Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Forensics of Election Fraud
  • Cited by 140
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
February 2010
Print publication year:
2009
Online ISBN:
9780511626807
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626807
Subjects:
Russian and East European Government, Politics and Policy, Politics and International Relations, Comparative Politics
Information

Book description

This volume offers a number of forensic indicators of election fraud applied to official election returns, and tests and illustrates their application in Russia and Ukraine. Included are the methodology's econometric details and theoretical assumptions. The applications to Russia include the analysis of all federal elections between 1996 and 2007 and, for Ukraine, between 2004 and 2007. Generally, we find that fraud has metastasized within the Russian polity during Putin's administration with upwards of 10 million or more suspect votes in both the 2004 and 2007 balloting, whereas in Ukraine, fraud has diminished considerably since the second round of its 2004 presidential election where between 1.5 and 3 million votes were falsified. The volume concludes with a consideration of data from the United States to illustrate the dangers of the application of our methods without due consideration of an election's substantive context and the characteristics of the data at hand.

Reviews

“The Forensics of Election Fraud by Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin presents a novel, creative and powerful methodology to detect the possibility of vote fraud using aggregate precinct data from several elections. Their approach is to detect patterns that flag vote fraud. They do not use standard statistical methodology because it is not appropriate for their problem but instead their method presents evidence that may be due to fraud. I consider this book to be one of the best three book manuscripts in political methodology that I have ever read. I believe that it will be considered to be a masterpiece in the field.”
-Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas at Austin

“This book is a milestone accomplishment: original, compelling and of utmost and immediate policy relevance. It brings the latest in social science theory and methodology to bear on the detection of electoral fraud in post-communist states. As a control, it then applies the techniques to US elections. The result is a seminal forensics toolkit for methodologists and policy makers alike.”
-George Breslauer, University of California at Berkeley

“The Forensics of Election Fraud is powerful, persuasive, and vigorously written. The book is important, not only for its substantive findings about Russia and Ukraine, but, perhaps even more, for the ingenious methodology its authors have devised for uncovering large-scale vote fraud. One of their major findings is that in recent years in Russia, the practice of vote fraud has spread from a relatively small number of ethnic republics, which are dominated by authoritarian leaders, to a much larger number of regions. So by the time of the 2004 presidential election and the 2007 Duma election, fraud was widespread. They also argue that the 2008 presidential election was so heavily manipulated that it is not worth applying their methods to it. Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin also analyze fraud in the famous 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, where massive falsifications provoked the ‘Orange Revolution.’ They show the very different patterns of voting from the (corrupted) run-off election in November 2004 to the (largely free and fair) new run-off in December, which followed the massive popular protest over election falsification and the world-wide condemnation of the attempt to steal the election. This book makes a major contribution to the literature on the methods by which authoritarian rulers manipulate election outcomes, and offers an ingenious set of tools for detecting them.”
-Thomas Remington, Emory University

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Contents

Contents
References
References
Bailey, Delia. 2008. “Caught in the Act: Recent Federal Election Fraud Cases,” in Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Hyde, Susan D., Election Fraud. Washington, DC Google Scholar: Brookings Press.
Beber, Bernd, and Scacco, Alexandra. 2008 Google Scholar. “What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud Using New Data from Nigeria,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Berezkin, Andrei V., Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1999. “The Urban-Rural Divide in the Russian Electorate and the Effect of Distance from Urban Centers,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 40 Google Scholar(6): 395–406.
Berezkin, Andrei V., Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2003. “Location and Political Influence,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 44 Google Scholar(3): 169–83.
Chambers, R. L., and Steel, D. G.. 2001. “Simple Methods for Ecological Inference in 2×2 Tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 164 CrossRef | Google Scholar (part 1): 175–92.
Chiang, Lichun, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2008 Google Scholar. “The Search for Election Fraud and the American Gene in Taiwan's Democracy,” working paper, Humanities & Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology.
Colton, Timothy, and McFaul, Michael. 2003. Popular Choice and Managed Democracy, Washington, DC Google Scholar: Brookings Press.
,Democratic National Committee. 2005. Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio. Washington, DC Google Scholar: DNC.
Duncan, O. D., and Davis, B.. 1953. “An Alternative to Ecological Correlation,” American Sociological Review, 18 CrossRef | Google Scholar: 663–66.
Filippov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1996. “Fraud or Fiction: Who Stole What in Russia's December 1993 Elections,” Demokratizatsiya, 5 Google Scholar (1): 36–52.
Hall, Thad E., and Wang, Tova Andrea. 2008. “International Principles for Election Integrity,” in Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Hyde, Susan D., Election Fraud. Washington, DC Google Scholar: Brookings Press.
Hardle, W. 1990. Applied Nonparametric Regression Analysis. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Herron, Erik S., with Johnson, Paul E.. 2003 Google Scholar. “‘It Doesn't Matter Who Votes, but Who Counts the Votes: Assessing Fraud in Ukraine's 2002 Parliamentary Elections,” paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Hardle, W., and Mammen, E.. 1993. “Comparing Nonparametric versus Parametric Regression Fits,” The Annals of Statistics, 21 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4): 1926–47.
Hinich, Melvin, Khmelko, Valerii, Klochko, Marianna, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2008. “A Coalition Lost Then Found: A Spatial Analysis of Ukraine's 2006 and 2007 Parliamentary Elections,” Post Soviet Affairs, 24 CrossRef | Google Scholar (February–March): 63–96.
Key, V. O. 1942. Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. New York Google Scholar: Crowell.
Keyssar, Alexander. 2000. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York Google Scholar: Basic Books.
Lehoucq, Fabrice. 2003. “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types and Consequences,” American Review of Political Science, 6 CrossRef | Google Scholar: 233–56.
Liu, R. Y. 1988. “Bootstrap Procedures Under Some Non-I.I.D Models,” The Annals of Statistics, 16 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4): 1696–1708.
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2007 Google Scholar. “Elections Under Autocracy and the Strategic Game of Fraud,” working paper, Palo Alto, CA, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
McFaul, Michael. 2001. Russia's Unfinished Revolution. Ithaca, NY Google Scholar: Cornell University Press.
Moser, Robert G. 2001. Unexpected Outcomes. Pittsburgh Google Scholar: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Myagkov, Mikhail. 2003. “The 1999 Duma Election in Russia: A Step Toward Democracy or the Elites' Game?” in Reisinger, William and Hesly, Vicki, eds., Elections Parties and the Future of Russia, Cambridge Google Scholar, Cambridge University Press.
Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2001. “The Trail of Votes in Russia's 1999 Duma and 2000 Presidential Elections,” Communist and Post Communist Studies, 34 CrossRef | Google Scholar: 353–70.
Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2008 Google Scholar. “Russian Elections: An Oxymoron of Democracy,” working paper, California Institute of Technology.
Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2008. “Ukraine's 2007 Parliamentary Elections: Free and Fair or Fraud Once Again?,” Problems of Post-Communism, 55 CrossRef | Google Scholar(6):33–41.
Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 2005. “The Trail of Votes in Ukraine's 1998, 1999 and 2002 Elections,” Post-Soviet Affairs, 21 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1): 56–71.
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitry. 2007. “The Disappearance of Fraud: The Forensics of Ukraine's 2006 Parliamentary Elections,” Post Soviet Affairs, 23 CrossRef | Google Scholar(June–September): 218–39.
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitry. 2005. “Fraud or Fairytales: Russia and Ukraine's Electoral Experience,” Post Soviet Affairs, 21 CrossRef | Google Scholar(April–June): 91–131.
Mikhail, Myagkov, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Oleg, Smirnov. 2005 Google Scholar. “The Trail of Votes in Russia's 2000–2004 Presidential Elections,” working paper, Dept. Political Science, University of Oregon.
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Sobyanin, Alexander. 1997. “The Russian Electorate, 1991–1996,” Post Soviet Affairs, 13 Google Scholar(2): 134–66.
Myagkov, Mikhail, Sitnikov, V., and Shakin, Dimitri. 2005. “The Russian Electoral Landscape, 2000–2004,” working paper, Institute for Open Economy, Moscow Google Scholar.
Myagkov, Mikhail, Shakin, Dimitry, and Shukgin, Sergey. 2007 Google Scholar. “Uncovering the Trail of Votes: A Solution for the Ecological Bias Problem,” paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 2007.
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1995. “Reexamining Russia: Institutions and Incentives,” Journal of Democracy, 6 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2): 46–60.
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1996. “Russia's Party System: Is Russian Federalism Viable,” Post Soviet Affairs, 12 Google Scholar(3): 195–217.
Riker, William H. 1965. Democracy in the United States, 2nd ed. New York Google Scholar: Macmillan.
Rossiter, Clinton. 1966. 1787: The Grand Convention. New York Google Scholar: Macmillian.
Schedler, Andreas. 2002. “The Menu of Manipulation,” Journal of Democracy, 13 CrossRef | Google Scholar(April): 36–50.
Shvetsova, Olga. 2003. “Resolving the Problem of Pre-election Coordination,” in Reisinger, William and Hesly, Vicki, eds., Elections Parties and the Future of Russia. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Sitnikov, Alexi, and Shakin, Dmitry. 2005 Google Scholar. “Shifting Preferences and Changing Parties: Russian Electorate from 1995 to 2004,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Sobyanin, Alexander, and Suchovolsky, V.. 1993 Google Scholar. “Elections and the Referendum December 12, 1993 in Russia: Political Results, Perspectives and Trustworthiness of the Results,” unpublished report to the Administration of the President of the RF, Moscow.
Sobyanin, Alexander, Gelman, E., and Kaiunov, O.. 1994. “The Political Climate of Russia's Regions: Voters and Deputies, 1991–3,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, 21 CrossRef | Google Scholar: 63–84.
Wilson, Andrew. 1997. Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.