Cargando…

Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations

Nowadays, a large number of countries combine formal democratic institutions with authoritarian practices. Although in these countries the ruling elites may receive considerable voter support, they often use several manipulation tools to control election outcomes. A common practice of these regimes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jimenez, Raúl, Hidalgo, Manuel, Klimek, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Association for the Advancement of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28695193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602363
_version_ 1783247500883263488
author Jimenez, Raúl
Hidalgo, Manuel
Klimek, Peter
author_facet Jimenez, Raúl
Hidalgo, Manuel
Klimek, Peter
author_sort Jimenez, Raúl
collection PubMed
description Nowadays, a large number of countries combine formal democratic institutions with authoritarian practices. Although in these countries the ruling elites may receive considerable voter support, they often use several manipulation tools to control election outcomes. A common practice of these regimes is the coercion and mobilization of large numbers of voters. This electoral irregularity is known as voter rigging, distinguishing it from vote rigging, which involves ballot stuffing or stealing. We develop a statistical test to quantify the extent to which the results of a particular election display traces of voter rigging. Our key hypothesis is that small polling stations are more susceptible to voter rigging because it is easier to identify opposing individuals, there are fewer eyewitnesses, and interested parties might reasonably expect fewer visits from election observers. We devise a general statistical method for testing whether voting behavior in small polling stations is significantly different from the behavior in their neighbor stations in a way that is consistent with the widespread occurrence of voter rigging. On the basis of a comparative analysis, the method enables third parties to conclude that an explanation other than simple variability is needed to explain geographic heterogeneities in vote preferences. We analyze 21 elections in 10 countries and find significant statistical anomalies compatible with voter rigging in Russia from 2007 to 2011, in Venezuela from 2006 to 2013, and in Uganda in 2011. Particularly disturbing is the case of Venezuela, where the smallest polling stations were decisive to the outcome of the 2013 presidential elections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5493417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher American Association for the Advancement of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54934172017-07-10 Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations Jimenez, Raúl Hidalgo, Manuel Klimek, Peter Sci Adv Research Articles Nowadays, a large number of countries combine formal democratic institutions with authoritarian practices. Although in these countries the ruling elites may receive considerable voter support, they often use several manipulation tools to control election outcomes. A common practice of these regimes is the coercion and mobilization of large numbers of voters. This electoral irregularity is known as voter rigging, distinguishing it from vote rigging, which involves ballot stuffing or stealing. We develop a statistical test to quantify the extent to which the results of a particular election display traces of voter rigging. Our key hypothesis is that small polling stations are more susceptible to voter rigging because it is easier to identify opposing individuals, there are fewer eyewitnesses, and interested parties might reasonably expect fewer visits from election observers. We devise a general statistical method for testing whether voting behavior in small polling stations is significantly different from the behavior in their neighbor stations in a way that is consistent with the widespread occurrence of voter rigging. On the basis of a comparative analysis, the method enables third parties to conclude that an explanation other than simple variability is needed to explain geographic heterogeneities in vote preferences. We analyze 21 elections in 10 countries and find significant statistical anomalies compatible with voter rigging in Russia from 2007 to 2011, in Venezuela from 2006 to 2013, and in Uganda in 2011. Particularly disturbing is the case of Venezuela, where the smallest polling stations were decisive to the outcome of the 2013 presidential elections. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2017-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5493417/ /pubmed/28695193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602363 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Jimenez, Raúl
Hidalgo, Manuel
Klimek, Peter
Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title_full Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title_fullStr Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title_full_unstemmed Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title_short Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
title_sort testing for voter rigging in small polling stations
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28695193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602363
work_keys_str_mv AT jimenezraul testingforvoterrigginginsmallpollingstations
AT hidalgomanuel testingforvoterrigginginsmallpollingstations
AT klimekpeter testingforvoterrigginginsmallpollingstations