Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank, and
Ferran Martinez I Coma (Electoral Integrity Project)
In recent
years, far too many elections have ended with the major protagonists at
loggerheads, parties bitterly disputing the results, and conflict spilling over
onto the streets. Cries of fraud are common, especially among losers in tight
winner-take-all presidential races.
When
questions about the legitimacy of the outcome arises, is there reliable
evidence that contests fail to meet international standards? Or are these
simply sour grape attempts to undermine the rightful winners?
To provide a
more systematic, credible, reliable and legitimate source of independent evidence,
in early-2013 the Electoral Integrity Project launched a new pilot study
seeking to provide an authoritative assessment of the quality of national
elections held around the world. The Electoral Integrity Project is developed
by a team of scholars at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, led
by Professor Pippa Norris, in conjunction with an international advisory board,
the International Political Science Association, and many partner organizations
in the international community.
For the
pilot study on electoral integrity, conducted in April-May 2013, the project
focused upon twenty independent nation-states around the world which had held
national presidential or parliamentary elections during the prior six months, (i.e.
the period from 1 July to 31 December 2012).
All the data can be downloaded from www.electoralintegrityproject.com.
For each
country, the project identified around forty election experts, defined as a
political scientist (or other social scientist in a related discipline) who had
demonstrated knowledge of the electoral process in a particular country. The
selection sought a roughly 50:50 balance between international and domestic
experts, the latter defined by location or citizenship. Experts were asked to
complete an online survey. In total, 226 completed responses were received in
the pilot study, representing just under one third of the experts that the
project contacted (30%).
The idea of
electoral integrity is defined by the project to refer to agreed international
conventions and global norms, applying universally to all countries worldwide
through the election cycle, including during the pre-election period, the
campaign, on polling day, and its aftermath. The concept is seen as having
eleven sub-dimensions in a sequential cycle.
The survey results are discussed in detail elsewhere but for
a quick snapshot, here are the overall rankings in the countries under
comparison.
Overall the Netherlands, the
Czech Republic and South Korea came top of the rankings, all countries which
have had a series of recent elections which are regarded as by observers and
media commentators as without major flaws. By contrast, Belarus, the Republic
of Congo, Angola, and Ukraine are all seen as performing poorly in elections,
an assessment which is also consistent with observer reports.
Interestingly, the United States ranks
7th in the countries under comparison, similar to Mexico and
slightly below several newer democracies. Thus one finding emerging from the
pilot study is that greater experience of democratic elections in any society was
not necessarily an accurate predictor of the perceived quality of contemporary
elections.
But what were
seen as the key factors driving these results? Over-simple ‘pass-fail’
judgments are of little use to reformers seeking to strengthen the process.
Table 1 below
presents the more fine-grained assessments concerning the performance of each
of the eleven sub-dimensions in the electoral cycle. To summarize the
comparisons across each of the 100-point standardized scales, using the
familiar traffic light symbols, mean assessments below 49 were categorized as
‘low’ in integrity (colored red), and those from 50 to 74 were categorized as
‘moderate’ (colored orange), while scores over 75 were categorized as ‘high’
(colored green).
The analysis
shows that issues of campaign finance were regarded as most problematic across
many countries, with more than half the elections seen as performing poorly. Similarly
campaign coverage by the news media was highlighted by experts as another area
of concern.
The results
also highlight specific problems occurring in particular countries, notably the
partisan and decentralized nature of gerrymandering district boundaries in the
United States (an area where the US achieved its lowest score), problems of the
voting process in Venezuela, and challenges of fair and equitable media
coverage and campaign finance in Romania.
Thus overall
the PEI index and dimensional scores help to highlight particular problems in
each country which experts suggest deserve special attention by domestic
stakeholders and the international community. Where flaws are identified, the
next steps in the research are to establish their precise causes, their
consequences, and what can be learnt from best practice to remedy the situation
in the next contest.
Table 1:
Country
|
Electoral laws index (20-100)
|
Electoral procedures
index (25-100)
|
Voting district
boundaries index (20-100)
|
Voter registration index (20-100)
|
Party and candidate registration index (20-100)
|
Media coverage index (20-100)
|
Campaign finance index (20-100)
|
Voting process index (20-100)
|
Vote count index (20-100)
|
Results index (25-100)
|
Electoral authorities index (25-100)
|
PEI index of electoral integrity (standarized to 100-pts)
|
Netherlands
|
93
|
92
|
84
|
84
|
81
|
67
|
67
|
82
|
89
|
91
|
90
|
83
|
Czech Republic
|
83
|
96
|
77
|
92
|
83
|
68
|
80
|
71
|
95
|
90
|
90
|
82
|
South Korea
|
64
|
89
|
71
|
95
|
82
|
63
|
72
|
77
|
97
|
81
|
83
|
80
|
Slovenia
|
74
|
90
|
67
|
94
|
83
|
56
|
66
|
85
|
100
|
65
|
89
|
79
|
Lithuania
|
89
|
75
|
88
|
85
|
88
|
70
|
62
|
75
|
87
|
76
|
78
|
79
|
Japan
|
63
|
86
|
61
|
80
|
70
|
62
|
66
|
74
|
83
|
75
|
78
|
74
|
USA
|
51
|
76
|
33
|
52
|
81
|
72
|
55
|
73
|
86
|
87
|
80
|
70
|
Mexico
|
67
|
80
|
78
|
82
|
68
|
65
|
53
|
64
|
88
|
59
|
74
|
70
|
Ghana
|
84
|
73
|
67
|
58
|
80
|
62
|
41
|
53
|
84
|
56
|
70
|
66
|
Georgia
|
71
|
73
|
67
|
67
|
65
|
50
|
41
|
59
|
81
|
72
|
68
|
64
|
Montenegro
|
76
|
72
|
72
|
47
|
74
|
53
|
41
|
63
|
76
|
68
|
60
|
63
|
Venezuela
|
59
|
64
|
56
|
61
|
74
|
46
|
37
|
47
|
67
|
72
|
55
|
60
|
Kuwait
|
53
|
70
|
50
|
75
|
58
|
58
|
35
|
65
|
96
|
41
|
65
|
59
|
Romania
|
56
|
67
|
47
|
43
|
66
|
46
|
47
|
59
|
74
|
74
|
60
|
58
|
Ukraine
|
50
|
54
|
51
|
45
|
53
|
51
|
39
|
58
|
51
|
52
|
51
|
52
|
Angola
|
41
|
49
|
45
|
38
|
57
|
46
|
39
|
51
|
49
|
52
|
48
|
47
|
Congo, Rep of
|
42
|
50
|
53
|
33
|
47
|
41
|
27
|
56
|
41
|
60
|
38
|
45
|
Belarus
|
29
|
44
|
42
|
60
|
40
|
37
|
32
|
54
|
39
|
63
|
31
|
44
|
Burkina Faso
|
62
|
65
|
36
|
56
|
61
|
80
|
27
|
68
|
52
|
58
|
||
Sierra Leone
|
73
|
80
|
76
|
44
|
44
|
63
|
76
|
70
|
78
|
|||
Total
|
67
|
76
|
60
|
70
|
73
|
58
|
53
|
69
|
78
|
69
|
70
|
68
|
Key
|
Score
|
|||||||||||
Low
|
Low to 49
|
|||||||||||
Moderate
|
50 to 74
|
|||||||||||
High
|
75 to 100
|
Source: Pippa
Norris, Ferran MartÃnez i Coma and Richard W. Frank. 2013. The Expert Survey of Perceptions of
Electoral Integrity, Pilot Study April 2013:www.electoralintegrityproject.com
