ExecutiveSummary

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
THEWORLDSFLAWEDANDFAILEDCONTESTS
PippaNorris,RichardW.Frank,andFerranMartneziComa
February2014

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Detaileddescriptionsofeachindividualelectioninthesurveyareavailableinthefullversionofthereport. Pleaserefertowww.electoralintegrityproject.com. TheElectoralIntegrityProject DepartmentofGovernmentandInternationalRelations MerewetherBuilding,HO4 UniversityofSydney,NSW2006 Phone:+61(2)93516041 Email:electoralintegrity@sydney.edu.au Web:http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com CopyrightPippaNorris,FerranMartneziComa,andRichardW.Frank2014.Allrightsreserved. Photocredits
Coverphoto:Ballotfornationalelection.byDanielLittlewood, http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniellittlewood/413339945.Licenceathttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page6and18:Ballotsectionsareseparatedforcounting.byBrittanyDanisch, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdanisch/6084970163/Licenceathttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page8:WomeninPakistanwaittovotebyDFIDUKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/8735821208/Licenceathttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page14:BuenaparticipacinbyGabrielFloresRomero,http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabofr/7482482958/in/set 72157630320052078.Licenceathttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.

Page1

PrintedandboundinSydney,Australia. ISBN10:0646918222 ISBN13:9780646918228

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Contents
1.Executivesummary________________________________________________________________________3 2.Introduction _____________________________________________________________________________4 3.Thedesignofthesurvey ___________________________________________________________________5 Theconceptofelectoralintegrity __________________________________________________________5 Measuringelectoralintegrity______________________________________________________________5 TheElectoralIntegrityProject _____________________________________________________________5 Electioncoverage_______________________________________________________________________5 Experts_______________________________________________________________________________5 Timeperiod___________________________________________________________________________6 Confidenceintervals ____________________________________________________________________6 DownloadthePEI_2datase_______________________________________________________________6 4.Summaryofresults________________________________________________________________________7 Figure1:ThePerceptionsofElectoralIntegrityindex(PEI)_______________________________________7 Figure2:PEI,democracyanddevelopment__________________________________________________8 Figure3:PEIbyworldregion_____________________________________________________________10 Figure4:Theworldmapofelectoralintegrity________________________________________________10 Figure5:ThePEIelectoralcycle___________________________________________________________11 Figure6:Performanceofeachstageduringtheelectoralcycle __________________________________11 Table1:Summaryresultsbyelection _______________________________________________________13 Table2:Summaryofresultsbyglobalregion ________________________________________________16 Table3:Summaryofindicatorsbytypesofregimes ___________________________________________16

Page2

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

1.Executivesummary
PippaNorris,RichardW.FrankandFerranMartneziComa In many countries, polling day ends with disputes about ballotbox fraud, corruption, and flawed registers. Whichclaimsarelegitimate?Andwhicharefalsecomplaintsfromsorelosers? ThisreportbytheElectoralIntegrityProjectaimstoevaluatethequalityofelectionsheldaroundtheworld. Based on a survey collecting the views of election experts, the research aims to provide independent and reliableevidencetocomparewhethercountriesmeetinternationalstandardsofelectoralintegrity. The surveypresentedin this report covers 73 national parliamentaryand presidentialcontestsheldworldwide in 66 countries from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2013. It collected assessments from 855 election experts, withameanresponserateof30%. The study collects 49 indicators to compare elections and countries around the globe. These indicators are clustered to evaluate eleven stages in the electoral cycle as well as generating an overall summary Perception ofElectoralIntegrity(PEI)100pointindexandcomparativeranking. Theresultshighlightseveralmajornewfindings. Popular commentary and scholarly research often focuses on isses arising on polling day, including voting fraud, ballot stuffing, and inaccurate counts. Yet the problems raising the greatest concern amongexpertswerelackofalevelplayingfieldinpoliticalfinanceandcampaignmedia. Overall, not surprisingly, the results confirm that electoral integrity is strengthened by democracy and development. Long experience over successive contests in countries such as Norway, Germany and the Netherlands consolidates democratic practices, reinforces civic cultures, and builds the capacityofelectoralmanagementbodies. Nevertheless several third wave democracies and emerging economies performed well in electoral integrity, despite having less experience of competitive elections, including countries such as the RepublicofKorea,theCzechRepublic,Slovenia,Lithuania,Rwanda,Chile,Argentina,andMongolia. Experts were also critical about electoral flaws in certain longestablished democracies, such as Italy and Japan. Most strikingly, the United States ranks 26th out of 73 elections worldwide, the lowest score among Western nations. Experts highlighted concern over processes of redistricting, voter registration,andcampaignfinanceinAmericanelections. Worldwide, electoral integrity is at risk in South East Asia. Hence Malaysia ranked 66th out of 73 elections, due to problems with its district boundaries and electoral laws. Cambodia ranked 69th due to concern about voter registration, the compilation of results and the independence of electoral authorities. Recent electoral protests and instability in Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia vividly illustrate these challenges. Eurasian elections also raise serious concern, such as those in Belarus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Finally, several African states also risk failed elections, includingEquatorialGuinea,Togo,Djibouti,theRepublicofCongo,Angola,andZimbabwe. Thespreadofelectionsworldwideduringrecentdecadeshasbeenaccompaniedby widespreadconcernabouttheirqualityProfessorPippaNorriscommented,Toooften electionsaredeeplyflawed,orevenfailingtomeetinternationalstandards. Thisreportpresentsnewevidencetodiagnosewherecontestsfailtomeetinternational standardssuchasinBelarus,Djibouti,Cambodia,andZimbabweandalsoto celebratewheretheysucceed,incountriessuchasNorway,theCzechRepublic,Slovenia, andSouthKorea. Page3 Subsequent annual reports will cover national elections every year, to broaden the comparison worldwide. MoreresearchpublicationsfromtheEIPprojectarelistedunderFurtherreadings.

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

2.Introduction
The electoral revolution has transformed the political landscape. At the end of World War II, around fifty independent nationstates had a popularlyelected legislature.1 Today, by contrast, direct elections have been almostuniversallyadoptedworldwide,withtheexceptionofahandfulofstates. As numerous observers have highlighted, however, the quality of contemporary elections commonly fails to meet international standards. The gravest problems are evident in electoral autocracies, with the faade of partycompetitionbutwithmajorviolationsofhumanrights.Yetflawsalsooccurinmoredemocraticregimes.2 Problems may arise at every stage of the electoral cycle, including during the preelection period, the campaign, polling day and its aftermath. Failures erode public trust and confidence in elected authorities, discourage voter turnout, and undermine regime stability.3 Elections are essential for liberal democracy, but poorqualitycontestscancorrodelegitimacy. How do we know when elections are flawed or even fail? Electoral observer missions by international and regional organizations provide indepth assessments of many contests but it remains difficult to compare reportsconsistentlyacrosscountriesworldwide. The picture is also muddied by the proliferation of election monitoring groups, producing divergent assessments.4 After observing the Azerbaijan Presidential elections on 9 October 2013, for example, the OSCE/OFIHR mission reported numerous flaws, including ballotbox stuffing, lack of transparency in the vote count, and candidate and voter intimidation.5 By contrast, observers from the Parliamentary Assembly of the CouncilofEurope(PACE)concludedthattherewasafree,fairandtransparentelectoralprocess.6 Given claims and counterclaims, it is important to establish more reliable evidence. The new Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) expert survey, launched on 1 July 2012, aims to provide a comprehensive, systematic and consistent way to monitor and compare the quality of elections worldwide. The study draws on evaluationsofelectoralintegrityprovidedbyarangeofindependentelectionsexperts. Thisreportexplainsthemethods,compareselectionsworldwide,thendescribestheresultsforeachelection.

by bdanisch

Page4

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

3.Thedesignofthesurvey
Theconceptofelectoralintegrity The concept of electoral integrityrefers to international standards and global norms governing the appropriateconductofelections.7 These standards have been endorsed in a series of authoritative conventions, treaties, protocols, and guidelines by agencies of the international community, notably by the decisions of the UN General Assembly, byregionalbodiessuchastheOrganizationforSecurityandCooperationinEurope(OSCE),theOrganizationof American States (OAS), and the African Union (AU), and by member states in the United Nations.8 Following endorsement,thesestandardsapplyuniversallytoallcountries. Measuringelectoralintegrity To operationalize this notion, the survey asks experts to evaluate elections using 49 indicators, grouped into eleven categories reflecting the whole electoral cycle. Using a comprehensive instrument, listed on page 98, experts assess whether each national parliamentary and presidential contests meets international standards duringthepreelectionperiod,thecampaign,pollingdayanditsaftermath. The overall PEI index is constructed by summing the 49 separate indicators for each election and for each country. The PEIIndex is standardized to 100points. Scores are ranked and subdivided by thirds into contests withhigh,moderate,andlowlevelofelectoralintegrity. Similar 100point standardized indices are constructed for each of the eleven components of the electoral cycle. The technical appendix provides more details about the research design, performance indicators, sampling methods,anddatareliabilitytestsforthestudy. TheElectoralIntegrityProject The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) is an independent nonprofit scholarly research project based at Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government and the University of Sydneys Department of Government and International Relations, funded by the Australian Research Council and other research bodies. The project is directedbyProfessorPippaNorrisandmanagedbyDrRichardW.Frank.ThePEIprogrammanagerisDrFerran MartneziComa. EIPisgovernedbyanAdvisory Board ofdistinguishedscholarsandpractitioners.TheElectoralIntegrityProject is an independent academic body and the evaluations presented in the report are the assessments of the project alone. Nevertheless in its work, through a series of international workshops and conferences, the project collaborates closely with many professional associations and international agencies, including the Australian Political Studies Association, the American Political Science Association, the Carter Center, Democracy International, Global Integrity, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), International IDEA, the International Political Science Association (IPSA), the Sunlight Foundation, the Organization of American States, the OSCE/ODIHR, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and theWorldValuesSurvey.Alldetailsareavailableontheprojectwebsitewww.electoralintegrityproject.org Elec oncoverage This report presents the first results of the expert evaluations for all national parliamentary and presidential elections held in independent nationstates (with a population of more than100,000)over an eighteen month periodfrom1July2012to31 December2013.Incasesofsimultaneouslegislativeandexecutiveelections,the survey monitored the latter. In countries using second ballot (runoff) majoritarian electoral systems, the surveyassessedthefinalcontest. Experts Around forty domestic and international experts were consulted about each election, with requests to participatesenttoatotalof2,901experts,producinganoverallmeanresponserateof30%.Thesurveyresults in this report are drawn from the views of 855 election experts. The data has been tested and found to demonstratehighlevelsofinternalreliability(consistencyamongexperts),externalreliability(whencompared

Page5

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

with equivalent independent indicators), and legitimacy (when expert judgments are compared with public assessments).9 Timeperiod The pilot study (PEI_1), released in May 2013, covered 20 elections held from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012. This second release of the dataset (PEI_2) includes all these earlier cases and expands the comparison by adding all national elections held from 1 January to 31 December 2013.10 In total, this report covers 73 electionsheldin66countries. Subsequentannualreportswillcovernationalelectionsheldeachyear,tobroadenthecomparisonworldwide. Condenceintervals When interpreting the results, it should be noted that modest differences in the PEI index are unlikely to be statistically significant at reasonable confidence intervals. It is more useful to focus on the range of indicators across the cycle and more substantial differences among elections or among countries. Confidence intervals wereconstructedforthesummaryPEIindexbasedonthenumberofexpertswhorespondedforeachelection andcountry.Thesearedocumentedinthereportstechnicalappendix. DownloadthePEI_2datase All data is available for download at: http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/PEI. Data can be examined at the level of each country, each election, or individual experts. Analysis can be conducted for the summary PEI index, the eleven components, or the 49 individual indicators. Those preferring alternative conceptualizations of the quality of elections have opportunities to reaggregate the indicators and thereby create alternative measures. The Dataverse files allow users to generate analysis using the online data, to download files in Stata, SPSS and tabdelimited formats, and to find further technical details about the research design, codebook and questionnaire. We welcome receiving comments and suggestions as feedback to improve the annual report and the PEI datasets.

by DFID UK Department for International Development

Page6

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

4.Summaryofresults
FIGURE1:THEPERCEPTIONSOFELECTORALINTEGRITYINDEX(PEI)
Norway Germany Netherlands Iceland CzechRep_13L Korea,Rep. Austria CzechRep_12 Slovenia Israel CzechRep_13P Cyprus Lithuania Australia Rwanda Japan_12 Chile Japan_13 Italy Grenada Malta Argentina Georgia_13 Mongolia Micronesia UnitedStates Mexico Barbados Montenegro_12 Bhutan Kuwait_13 Cuba Ghana SierraLeone Ecuador Paraguay Nepal Albania Iran Venezuela_12 Georgia_12 Mali Kuwait_12 Maldives Pakistan Bulgaria Philippines Romania Cameroon Jordan Swaziland Honduras Armenia Guinea Azerbaijan Kenya Mauritania BurkinaFaso Venezuela_13 Ukraine Madagascar Montenegro_13 Turkmenistan Togo Tajikistan Malaysia Zimbabwe Angola Cambodia Belarus Congo,Rep. Djibouti EquatorialGuinea 86.4 84.1 82.7 82.5 81.8 81.2 81.1 80.8 79.6 79.3 79.1 78.4 78.1 76.0 74.2 73.8 73.5 72.9 72.7 72.7 72.4 72.2 71.3 71.2 70.7 70.2 69.8 69.2 69.0 68.4 66.8 65.3 65.3 64.2 63.8 63.7 63.6 63.6 63.2 63.1 62.9 62.0 60.1 59.9 59.8 59.8 58.9 58.6 56.6 56.5 56.2 56.0 54.8 54.3 52.7 52.7 52.6 52.5 52.1 51.9 51.5 50.6 50.3 50.3 49.3 48.4 48.0 47.4 45.6 45.6 45.0 39.6 38.2

20.0

63.6

Page7 Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2 (PEI_2)

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
HIGHINTEGRITYCONTESTS

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Experts ranked many Northern European democracies highly in integrity, including Norway (ranked 1st), Germany,theNetherlands,Iceland,andAustria. Whatexplainstheseratings?Tocheckthesystematicevidence,Figure2confirmsthat,asexpected,thequality of elections (measuredby PEI)is indeedsignificantlycorrelated with contemporary levelsofliberaldemocracy, as gauged by combining FreedomHouse and Polity V indicators of democratization matched to the year of the contest.11Sinceelectionsareattheheartoftheconceptandmeasurementofliberaldemocracy,thisfindingis hardlysurprising. In addition, a countrys historical reservoir of democratic capital (built from the length of time it has been democratic from 1930 to 2000) usually proves a strong predictor of contemporary levels of electoral integrity. 12 Actors can learn from elections as a repeated game. Experience of parties rotating in power over a long series of contests can serve to consolidate acceptance of the legitimacy of the rules of the game and trust in the political system, especially for elections losers, generating more stable outcomes.13 Moreover experience of organizing successive contests can deepen the knowhow, capacity, and professional skills of electoral managementbodies. The top ranking elections are all held in affluent postindustrial societies, with a long succession of democratic contests experienced over many decades or even centuries, as well as having stable states and effective public sector governance. These countries usually scored exceptionally well in PEI for electoral procedures, characterizedbyeffectiveandefficientvoterregistrationandvotetabulationprocesses.Alltheseregimeshave powersharinginstitutionsandcoalitiongovernments,providingmultiplechecksandbalancesontheexecutive branch. Contests in these countries have inclusive parliaments and a fairly level playing field for party competition,basedoneitherProportionalRepresentationorMixedMemberProportionalelectoralsystems. Overall, again not surprisingly, levels of economic development also usually help to predict which countries do wellandpoorlyinelectoralintegrity.Affluentsocietieshavetheresourcestoinvestinhumanandtechnological capacitywhichfacilitatesmanagingcomplexprocesseseffectivelyandefficiently,includingrunningelections.In addition, it is has been widely observed that democratic institutions and cultures are rooted most strongly in postindustrial societies, characterized by welleducated and highly literate populations, rich networks of civic associationslinkingcitizensandthestate,stablestates,andeffectivepublicsectorbureaucracies,aproposition alsoknownastheLipsethypothesis.14

FIGURE2:PEI,DEMOCRACYANDDEVELOPMENT

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2);Qualityof GovernmentCrossNationalDataset,downloadedDecember2013http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/data

Page8

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Yet one of the most striking findings which can be observed from the results is that electoral integrity is not simply determined by either levels of democratization or development. Instead, several less democratic states and middleincome economies also scored highly in the quality of their contests today, according to the expert PEI judgments, although these countries only established multiparty systems and competitive democratic elections during the late1980s and early1990s. This includes expert assessments of contests in the Czech Republic(withaseriesofwellrankedelections),Slovenia,Lithuania,andChile.TheRepublicofKoreawasalso scoredhighlybyexperts,aswasRwanda. At the same time, elections in certain mature democracies received less positive rateings from experts. This includes contests in Italy and Japan, following experience of major political corruption scandals and the fragmentationofpredominantonepartysystemsduringthe1990s.15ItalyandJapanhavebothreformedtheir electoral systems in attempts to address these issues, but experts continued to detect problems in contemporarycontests,generatingcontinueddebateabouttheneedforfurtherlegalamendments.

MODERATEINTEGRITYELECTIONS
It is also striking that despite centuries of elections, in the 2012 presidential contests, the United States was rankedonly26thworldwidebyexpertsintheoverallcomparisonofelectoralintegrity.Thisratingwassimilarto countriessuchasMexico,Mongolia,andGeorgia. FurtheranalysisofthedatashowedthatexpertsreducedtheoverallscorefortheUnitedStatesduetoconcern about the quality of their electoral laws, voter registration, the process of drawing district boundaries, as well as regulation of campaign finance. Voter registration, in particular, has become increasingly polarized and litigious in the United States ever since the 2000 Florida debacle, generating growing controversy in state houses and the courts and a blueribbon Presidential Commission.16 The PEI evaluations suggest that the role ofmoneyinAmericanpolitics,andtheredistrictingprocess,bothdeservemoredetailedscrutiny. Themoderatecategoryalsoincludedmanyotherdiversesocietiesandtypesofregimes,includingstatessuch as Ghana, Bhutan, Montenegro, Nepal, Pakistan, and the Phillipines. The more detailed diagnosis available in Table1allowsweaknessesandstrengthstobeidentifiedintheelectoralcyclewithineachcountry.

LOWINTEGRITYELECTIONS
By contrast, low integrity elections ranked at the bottom third of the PEI index are drawn from diverse global regions and types of regimes. This includes several countries in SubSaharan Africa with deeprooted conflict and with weak state capacity, notably Zimbabwe, Angola, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, and Mauritania. Other regimes scoring poorly by the PEI index include several oneparty autocracies in postSoviet Eurasia, including Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Belarus in Central Eurasia. In general, lowincome developing societies, lacking the resources for public sector management, usually face significant challenges in organizing elections. Again, however, this was far from a fixed pattern, sincelowandmiddleincomeRwanda,Mongolia,andLithuania,forexample,allscoredrelativelywell.

WORLDREGIONS
Longestablished Western democracies and affluent societies usually displayed the best performance overall, asobservedearlier,whileintegritywasalsousuallyfairlyhighinEastAsia,theCaribbean,andthePacific. By contrast, Figures 3 and 4 show that world regions where the quality of elections was judged far more negativelybyexpertsincludepoorerdevelopingsocietiesinSouthEastAsiaandSubSaharanAfrica.SouthEast Asia contains countries with some of the worst rankings worldwide include Malaysia (due to problems with its district boundaries and electoral laws) and Cambodia (due to concerns about voter registration, the compilation of results and the independence of electoral authorities). In SubSaharan Africa, problems were identified by experts in the Republic of Congo, Djibouti, and Equatorial Guinea, all with poor scores across many indicators. International agencies seeking to strengthen democratic elections should prioritize capacity building in these countries.Although Middle Eastern states have commonly lagged in democracy, nevertheless electionsheldintheregionduringthisperiodweremoderatelywellevaluatedbyexperts.

Page9

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
FIGURE3:PEIBYWORLDREGION
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

51

54

60

63

66

68

71

71

75

79 63

SEAsia

SubSaharan Africa

E.andC. Europe

S.Asia

LatinAmerica

MENA

Pacific

Caribbean

E.Asia

W.Europe andN. America

World

FIGURE4:THEWORLDMAPOFELECTORALINTEGRITY

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2)17

MAJORPROBLEMSDURINGTHEELECTORALCYCLE
The overall assessments are useful for a broad global and regional comparisons but average scores on the PEI Index can serve to disguise specific problems occurring within each election. For a deeper dive into the data, the project monitors flaws in the electoral process occurring throughout the electoral cycle, conceived as the seriesofsequentialstepsillustratedinFigure5. The international community has adopted the electoral cycle approach by recognizing that observing only the balloting, vote count and results is too limited unless there is a longerterm assessment of each contest. AccordinglyPEIconstructedmultiitemindicatorstomonitoreachdimension. Much attention focuses on ballotstuffing, ballotbox fraud, and irregularities in the vote count. But in fact problems mayarise at anystep inthe process,such asfromthe fairnessofelectorallaws,malaportionmentof districtboundaries,disparitiesinaccesstocampaignfundsandmediacoverage,theexclusionofcandidatesor partiesfromtheballot,andsoon.Whichstageismostproblematic?

Page10

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
FIGURE5:THEPEIELECTORALCYCLE

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Electionlaws EMBs Electoral procedures

Results

Boundaries

Votecount

Voter registration

Voting process Campaign finance Campaign media

Party & candidate registration

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2)

Although much commentary focuses on problems occurring on polling day in the voting process and ballot count, in fact the evidence presented in Figure 6 shows that campaign finance and campaign media coverage arethemostproblematicstages.Moneyinpoliticswasacommonconcerninmanydevelopingcountries,such as Burkina Fasoandthe Republicof Congo, aswell asinmanyaffluent societies,suchastheUnited Statesand Italy (see Table 1). The regulation of money in politics deserves greater attention by domestic actors and the internationalcommunitywhenseekingtoreducecorruption,theabuse ofstateresources,andvotebuying,to strengthenpublicconfidenceinelections,andtoensurealevelplayingfieldforallpartiesandcandidates.18

FIGURE6:PERFORMANCEOFEACHSTAGEDURINGTHEELECTORALCYCLE
75 67 66 67 62 70 65 58 53 77 69 70

PEIindex

Electoral laws

Electoral procedures

Voting Voter Party&cand Media district registration registration coverage boundaries

Campaign finance

Voting process

Votecount

Results

Electoral authorities

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2)

Contrary to much attention by journalists and scholars, the endstages of the electoral cycle, involving the process of vote tabulation, electoral procedures, and the announcement of the final results, were assessed by expertsastheleastproblematicstage. Page11

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
LOOKINGAHEAD

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

This first annual reportprovides a snapshot of the quality of elections in countries which held elections in the 18monthperiodundercomparison.Theevidenceallows electionsacrossthe worldtobecomparedwith each other and any problems diagnosed across all eleven components of the electoral cycle. The inclusion of all nationwide contests during this period (with the exclusion of microstates with populations below 100,000) means that the evidence provides a representative crosssection of all nationwide elections held worldwide. Furtherpublicationsfromtheteamof EIPresearchersanalyzethedatainmore depth,includingexplainingthe conceptual framework, testing the reliability and robustness of the data, and exploring the consequences for political legitimacy, public participation and regime transitions (see the list of suggested further readings on page99). We hope that this report and the data provide useful evidence for a wide range of scholars and policymakers, including for academic researchers and students, public officials in Electoral Management Bodies, election watch and human rights organizations, broadcasters and reporters covering elections, and agencies within the internationalcommunityseekingtostrengthenelectoralintegrity. Neverthelessthereportislimitedinitsinternationalcoverageandespeciallythecapacitytodrawcomparisons over successive contests occurring within the same country. The evidence will become more comprehensive geographically and over time as the survey is replicated annually and the report is published in subsequent years, rolling out the evaluations to cover national parliamentary and presidential elections in 2014 and beyond. Further analysis and publications planned by the EIP team will focus on several specific issues, including the prevention of electoral violence, the role of election management bodies, the impact of social media and crowdsourcing on electoral transparency, the ways in which electoral integrity influences citizen activismandturnout,andtheregulationofpoliticalfinance.Thereareseveralopportunitiestoengagewiththe project at the University of Sydney through a series of international workshops, conferences, internships and visiting scholarships, with details available on the project website. All information is available via www.electoralintegrityproject.com. Comments and feedback are welcome. In particular, reports about the party vote share and voter turnout for each election often differ slightly from one source to another, and any factual errors brought to our attention will be corrected in future releases of the dataset. In addition, it would be appreciated if copies of any related publications using the datasets could be sent to the project and if the original data source could be clearly acknowledgedincitations.Thisprojectis a newadditiontotheconceptualframeworkandbatteryofevidence availabletoassessproblemsofelectoralintegrityanditishopedthatthisinitiativeprovesvaluable. PippaNorris(DirectorEIP,ProfessorofGovernmentandInternationalRelations,UniversityofSydney,and McGuireLecturerinComparativePolitics,HarvardUniversity), Dr.RichardW.Frank(ProjectManagerandResearchFellow) Dr.FerranMartneziComa(PEIProgramManagerandResearchFellow)

by gabofr

Page12

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Media coverage 74 74 69 72 66 66 67 68 60 73 63 66 72 58 67 67 63 60 60 53 56 63 65 59 69 71 65 71 Campaign finance 79 76 70 68 63 72 64 72 65 70 65 60 64 65 72 66 59 63 59 37 51 53 61 57 52 55 55 43 Voting process 85 82 80 85 78 82 83 74 83 64 74 76 75 78 73 73 63 72 70 66 73 69 67 72 70 75 66 65 Vote count 98 95 90 93 95 96 92 94 94 91 94 89 88 85 81 84 92 88 83 94 91 82 85 87 75 88 88 86 Results Electoral authorities 93 87 90 86 90 86 90 88 89 91 81 84 78 91 75 77 91 79 82 91 82 76 77 78 74 80 74 74 #experts Response rate 31% 64% 56% 44% 71% 24% 43% 58% 30% 32% 47% 37% 31% 38% 27% 38% 41% 31% 44% 16% 31% 35% 20% 25% 10% 39% 35% 8%

TABLE1:SUMMARYRESULTSBYELECTION19
Type Rank State ElectionDate Office PEI index 86.4 84.1 82.7 82.5 81.8 81.2 81.1 80.8 79.6 79.3 79.1 78.4 78.1 76.0 74.2 73.8 73.5 72.9 72.7 72.7 72.4 72.2 71.3 71.2 70.7 70.2 69.8 69.2 Electoral laws 85 82 93 76 88 68 82 82 75 83 84 87 89 72 75 63 65 61 56 70 60 75 81 65 73 51 67 73 Electoral procedures 94 91 93 95 92 91 93 92 90 95 80 89 75 91 81 86 92 91 88 94 89 86 77 82 75 76 80 76 Voting district boundaries 76 79 74 68 81 73 79 74 70 68 77 73 80 76 65 62 62 55 74 63 63 65 64 69 77 33 74 69 Voter registration 90 85 88 90 89 89 86 88 90 83 94 80 81 67 80 81 62 78 81 63 71 73 67 67 61 53 81 62 Partyand candidate registration 87 86 82 85 81 81 76 80 77 80 86 76 88 76 71 70 73 72 72 84 75 77 64 72 81 79 67 66

High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Norway Germany Netherlands Iceland Czech Rep Korea, Rep. Austria Czech Rep Slovenia Israel Czech Rep Cyprus Lithuania Australia Rwanda Japan Chile Japan Italy Grenada Malta Argentina Georgia Mongolia Micronesia United States Mexico Barbados

09-SEP-2013 22-SEP-2013 12-SEP-2012 27-APR-2013 25-OCT-2012 19-DEC-2012 29-SEP-2013 12-OCT-2012 02-DEC-2012 22-JAN-2013 25-JAN-2013 24-FEB-2013 28-OCT-2012 07-SEP-2013 16-SEP-2013 16-DEC-2012 15-DEC-2013 21-JUL-2013 24-FEB-2013 19-FEB-2013 09-MAR-2013 27-OCT-2013 27-OCT-2013 26-JUN-2013 05-MAR-2013 06-NOV-2012 01-JUL-2012 23-FEB-2013

Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Presidential Legislative Legislative Presidential Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Presidential Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative

93 89 90 89 91 88 86 88 83 89 83 90 76 79 78 82 92 80 81 92 83 81 82 75 73 87 59 83

13 27 24 16 30 8 15 22 11 12 19 14 11 16 10 15 18 12 18 6 10 16 9 9 4 15 14 3

Page13

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
Type Rank State ElectionDate Office

PEI index 69.0 68.4 66.8 65.3 65.3 64.2 63.8 63.7 63.6 63.6 63.2 63.1 62.9 62.0 60.1 59.9 59.8 59.8 58.9 58.6 56.6 56.5 56.2 56.0 54.8 54.3 52.7 52.7 52.6 52.5 52.1

Electoral laws 84 62 58 44 82 73 54 70 81 61 47 58 64 69 49 61 74 61 69 56 58 44 39 51 63 61 55 76 60 62 47

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM
Electoral procedures 77 80 84 82 69 82 72 76 72 72 79 69 70 69 71 68 65 62 68 67 68 66 71 61 60 43 49 45 65 65 50 Voting district boundaries 69 67 60 54 66 50 50 64 67 66 58 59 61 58 50 63 60 61 61 51 47 37 42 56 59 47 66 58 43 36 50 Voter registration 57 56 63 77 57 72 66 56 56 68 69 66 54 40 75 50 63 45 41 42 54 54 58 50 40 37 55 34 38 56 54 Partyand candidate registration 70 56 77 68 79 70 65 63 66 59 36 74 63 61 61 64 51 70 70 66 59 64 46 67 60 71 54 66 52 61 67

Media coverage 67 73 63 53 64 44 54 52 63 58 65 43 54 63 62 55 67 56 61 46 51 56 58 49 60 64 45 70 57 64 50 Campaign finance 38 65 46 56 45 46 50 39 49 42 57 37 42 51 36 43 49 46 36 46 38 42 49 44 45 35 44 35 38 27 40 Voting process 64 65 61 61 58 62 71 61 55 57 65 69 64 57 67 60 50 62 53 57 49 57 55 58 51 55 54 47 51 43 59 Vote count 90 73 79 73 83 69 74 79 74 81 70 75 79 75 78 71 69 73 68 74 73 65 70 75 68 64 56 49 55 62 51 Results Electoral authorities 68 79 75 65 68 78 62 66 74 64 67 60 66 66 61 55 68 63 64 60 70 70 59 56 53 48 52 41 65 58 45 #experts Response rate 9% 30% 16% 8% 40% 6% 35% 34% 49% 23% 24% 29% 17% 27% 24% 17% 29% 51% 37% 33% 18% 34% 18% 14% 32% 11% 28% 24% 6% 8% 37% 83 75 70 89 56 72 74 83 58 83 83 83 75 73 44 69 56 52 61 75 61 57 65 44 44 63 56 64 56 52 50 3 11 6 3 14 2 13 12 17 19 9 11 8 11 9 6 36 20 14 13 6 12 7 5 11 4 10 9 2 3 14

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Montenegro Bhutan Kuwait Cuba Ghana Sierra Leone Ecuador Paraguay Nepal Albania Iran Venezuela Georgia Mali Kuwait Maldives Pakistan Bulgaria Philippines Romania Cameroon Jordan Swaziland Honduras Armenia Guinea Azerbaijan Kenya Mauritania Burkina Faso Venezuela

14-OCT-2012 13-JUL-2013 27-JUL-2013 03-FEB-2013 07-DEC-2012 17-NOV-2012 17-FEB-2013 21-APR-2013 19-NOV-2013 23-JUN-2013 14-JUN-2013 07-OCT-2012 01-OCT-2012 11-AUG-2013 01-DEC-2012 16-NOV-2013 11-MAY-2013 12-MAY-2013 13-MAY-2013 09-DEC-2012 30-SEP-2013 23-JAN-2013 20-SEP-2013 24-NOV-2013 18-FEB-2013 24-SEP-2013 09-OCT-2013 04-MAR-2013 07-DEC-2013 02-DEC-2012 14-APR-2013

Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Presidential Presidential Presidential Presidential Legislative Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Presidential Legislative Presidential Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Legislative Presidential

Page14

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
Type Rank State ElectionDate Office

PEI index 51.9 51.5 50.6 50.3 50.3 49.3 48.4 48.0 47.4 45.6 45.6 45.0 39.6 38.2 63.8

Electoral laws 50 48 58 36 40 33 33 42 42 43 31 42 35 31 62

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM
Electoral procedures 54 52 57 64 51 52 54 43 50 51 49 50 40 39 72 Voting district boundaries 56 46 65 60 43 57 28 45 50 44 59 53 52 44 60 Voter registration 46 33 37 53 35 36 37 32 37 30 55 33 37 36 61 Partyand candidate registration 53 59 65 44 54 44 58 60 57 50 45 47 36 43 66

Media coverage 51 55 43 36 58 46 38 46 45 43 39 41 41 29 58 Campaign finance 39 36 37 39 40 43 37 40 38 35 37 27 33 32 49 Voting process 61 49 54 49 55 51 65 48 49 48 53 56 43 38 63 Vote count 51 66 53 57 53 61 56 57 46 65 38 41 39 40 74 Results Electoral authorities 51 59 41 47 58 47 46 46 48 42 33 38 36 30 67 #experts Response rate 42% 37% 20% 20% 11% 24% 43% 39% 30% 39% 17% 9% 14% 25% 30% 52 56 45 77 52 67 53 60 55 40 61 60 46 59 71 14 16 7 8 4 8 17 13 11 15 7 3 5 10 12

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Ukraine Madagascar Montenegro Turkmenistan Togo Tajikistan Malaysia Zimbabwe Angola Cambodia Belarus Congo, Rep. Djibouti Equat.Guinea Total

28-OCT-2012 20-DEC-2013 07-APR-2013 15-DEC-2013 25-JUL-2013 06-NOV-2013 05-MAY-2013 31-JUL-2013 31-AUG-2012 28-JUL-2013 23-SEP-2013 05-AUG-2012 22-FEB-2013 26-MAY-2013

Legislative Presidential Presidential Legislative Legislative Presidential Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2).

Page15

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
PEIindex Electoral laws 58 60 62 55 73 65 49 70 74 72 61

Electoral procedures 65 77 80 58 90 86 58 71 75 85 71

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

Campaign finance 47 48 53 40 65 65 36 51 52 40 49 Voting process 60 64 66 52 79 76 55 58 69 66 62 Votecount Results Electoral authorities 59 69 75 56 87 80 51 69 74 82 66 #elections

TABLE2:SUMMARYOFRESULTSBYGLOBALREGION
District boundaries 63 61 58 49 69 69 44 64 77 67 60 Voter registration 57 66 72 45 79 79 36 56 60 64 60 Partyand candidate registration 62 69 64 58 80 74 60 59 81 75 65 Media coverage 52 55 64 54 67 64 47 65 70 62 58

E.andC.Europe LatinAmerica N.Africa&theMiddleEast SubSaharanAfrica W.Europe&N.America EastAsia SouthEastAsia SouthAsia ThePacific TheCaribbean Total

60 66 68 54 79 75 51 63 71 71 63

69 80 79 60 91 89 63 72 76 89 73

67 76 72 60 86 81 51 64 76 88 70

14 8 5 17 9 3 4 4 1 2 72

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2).TheregionalclassificationisfromQualityofGovernmenthttp://www.qog.pol.gu.se/data/

TABLE3:SUMMARYOFINDICATORSBYTYPESOFREGIMES
PEIindex Electoral laws 74 44 60 62 Electoral procedures 84 59 65 71 District boundaries 68 51 56 60 Voter registration 73 49 53 60 Partyand candidate registration 77 52 63 66 Media coverage 63 48 58 58 Campaign finance 58 42 43 49 Voting process 71 53 59 63 Vote count 86 58 70 74 Results Electoral authorities 80 52 61 67 # elections 17 25 30 72

Free Partlyfree Notfree Total

74 52 59 64

81 63 63 70

Source:ElectoralIntegrityProject.2014.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,Release2(PEI_2).ThetypesofregimesareclassifiedbyFreedomHouse. www.freedomhouse.org

Page16

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

TechnicalAppendix:Performanceindicators,methodsanddata
Aims: To start to gather new evidence, on 1st July 2012 the project launched an expert survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity. The design was developed in consultation with Professor Jorgen Elklit (Aarhus University) and Professor Andrew Reynolds (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill). The method of pooling expert knowledge has been used for years for measuring complexissues,suchastoassesstherisksofbuildingnuclearplants,levelsofcorruption,andprocessesofdemocratization. Coverage:ThePEIsurveyofelectoralintegrityfocusesuponindependentnationstatesaroundtheworldwhichhaveheldnationalpresidentialorparliamentaryelectionsduringthepriorsix months.Theelectionsanalyzedinthisreportcovertheperiodfrom1July2012to31stDecember2013.Thisincludesdiversetypesofsocietiesandtypesofregimes,rangingfromtheUnited States,JapanandtheNetherlands,ontheonehand,toBurkinaFaso,SierraLeoneandBelarus,ontheother.ThelistofcontestsispresentedinTable1. Respondents: 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 (such as through publications, membership of a relevant research group or network, or university employment). 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, 855 completedresponseswerereceivedinthesurvey,representingjustunderonethirdoftheexpertsthattheprojectcontacted(30%). Concepts: 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 electioncycle,includingduringthepreelectionperiod,thecampaign,onpollingday,anditsaftermath.20 Measurement: To measure this concept, the PEI pilot survey questionnaire includes 49 items on electoral integrity (see Table 2) rangingover the whole electoral cycle. These items fell into elevensequentialsubdimensions,asshown.Mostattentionindetectingfraudfocusesuponthefinalstagesofthevotingprocess,suchastheroleofobserversinpreventingballotstuffing, voterigging and manipulated results. Drawing upon the notion of a menu of manipulation,21 however, the concept of an electoral cycle suggests that failure in even one step in the sequence,oronelinkinthechain,canundermineelectoralintegrity. The electoral integrityitems in the survey were recoded, where a higher score consistently represents a more positiveevaluation. Missing data was estimatedbased on multiple imputation of chained equations in groups composing of the eleven subdimensions. The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) Index is then an additive function of the 49 imputed variables, standardizedto100points.Subindicesoftheelevensubdimensionsintheelectoralcyclearesummationsoftheimputedindividualvariables.22 Validity and reliability tests: The results of the pilot study, from the elections held in 2012, were tested for external validity (with independent sources of evidence), internal validity (consistencywithinthegroupofexperts),andlegitimacy(howfartheresultscanberegardedasauthoritativebystakeholders).Theanalysis,presentedelsewhere,demonstratessubstantial external validity for the PEI datawhen compared to many other expert datasets, as well as internal validity across the experts within the survey, and legitimacy in levels of congruencewith massopinionswithineachcountry.23 CodebookThePEI2Codebookprovidesdetaileddescriptionofallvariablesandimputationprocedures.Acopycandownloadedfromtheprojectwebsite.

Page17

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
Period Sections 1.Electorallaws

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

2.Electoral procedures

Preelection

3.Boundaries

Performanceindicators 11Electorallawswereunfairtosmallerparties 12Electorallawsfavoredthegoverningpartyorparties(N) 13Electionlawsrestrictedcitizensrights 21Electionswerewellmanaged 22Informationaboutvotingprocedureswaswidelyavailable 23Electionofficialswerefair 24Electionswereconductedinaccordancewiththelaw 31Boundariesdiscriminatedagainstsomeparties 32Boundariesfavoredincumbents 33Boundarieswereimpartial 41Somecitizenswerenotlistedintheregister 42Theelectoralregisterwasinaccurate 43Someineligibleelectorswereregistered 51Someoppositioncandidateswerepreventedfromrunning 52Womenhadequalopportunitiestorunforoffice 53Ethnicandnationalminoritieshadequalopportunitiestorunforoffice 54Onlytoppartyleadersselectedcandidates 55Someparties/candidateswererestrictedfromholdingcampaignrallies 61Newspapersprovidedbalancedelectionnews 62TVnewsfavoredthegoverningparty 63Parties/candidateshadfairaccesstopoliticalbroadcastsandadvertising 64Journalistsprovidedfaircoverageoftheelections 65Socialmediawereusedtoexposeelectoralfraud 71Parties/candidateshadequitableaccesstopublicsubsidies 72Parties/candidateshadequitableaccesstopoliticaldonations 73Parties/candidatespublishtransparentfinancialaccounts 7.4Richpeoplebuyelections 75Somestatesresourceswereimproperlyusedforcampaigning 81Somevoterswerethreatenedwithviolenceatthepolls 82Somefraudulentvoteswerecast 83Theprocessofvotingwaseasy 84Voterswereofferedagenuinechoiceattheballotbox 85Postalballotswereavailable 86Specialvotingfacilitieswereavailableforthedisabled 87Nationalcitizenslivingabroadcouldvote 88Someformofinternetvotingwasavailable 91Ballotboxesweresecure 92Theresultswereannouncedwithoutunduedelay 93Voteswerecountedfairly 94Internationalelectionmonitorswererestricted 95Domesticelectionmonitorswererestricted 101Parties/candidateschallengedtheresults 102Theelectionledtopeacefulprotests 103Theelectiontriggeredviolentprotests 104Anydisputeswereresolvedthroughlegalchannels 111Theelectionauthoritieswereimpartial 112Theauthoritiesdistributedinformationtocitizens 113Theauthoritiesallowedpublicscrutinyoftheirperformance 114Theelectionauthoritiesperformedwell

Direction N N N P P P P N N P N N N N P P N N P N P P P P P P N N N N P P P P P P P P P N N N N N P P P P P

4.Voter registration 5.Party registration

6.Campaign media Campaign

7.Campaign finance

8.Votingprocess Electionday

9.Votecount

Postelection

10.Postelection

11.Electoral authorities

Note:DirectionoftheoriginalitemsP=positive,N=negative.Source:PippaNorris,RichardW.FrankandFerranMartnez iComa.TheexpertsurveyofPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity,February2014:www.electoralintegrityproject.com. Page18 PEIIndexScoreswith95%confidenceintervals(2tailed)24

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013
Confidenceintervals Albania Angola Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Barbados Belarus Bhutan Bulgaria BurkinaFaso Cambodia Cameroon Chile Congo,Rep. Cuba Cyprus CzechRep_12 CzechRep_13L CzechRep_13P Djibouti Ecuador EquatorialGuinea Georgia_12 Georgia_13 Germany Ghana Grenada Guinea Honduras Iceland Iran Israel Italy Japan_12 Japan_13 Jordan Kenya Korea,Rep. Kuwait_12 Kuwait_13 Lithuania Madagascar Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mexico Micronesia Mongolia Montenegro_12 Montenegro_13 Nepal Netherlands Norway Pakistan Paraguay Philippines Romania Rwanda SierraLeone Slovenia Swaziland Tajikistan Togo Turkmenistan Ukraine UnitedStates Venezuela_12 Venezuela_13 Zimbabwe Total Electiondate 23JUN2013 31AUG2012 27OCT2013 18FEB2013 07SEP2013 29SEP2013 09OCT2013 23FEB2013 23SEP2013 13JUL2013 12MAY2013 02DEC2012 28JUL2013 30SEP2013 15DEC2013 05AUG2012 03FEB2013 24FEB2013 19OCT2012 25OCT2013 25JAN2013 22FEB2013 17FEB2013 26MAY2013 01OCT2012 27OCT2013 22SEP2013 07DEC2012 19FEB2013 24SEP2013 24NOV2013 27APR2013 14JUN2013 22JAN2013 24FEB2013 16DEC2012 21JUL2013 23JAN2013 04MAR2013 19DEC2012 01DEC2012 27JUL2013 28OCT2012 20DEC2013 05MAY2013 16NOV2013 11AUG2013 09MAR2013 07DEC2013 01JUL2012 05MAR2013 26JUN2013 14OCT2012 07APR2013 19NOV2013 12SEP2012 09SEP2013 11MAY2013 21APR2013 13MAY2013 09DEC2012 16SEP2013 17NOV2012 02DEC2012 20SEP2013 06NOV2013 25JUL2013 15DEC2013 28OCT2012 06NOV2012 07OCT2012 14APR2013 31JUL2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM
PEI indexofelectoral integrity 64 47 72 55 76 81 53 69 46 68 60 53 46 57 74 45 65 78 81 82 79 40 64 38 63 71 84 65 73 54 56 83 63 79 73 74 73 56 53 81 60 67 78 52 48 60 62 72 53 70 71 71 69 51 64 83 86 60 64 59 59 74 64 80 56 49 50 50 52 70 63 52 48 64 PEIIndex,lowci 61 42 70 49 73 78 48 59 42 63 56 51 41 47 72 35 45 75 78 80 76 34 59 33 58 68 81 61 68 48 45 79 57 74 71 70 69 53 48 79 55 62 75 49 45 50 58 70 47 65 68 66 58 45 58 80 83 57 59 55 53 67 61 74 44 45 46 42 50 67 56 45 41 59

PEIIndex,highci 67 53 74 60 79 84 57 80 50 73 64 54 50 66 75 55 86 82 84 83 82 45 68 43 68 74 87 69 77 61 67 86 69 85 75 77 77 60 58 84 65 71 81 54 52 70 66 75 58 74 74 76 80 57 69 85 90 62 68 63 64 81 68 85 69 54 55 58 54 73 70 60 55 69

Page19

THEYEARINELECTIONS,2013

WWW.ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM

FurtherreadingfromEIP
Norris,Pippa,FerranMartneziComa,andRichardW.Frank.2013.Assessingthequalityofelections.Journalof Democracy.24(4):124135. Norris,Pippa,RichardW.FrankandFerranMartneziComa.2014.AdvancingElectoralIntegrity.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress. Norris,Pippa.2013.Doestheworldagreeaboutstandardsofelectoralintegrity?Evidenceforthediffusionofglobal normsSpecialissueofElectoralStudies32(4):576588. Norris,Pippa.2013.Thenewresearchagendastudyingelectoralintegrity.SpecialissueofElectoralStudies32(4):563 575. Norris,Pippa.2014.Electoralintegrityandpoliticallegitimacy.InComparingDemocracies4,eds.LawrenceLeDuc,Richard NiemiandPippaNorris.London:Sage. Norris,Pippa.2014.Whyelectoralintegritymatters.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. LeDuc,Lawrence,RichardNiemiandPippaNorris.Eds.2014.ComparingDemocracies4.London:SagePublications.

Page20

THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS

Suggestedcita on:
Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martinez i Coma. February 2014. The expertsurvey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity,Release2(PEI_2),February2014(Sydney,UniversityofSydney)

Acknowledgments:
The Electoral Integrity Project has been generously funded by the Australian Research Council. The expert survey of PerceptionsofElectoralIntegritycouldnothavebeenassembledwithouttheassistanceofmanyresearchassistantsatthe University of Sydney. We are most grateful in particular for the invaluable help of Max Grmping and Minh Trinh in developingresearchforthisreport.DatawasalsogatheredbySandraUrquiza,DanielBarabas,TomHarrison,LindaPalmer and Jordan Zeele. In constructing the survey, the project also greatly benefitted from discussions with colleagues in the Department of Government and international Relations and visiting fellows, including Caroline van Ham (Twente University) and Larry LeDuc (University of Toronto), from comments by colleagues at Harvards Kennedy School of Government, from several international workshops, and from collaboration with Andrew Reynolds (University of North Carolina,ChapelHill)andJorgenElklit(UniversityofAarhus).Wearealsomostgratefultoalltheexpertswhotooktimeto participateinthesurvey,withoutwhomthisresearchwouldnothavebeenpossible. References 1EstimatedfromtheCrossNationalTimeSeriesDataArchivehttp://www.databanksinternational.com/
2See,forexample,SusanD.Hyde.2011.ThePseudoDemocratsDilemma.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress;SarahBirch. 2012.ElectoralMalpractice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress;JudithKelley.2012.MonitoringDemocracy:When InternationalElectionObservationWorksandWhyitOftenFails.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress;Alberto Simpser.2013.Whygovernmentsandpartiesmanipulateelections:Theory,practiceandimplications.NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress;DaniellaDonno.2013.DefendingDemocraticNorms.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress;Pippa Norris,RichardW.FrankandFerranMartinezIComa.2014.Eds.AdvancingElectoralIntegrity.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress. 3PippaNorris.2014.WhyElectoralIntegrityMatters.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. 4UrsulaEDaxeckerandGeraldSchneider.2014.Electoralmonitoring.InAdvancingElectoralIntegrity,eds.PippaNorris, RichardW.FrankandFerranMartineziComa.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. 5OSCE/ODIHR.RepublicofAzerbaijanPresidentialElections9October2013ElectionObservationMissionFinalReport.

Warsaw:OSCE/ODIHR24December2013.
6CouncilofEurope.http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/NewsViewEN.asp?newsid=4699&lang=2&cat=31 7PippaNorris.2013.Thenewresearchagendastudyingelectoralintegrity.SpecialissueofElectoralStudies32(4):563 575. 8DavidJ.CarrollandAveryDavisRoberts.2013.TheCarterCenterandelectionobservation:Anobligationsbased approachforassessingelections.ElectionLawJournal.12(1):8793;AveryDavisRobertsandDavidJ.Carroll.2010.Using internationallawtoassesselections.Democratization.17(3):416441.Foranexampleofthewaythatinterntionallaws aretranslatedintopracticalstandards,seetheOrganizationforSecurityandCooperationinEurope(OSCE).2010.Election ObservationHandbook.Warsaw:OSCE/ODIHR.6thEd.

THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS

9PippaNorris,FerranMartinezIComaandRichardFrank.2013.Assessingthequalityofelections.JournalofDemocracy. 24(4):124135;PippaNorris,RichardW.FrankandFerranMartinezIComa.2014.Eds.AdvancingElectoralIntegrity.New York:OxfordUniversityPress. 10WiththeexceptionofelectionsinLibya,Senegal,andTimorLeste,however,whichwereexcludedduringthepilotstart

up.
11ThemeasurecombinestheFreedomHouseindexofcivillibertiesandpoliticalrightswithPolityVsdemocracy autocracyindex.SeetheQualityofGovernanceCrossSectionaldataset,downloadedDecember2013. 12Democraticcapitalismeasuredbythenumberofconsecutiveyearsfrom1930to2000thatacountryhadbeen democratic,asclassifiedbyBecketal.(2001).TheQualityofGovernmentvariableist_demyrs.Thecorrelationwiththe contemporaryPerceptionsofElectoralIntegrity(PEI)indexisstrongandsignificant(R=36.3**p.000N.66) 13Foradiscussion,seeChristopherJ.Anderson,AndreBlais,ShaunBowler,ToddDonovanandOlaListhaug.2005.Losers Consent:ElectionsandDemocraticLegitimacy.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. 14SeymourMartinLipset.1959.Somesocialrequisitesofdemocracy:Economicdevelopmentandpoliticallegitimacy.

AmericanPoliticalScienceReview53:69105.
15DiegoGarzia.2013.The2013Italianparliamentaryelection:changingthingssoeverythingstaysthesame.West EuropeanPolitics36(5):10951105. 16LorraineCarolMinnite.2010.TheMythofVoterFraud.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress;RichardL.Hasen,2012.The VotingWars:FromFlorida2000totheNextElectionMeltdown.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress;TovaAndreaWang. 2012.ThePoliticsofVoterSuppression:DefendingandExpandingAmericansRighttoVote.Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press;ThadE.Hall.2013.USvoterregistrationreform.ElectoralStudies32(4):589596. 17Pleasenotethatthecategorieshigh,moderate,andlowintegrityarerelativewithinthesampleofcountries,andnot accordingtoanyabsolutevalue.Thenumberofcountriesisdividedintothirdstocreatethecategories. 18SeeMagnushmanandHaniZainulbhai.2011.PoliticalFinanceRegulation:TheGlobalExperience.Washington,DC: IFES. 19Thecategorieshigh,moderate,andlowintegrityareinrelationtotheotherobservedelectionsinthesample,and

notinrelationtoanabsolutevalue(seealsoendnote17).PleasenotethatsinceTable1presentselectionleveldatathe categoriesaredifferentfromFigure4(whichpresentscountryleveldata).
20Pippa 21 22

Norris. 2013. The new research agenda studying electoral integrity. Special issue of ElectoralStudies 32(4).

Andreas Schedler. 2002. The menu of manipulation. JournalofDemocracy13(2): 3650. See the codebook for further information.

23 Pippa Norris, Ferran Martinez I Coma and Richard Frank. 2013. Assessing the quality of elections. Journalof Democracy.24(4): 124135; Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank and Ferran Martinez I Coma. 2014. Eds. AdvancingElectoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press. 24

Values for the PEI scores are the imputed values (see pg. 97).

THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS

Contact Information

Tel+6120467163051

Tel+61293512147

Tel61+293512147

PIPPA_NORRIS@KSG.HARVARD.EDU

Richard.Frank@Sydney.edu.au

Ferranmartinezcoma@Sydney.edu.au

The Electoral Integrity Project

Department of Government and International Relations Merewether Building (H0.4) University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006 electoralintegrity@sydney.edu.au www.electoralintegrityproject.com ISBN10: 0646918222 ISBN13: 9780646918228