Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2012


Bernd Beber
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012. email: alex.scacco@nyu.edu
Alexandra Scacco
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012. email: alex.scacco@nyu.edu
Corresponding

Abstract

Is it possible to detect manipulation by looking only at electoral returns? Drawing on work in psychology, we exploit individuals' biases in generating numbers to highlight suspicious digit patterns in reported vote counts. First, we show that fair election procedures produce returns where last digits occur with equal frequency, but laboratory experiments indicate that individuals tend to favor some numerals over others, even when subjects have incentives to properly randomize. Second, individuals underestimate the likelihood of digit repetition in sequences of random integers, so we should observe relatively few instances of repeated numbers in manipulated vote tallies. Third, laboratory experiments demonstrate a preference for pairs of adjacent digits, which suggests that such pairs should be abundant on fraudulent return sheets. Fourth, subjects avoid pairs of distant numerals, so those should appear with lower frequency on tainted returns. We test for deviations in digit patterns using data from Sweden's 2002 parliamentary elections, Senegal's 2000 and 2007 presidential elections, and previously unavailable results from Nigeria's 2003 presidential election. In line with observers' expectations, we find substantial evidence that manipulation occurred in Nigeria as well as in Senegal in 2007.


Type
Regular Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Edited by R. Michael Alvarez

Authors' note: Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.


References

Agence France Presse. 2000. Mbeki congratulates Wade for winning Senegal election. Published March 22, 2000.Google Scholar
Agence France Presse. 2007. Catholic church joins critics of Nigeria poll amid fresh calls for re-run. Published April 25, 2007.Google Scholar
Al-Marzouki, Sanaa, Evans, Stephen, Marshall, Tom, and Roberts, Ian. 2005. Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. British Medical Journal 331: 267–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Hyde, Susan D., eds. 2008. Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Beber, Bernd, and Scacco, Alexandra. 2011. Replication data for: What the numbers say: A digit-based test for election fraud. IQSS Dataverse Network [Distributor] V1 [Version]. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17151 (accessed February 25, 2012).Google Scholar
Boland, Philip J., and Hutchinson, Kevin. 2000. Student selection of random digits. Statistician 49: 519–29.Google Scholar
Budescu, David V. 1987. A Markov model for generation of random binary sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 13: 2539.Google Scholar
Cantú, Francisco, and Saiegh, Sebastián M. 2011. Fraudulent democracy? An analysis of Argentina's Infamous Decade using supervised machine learning. Political Analysis 19: 409–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapanis, Alphonse. 1953. Random-number guessing behavior. American Psychologist 8: 332.Google Scholar
Corder, J. Kevin, and Wolbrecht, Christina. 2006. Political context and the turnout of new women voters after suffrage. Journal of Politics 68: 3449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckert, Joseph, Myagkov, Mikhail, and Ordeshook, Peter C. 2011. Benford's law and the detection of election fraud. Political Analysis 19: 245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, Andreas. 2007. Not the first digit! Using Benford's law to detect fraudulent scientific data. Journal of Applied Statistics 34: 321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dlugosz, Stephan, and Müller-Funk, Ulrich. 2009. The value of the last digit: Statistical fraud detection with digit analysis. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification 3: 281–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECOWAS. 2007a. ECOWAS electoral observers in Senegal. Press release 11/2007, February 25, 2007.Google Scholar
ECOWAS. 2007b. ECOWAS observers endorse presidential election in Senegal. Press release 13/2007, February 27, 2007.Google Scholar
European Union Election Observation Mission. 2003. Nigeria 2003: Final report on the national assembly, presidential, gubernatorial, and state houses of assembly elections. http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/nigeria/rep03.pdf (accessed March 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Ichino, Nahomi, and Schündeln, Matthias. 2011. Deterring or displacing electoral irregularities? Spillover effects of observers in a randomized field experiment in Ghana. Working paper.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1998. The Baltimore case: A trial of politics, science, and character. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kew, Darren. 1999. Democrazy: Dem go craze, O: Monitoring the 1999 elections. Issue: A Journal of Opinion 27: 2933.Google Scholar
Kew, Darren. 2004. The 2003 elections: Hardly credible, but acceptable. In Crafting the new Nigeria: Confronting the challenges, ed. Rotberg, Robert I., 139–73. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Kuhl, J., and Schönpflug, W. 1974. Ordnungsverhalten, Lärmbelastung, und Persönlichkeit. Psychological Research 37: 143–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Ines, Cohn, Gabe, Michael Alvarez, R., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 2009. Detecting voter fraud in an electronic voting context: An analysis of the unlimited reelection vote in Venezuela. Online Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.Google Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. Jr. 2006. Election forensics: Vote counts and Benford's law. Working paper.Google Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. Jr. 2008. Election forensics: The second-digit Benford law's test and recent American presidential elections. In Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation, eds. Michal Alvarez, R., Hall, Thad E., Hyde, Susan D., 162–81. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. Jr. 2011. Comment on “Benford's law and the detection of election fraud.” Political Analysis 19: 269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. Jr., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2004. Robust estimation and outlier detection for overdispersed multinomial models of count data. American Journal of Political Science 48: 392411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimann, James E., and Ratnaparkhi, Makarand V. 1996. Uniform occurrence of digits for folded and mixture distributions on finite intervals. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation 25: 481506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimann, James E., Wiseman, Claire V., and Edelman, Ruth E. 1995. Data fabrication: Can people generate random digits? Accountability in Research 4: 3155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimann, James E., Dahlberg, John E., Davidian, Nancy M., and Krueger, John W. 2002. Terminal digits and the examination of questioned data. Accountability in Research 9: 7592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitry. 2005. Fraud or fairytales: Russia and Ukraine's electoral experience. Post-Soviet Affairs 21: 91131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myagkov, Misha, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitri. 2007. The disappearance of fraud: The forensics of Ukraine's 2006 parliamentary elections. Post-Soviet Affairs 23: 218–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitri, eds. 2009. The forensics of election fraud: Russia and Ukraine. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S. 2002. Perception and production of randomness. Psychological Review 109: 330–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nigrini, Mark J. 1999. I've got your number: How a mathematical phenomenon can help CPAs uncover fraud and other irregularities. Journal of Accountancy 187: 7983.Google Scholar
Preece, D. A. 1981. Distributions of final digits in data. Statistician 30: 3160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Amnon, and Budescu, David V. 1997. Randomization in individual choice behavior. Psychological Review 104: 603–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rath, Gustave J. 1966. Randomization by humans. American Journal of Psychology 79: 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuters News. 2007a. Senegal court confirms Wade reelected president. Published March 11, 2007.Google Scholar
Reuters News. 2007b. Wade party wins Senegal poll: Foes threaten protest. Published June 7, 2007.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Christin, Schräpler, Jörg-Peter, Müller, Klaus-Robert, and Wagner, Gert. 2004. Automatic identification of faked and fraudulent interviews by two different methods. German Institute for Economic Research Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Smith, Jane, and Godlee, Fiona. 2005. Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct: Journals can only do so much; institutions need to be willing to investigate. British Medical Journal 331: 245–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist. 2007. Nigeria: How to steal an election. Published April 18, 2007. http://www.economist.com/node/9032254 (accessed July 31, 2011).Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3: 430–54.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme. 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed July 31, 2011).Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan N., Shotts, Kenneth W., Sekhon, Jasjeet S., Mebane, Walter R. Jr., Herron, Michael C., and Brady, Henry E. 2001. The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review 95: 793810.Google Scholar
Watrin, Christoph, Struffert, Ralf, and Ullmann, Robert. 2008. Benford's law: An instrument for selecting tax audit targets? Review of Managerial Science 2: 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Caroline. 2005. Suspected research fraud: Difficulties of getting at the truth. British Medical Journal 331: 245–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Bank. 2011. World development indicators. http://databank.worldbank.org (accessed July 31, 2011).Google Scholar
Yule, G. Udny. 1927. On reading a scale. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 90: 570–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beber and Scacco supplementary material

Appendix A

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 45 KB

Beber and Scacco supplementary material

Appendix B

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 37 KB

Beber and Scacco supplementary material

Appendix C

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 221 KB

Beber and Scacco supplementary material

Appendix D

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 39 KB

Beber and Scacco supplementary material

Supplementary Material

[Opens in a new window]
File 32 MB

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 1151 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-xsjvs Total loading time: 4.828 Render date: 2020-12-02T14:00:50.945Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Wed Dec 02 2020 13:06:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *