument and the reforms.

show abstract

Section: Iii: Comparing Electoral Integrity Within and Across Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

Norris¹

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Statutorily independent EMBs were held up as the 'gold standard' because they were thought to reduce the opportunities for partisan actors to promote their own interests (Pastor 1999;Ugues 2014). However, when studies then investigated the effects of formal-legal independence using large n, cross-national studies the evidence was mixed (Birch 2008, Norris 2015, Lindberg and van Ham 2015. More recent research has identified the challenges that election officials face delivering elections (James, 2014), the effects of funding (Clark 2014(Clark , 2015 and the effect of policy instruments used within EMBs (Alvarez et al 2012b(Alvarez et al , 2012aGoggin et al 2012;James 2013).…”

Section: [Insert Table 1 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cases of severe electoral mismanagement, such as delays in the count, inaccurate or incomplete voter registers, severe queues at polling stations, flawed ballot paper design and faulty equipment have been found in many countries. Cross-national datasets demonstrate considerable variation in the quality of the delivery of elections worldwide (Norris et al 2016). But the causes of poor organisational performance in electoral management and the viability of the available fixes have been systematically overlooked by scholars despite interest by policy-makers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of centralising electoral management board design^*

James

2016

Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public administration of elections frequently fails. Variation in the performance of electoral management boards around the world has been demonstrated, illustrated by delays in the count, inaccurate or incomplete voter registers, or severe queues at polling stations. Centralising the management of the electoral process has often been proposed as a solution. There has been little theorisation and no empirical investigations into the effects that centralising an already decentralised system would have, however. This article addresses this lacuna by conceptualising centralisation through the literature on bureaucratic control and discretion. It then empirically investigates the effects through a case study of centralisation in two UK referendums. Semi-structured interviews were used with those who devised the policy instrument and those who were subject to it. The introduction of central directions had some of the desired effects such as producing more consistent services and eliminating errors. It also had side effects, however, such as reducing economic efficiency in some areas and overlooking local knowledge. Furthermore, the reforms caused a decline of staff morale, job satisfaction and souring of relations among stakeholder organisations. The process of making organisational change therefore warrants closer attention by policy makers and future scholarship on electoral integrity. Dr. Toby S. James University of East Anglia, UK t.s.james@uea.ac.uk www.tobsjames.com Accepted manuscript to be published in Policy Studies.Improving the quality of public administration is a pressing concern for policy makers worldwide. A surprisingly fresh area of concern for national and international organisations has been the public administration of elections ( There have been no published academic studies on the effects that centralising electoral management might have, however. This article uses the literature from public administration on bureaucratic control and discretion to theorise the likely effects of centralisation. It then tests the theoretical expectations with a case study of where centralisation has occurred. In two UK referendums in 2011 the central Electoral Management Board (EMB), the Electoral Commission, gave centralised directions to local officials. Long existing systems of local management were therefore overridden. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with those officials who designed the policy mechanism as well as those who were subjected to it to identify its effects. The article finds that the introduction of 'command and control' directions from the centre enabled more consistent service provision and led to the early identification and remedy of errors by administrators. However, it also led to side-effects such as reducing efficiency in some areas and overlooking of local knowledge. Furthermore, the reforms caused a decline of staff morale, job satisfaction and soured of relations amongst stakeholder organisations. These are known to be important drivers of organisational performa...

show abstract

“…Faulty equipment and poorly designed 'butterfly' ballot papers in the 2000 US Presidential election (Wand et al 2001), queues at polling stations at the UK 2010 general election (Electoral Commission 2010) and lost ballot papers in the Australian 2013 Senate elections all caught headlines (Lion 2013). New cross-national datasets have demonstrated considerable variation in the performance of electoral authorities in advanced democracies around the world (Norris, i Coma, and Gromping 2016). The consequence of these problems can be declining citizen confidence in the integrity of the electoral process (Claassen et al 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost of elections: the effects of public sector austerity on electoral integrity and voter engagement

James

Jervier

2017

Public Money & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns have been raised that insufficient funding has been affecting the delivery of elections in many countries. This paper presents a case study of England and Wales from 2010–2016. It demonstrates that many local authorities saw major real terms cuts and were increasingly over-budget. Those subject to cuts were less likely to undertake public engagement activities. State efforts to encourage voter participation may therefore be a casualty of austerity

show abstract

The Year in Elections, 2014

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

The effects of centralising electoral management board design^*

The cost of elections: the effects of public sector austerity on electoral integrity and voter engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Year in Elections, 2014

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them)

The effects of centralising electoral management board design*

The cost of elections: the effects of public sector austerity on electoral integrity and voter engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The effects of centralising electoral management board design^*