8.4 Electoral Integrity and Manipulation

Electoral Integrity and its Threats

Defining Electoral Integrity

Electoral integrity refers to how well elections follow international standards and best practices, ensuring the process is free, fair, and transparent. Without it, election outcomes lose legitimacy, and public trust in democracy erodes.

Several factors are crucial for maintaining electoral integrity:

• Independence and impartiality of the bodies that run elections
• A level playing field for all candidates and parties
• Respect for fundamental freedoms: expression, association, and assembly

International standards and best practices include:

• Universal and equal suffrage
• Secret ballot
• Transparency throughout the electoral process
• Impartial and efficient election administration
• Respect for the rule of law and human rights

Threats to Electoral Integrity

Electoral integrity faces several distinct types of threats, each targeting a different part of the process:

• Voter suppression aims to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. Tactics include restrictive voter ID laws, reducing the number of polling locations, and purging voter rolls.
• Vote-buying involves offering money, goods, or services in exchange for a voter's support, directly undermining the principle of free choice.
• Intimidation uses threats, violence, or coercion to influence voters' decisions or deter participation. This can range from threats of physical harm to threats of job loss.
• Disinformation campaigns spread false or misleading information to manipulate public opinion and shape voter behavior, often through social media and fake news outlets.
• Electoral fraud involves illegal practices that directly alter results, such as ballot-box stuffing, tampering with voter registers, or falsifying vote counts.

When citizens lose trust in the electoral process, the consequences are serious: decreased voter turnout, political instability, and the erosion of democratic legitimacy.

Country examples:

• United States: Allegations of voter suppression and foreign interference in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections
• Belarus: Widespread protests and accusations of fraud following the 2020 presidential election, where longtime incumbent Lukashenko claimed over 80% of the vote

Forms of Electoral Manipulation

Manipulating Voter Behavior

Vote-buying undermines free choice by exchanging material benefits for political support. It can take several forms: direct cash payments, distribution of food or goods, or promises of future benefits like employment or access to government services. This practice is particularly common in low-income areas and among vulnerable populations, including rural communities and marginalized groups, where small material incentives carry outsized influence.

Voter intimidation uses threats, violence, or coercion to shape how people vote or whether they vote at all. Tactics include:

• Physical threats or harassment near polling stations
• The presence of armed groups creating a hostile atmosphere
• Economic retaliation, such as threatening job loss or cutting off access to resources for those who don't support a particular candidate

Manipulating Election Results

Electoral fraud encompasses illegal practices that directly alter outcomes:

• Ballot-box stuffing: Illegally adding ballots to favor a candidate, through pre-filled ballots or allowing individuals to vote multiple times
• Tampering with voter registers: Wrongfully including or excluding voters, or creating fake entries using deceased individuals or fictitious names
• Misreporting results: Intentionally altering vote tallies or announcing false results, creating discrepancies between polling station records and official counts

Abuse of state resources is another significant form of manipulation. Incumbent parties may use government funds, vehicles, or personnel to support their campaigns, or divert public money to party activities. State-owned media outlets may provide biased coverage or grant disproportionate airtime to the ruling party, limiting opposition visibility.

The impact of these practices is substantial: candidates who don't represent the genuine will of voters can win, and public confidence in democracy suffers.

Country examples:

• Russia: Allegations of ballot-box stuffing and misreporting of results in the 2011 parliamentary and 2018 presidential elections
• Zimbabwe: Intimidation and violence against opposition supporters during the 2008 and 2018 elections

Monitoring Efforts for Electoral Integrity

International Election Observation

International observation missions, conducted by organizations like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or the European Union (EU), assess election quality and identify areas for improvement. Here's how they typically work:

1. Teams of experts deploy to the host country before, during, and after election day.
2. Observers assess the legal framework, the performance of electoral authorities, campaign conduct, and the overall atmosphere.
3. On election day, observers monitor polling stations, counting, and tabulation.
4. After the election, missions issue reports with findings and recommendations to guide reforms.

The effectiveness of these missions depends on several factors:

• Observer independence and expertise: Observers must remain strictly impartial and possess the skills to evaluate complex electoral environments.
• Scope and methodology: Comprehensive observation requires enough observers to cover a representative sample of polling stations and a systematic approach to data collection.
• Access: Host governments sometimes restrict the number of observers or limit which areas they can visit, which directly undermines the mission's effectiveness.

Domestic Election Monitoring

Domestic monitoring by civil society organizations and citizen observers complements international efforts and often provides deeper, more sustained coverage.

• Civil society organizations deploy trained observers to polling stations, count centers, and other key locations, reporting irregularities in real time.
• Citizen observers, often volunteers, offer a grassroots perspective and help build public trust in election outcomes.
• Domestic monitors also contribute through voter education, encouraging participation and promoting a peaceful electoral environment.

The mere presence of observers can deter manipulation, since perpetrators are less likely to commit fraud when they know they're being watched. However, domestic monitoring faces real constraints: limited organizational capacity and funding, restricted access from electoral authorities, and security risks for observers in volatile contexts.

Country examples:

• Philippines: The National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) has monitored elections since 1983.
• Kenya: The Election Observation Group (ELOG), a coalition of civil society organizations, deployed over 8,000 observers for the 2017 general elections.

Actors in Ensuring Election Credibility

Electoral Management Bodies

Electoral management bodies (EMBs) are the institutions responsible for organizing and conducting elections, from voter registration and ballot design to counting and tabulating results. Their independence, impartiality, and professionalism are what give election outcomes their credibility.

For EMBs to function well, they need to:

• Operate free from political interference with sufficient resources and capacity
• Have a transparent, merit-based appointment process for their members, rather than one driven by political affiliation
• Communicate regularly with stakeholders and the public to build trust

Examples of EMBs:

• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the United States (though notably, the FEC focuses on campaign finance regulation; actual election administration is handled at the state level)
• The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Nigeria

Judiciary

The judiciary resolves electoral disputes, interprets electoral laws, and adjudicates cases of manipulation or fraud. An independent and effective judiciary is essential for providing legal redress when things go wrong.

For courts to fulfill this role effectively:

• They need authority to hear electoral complaints in a timely and impartial manner
• Judges must be insulated from political pressure and have expertise in electoral law
• Electoral laws should be applied consistently and in line with international standards

Notable examples of judicial involvement:

• Kenya's Supreme Court annulled the 2017 presidential election due to irregularities and ordered a new vote, a landmark decision in African electoral history.
• The U.S. Supreme Court resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election in Bush v. Gore.

Civil Society

Civil society organizations (CSOs) contribute to electoral integrity across multiple fronts:

• Voter education: Informing citizens about their rights and responsibilities, and encouraging participation
• Advocacy: Pushing for electoral reforms and greater transparency from authorities
• Accountability: Serving as a bridge between citizens and electoral authorities, relaying concerns and providing feedback on how the process is conducted

Collaboration and information-sharing among EMBs, the judiciary, and civil society strengthens the overall system by helping identify threats early and promoting public confidence.

That said, civil society's ability to contribute can be limited by legal restrictions on NGO activity, funding constraints, or security risks in hostile political environments.

Country examples:

• Ghana: The Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) promotes voter education and monitors elections.
• Lebanon: The Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE) advocates for electoral reforms and observes elections.