Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-b9rrs Total loading time: 0.352 Render date: 2022-12-06T20:56:31.106Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Deliver the Vote! Micromotives and Macrobehavior in Electoral Fraud

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

ASHLEA RUNDLETT*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
MILAN W. SVOLIK*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Ashlea Rundlett is Graduate Student, Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (rundlet2@illinois.edu).
Milan W. Svolik is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University (milan.svolik@yale.edu).

Abstract

Most electoral fraud is not conducted centrally by incumbents but rather locally by a multitude of political operatives. How does an incumbent ensure that his agents deliver fraud when needed and as much as is needed? We address this and related puzzles in the political organization of electoral fraud by studying the perverse consequences of incentive conflicts between incumbents and their local agents. These incentive conflicts result in a herd dynamic among the agents that tends to either oversupply or undersupply fraud, rarely delivering the amount of fraud that would be optimal from the incumbent’s point of view. Our analysis of the political organization of electoral fraud explains why even popular incumbents often preside over seemingly unnecessary fraud, why fraud sometimes fails to deliver victories, and it predicts that the extent of fraud should be increasing in both the incumbent’s genuine support and reported results across precincts. A statistical analysis of anomalies in precinct-level results from the 2011–2012 Russian legislative and presidential elections provides preliminary support for our key claims.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahlquist, John S., Mayery, Kenneth R., and Jackman, Simon. 2013. “Alien Abduction and Voter Impersonation in the 2012 US General Election: Evidence from a Survey List Experiment.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin and Stanford University.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Hyde, Susan D., eds. 2008. Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Asuka, Joseph, Brierley, Sarah, Golden, Miriam, Kramon, Eric, and Ofosu, George. 2014. “Protecting the Polls: The Effect of Observers on Election Fraud.” Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Beber, Bernd, and Scacco, Alexandra. 2012. “What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud.” Political Analysis 20 (2): 211–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, Allyson Lucinda. 2013. “The Territorial Logic of Electoral Manipulation in an Electoral Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript, CIDE.Google Scholar
Bezdek, Robert Raymond. 1973. “Electoral Oppositions in Mexico: Emergence, Suppression, and Impact on Political Processes.” Ph.D. thesis. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Birch, Sarah. 2011. Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles, and Svolik, Milan W.. 2013. “The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government: Institutions and Power-sharing in Dictatorships.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 300–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2010. “Regime Change and Revolutionary Entrepreneurs.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 446–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie, and Wolchik, Sharon L.. 2011. Defeating Authoritarian Leaders in Postcommunist Countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, and Trivedi, Pravin K.. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantú, Francisco. 2014. “Identifying Irregularities in Mexican Local Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 936–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantú, Francisco, and Saiegh, Sebastián M.. 2011. “Fraudulent Democracy? An Analysis of Argentina’s Infamous Decade Using Supervised Machine Learning.” Political Analysis 19 (4): 409–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, Hans, and van Damme, Eric. 1993. “Global Games and Equilibrium Selection.” Econometrica 61 (5): 9891018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Jorge G. 2000. Perpetuating Power: How Mexican Presidents were Chosen. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Chernykh, Svitlana, and Svolik, Milan W.. 2015. “Third-Party Actors and the Success of Democracy: How Electoral Commissions, Courts, and Observers Shape Incentives for Election Manipulation and Post-Election Protest.” Journal of Politics 77 (2): 407–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragu, Tiberiu, and Polborn, Mattias. 2013. “The Administrative Foundation of the Rule of Law.” The Journal of Politics 75 (4): 1038–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, Chris. 2013. “Information Manipulation, Coordination, and Regime Change.” Review of Economic Studies 80 (4): 1422–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egorov, Georgy, and Sonin, Konstantin. 2012. “Incumbency Advantages in Non-Democracies.” Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University and New Economic School.Google Scholar
Enikolopov, Ruben, Korovkin, Vasily, Petrova, Maria, Sonin, Konstantin, and Zakharov, Alexei. 2013. “Field Experiment Estimate of Electoral Fraud in Russian Parliamentary Elections.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2): 448–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fearon, James D. 2011. “Self-enforcing Democracy.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (4): 1661–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy, Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2014. “Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace.” World Politics 66 (2): 195228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Przeworski, Adam. 2011. “Holding onto Power by Any Means? The Origins of Competitive Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, Emory University and New York University.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, Scott. 2012. “Electoral Fraud in Russia: Report from the Russian Blogosphere.” The Monkey Cage. January 27, 2012.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, Scott, and Simpser, Alberto. 2015. “Electoral Manipulation as Bureaucratic Control.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 212–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Kenneth F. 2007. Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmstrom, Bengt, and Milgrom, Paul. 1987. “Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives.” Econometrica 55 (2): 303–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2008. “The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” World Politics 60 (1): 3763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2011. The Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D., and Marinov, Nikolay. 2009. “Does Information Facilitate Self-Enforcing Democracy? The Role of International Election Monitoring.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
Ichino, Nahomi, and Schüdeln, Matthias. 2012. “Deterring or Displacing Electoral Irregularities? Spillover Effects of Observers in a Randomized Field Experiment in Ghana.” Journal of Politics 74 (1): 292307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Roger G., Schroder, Shayla D., and A. Rajika Mallawaaratchy. 1995. “Statistical Artifacts in the Ratio of Discrete Quantities.” The American Statistician 49 (3): 285–91.Google Scholar
Judah, Ben. 2013. Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell in and Out of Love with Vladimir Putin. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kalinin, Kirill. 2013. “Unifying the Concepts of Electoral Fraud and Preference Falsification: Case of Russia.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kalinin, Kirill, and Mebane, Walter R.. 2011. “Understanding Electoral Frauds Through Evolution of Russian Federalism: From ‘Bargaining Loyalty’ to ‘Signaling Loyalty’.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kallina, Edmund F., Jr. 1988. Courthouse Over White House: Chicago and the Presidential Election of 1960. Orlando: University of Central Florida Press.Google Scholar
Klimek, Peter, Yegorov, Yuri, Hanel, Rudolf, and Thurner, Stefan. 2012. “Statistical Detection of Systematic Election Irregularities.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (41): 16469–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobak, Dmitry, Shpilkin, Sergey, and Pshenichnikov, Maxim S.. 2012. “Statistical Anomalies in 2011-2012 Russian Elections Revealed by 2D Correlation Analysis.” Unpublished manuscript, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Kobak, Dmitry, Shpilkin, Sergey, and Pshenichnikov, Maxim. 2014. “Integer Percentages as Electoral Falsification Fingerprints.” Unpublished manuscript, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. “Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989.” World Politics 44: 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larreguy, Horacio A., Olea, Cesar E. Montiel, and Querubin, Pablo. 2014. “The Role of Labor Unions as Political Machines: Evidence from the Case of the Mexican Teachers’ Union.” Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University and New York University.Google Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice. 2003. “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A.. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Andrew T. 2012. “Elections, Fraud, and Election Monitoring in the Shadow of Revolution.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7 (3): 249–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Andrew T. 2013. “An Informational Theory of Noncompetitive Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Bravo, Monica. 2014. “The Role of Local Officials in New Democracies: Evidence from Indonesia.” American Economic Review 104 (4): 1244–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. 2013. “Using Vote Count’s Digits to Diagnose Strategies and Frauds: Russia.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Mebane, Walter R., and Kalinin, Kirill. 2009. “Comparative Election Fraud Detection.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Miller, Michael K. “Elections, Information, and Policy Responsiveness in Autocratic Regimes.” Comparative Political Studies. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Morris, Stephen, and Shin, Hyun Song. 2003. “Global Games: Theory and Applications.” In Advances in Economics and Econometrics, eds. Dewatripont, Mathias, Hansen, Lars Peter, and Turnovsky, Stephen J.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 56114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitri. 2009. The Forensics of Election Fraud. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 2011. “Force and Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Reuter, Ora John, and Robertson, Graeme. 2012. “Subnational Appointments in Authoritarian Regimes: Evidence from Russian Gubernatorial Appointments.” Journal of Politics 74 (4): 1023–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozenas, Arturas. 2013. “Office Insecurity and the Informational Foundations of Non-Competitive Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Rozenas, Arturas. 2014. “Inferring Fraud from Seemingly Irregular Vote Proportions.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Sabato, Larry. 2013. The Kennedy Half-Century: the Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2013. The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadmehr, Mehdi, and Bernhardt, Dan. 2011. “Collective Action with Uncertain Payoffs: Coordination, Public Signals, and Punishment Dilemmas.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 829–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, Alberto. 2013. Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice, and Implication. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjoberg, Fredrik M. 2013. “Making Voters Count: Evidence from Field Experiments about the Efficacy of Domestic Election Observation.” Unpublished manuscript, Harriman Institute Working Paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Smith, Alastair, de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, and LaGatta, Tom. 2013. “Group Incentives and Rational Voting.” Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C., Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2011. The Return: Russia’s Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2007. “Enough! Electoral Fraud, Collective Action Problems, and Post-Communist Colored Revolutions.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (4): 535–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wintrobe, Ronald. 1998. The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Rundlett and Svolik supplementary material

Rundlett and Svolik supplementary material 1

Download Rundlett and Svolik supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 7 MB
69
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Deliver the Vote! Micromotives and Macrobehavior in Electoral Fraud
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Deliver the Vote! Micromotives and Macrobehavior in Electoral Fraud
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Deliver the Vote! Micromotives and Macrobehavior in Electoral Fraud
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *