|
|
|
|
The Electoral Integrity Project
We focus upon three issues:
- When do elections meet international standards of electoral integrity?
- What happens when elections fail to do so?
- And what can be done to mitigate these problems?
|
|
|
EIP's new report ranks Afghanistan, Syria and Bahrain the worst elections of 2014
The Year in Elections, 2014: The world's flawed and failed contests
In many countries, polling day ends with disputes about ballot‐box fraud, corruption, and flawed registers. Which claims are accurate? And which are false complaints from sore losers?
New evidence gathered by the Electoral Integrity Project has just been released in an annual report and dataset which compares the risks of flawed and failed elections, and how far countries around the world meet international standards. The EIP is an independent research project based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University, under the direction of Professor Pippa Norris.
The report evaluates the integrity of all 127 national parliamentary and presidential contests held between 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2014 in 107 countries worldwide, ranging from Sweden and the United States to Mozambique and Syria. The current dataset covers almost two-thirds (62%) of all independent nation-states worldwide holding direct elections for the lower house of parliament, containing 4,2 billion people in total.
The EIP report identifies several key new findings and elections raising major red flags:
- During 2014, the worst elections were in Afghanistan, Syrian and Bahrain, all of which failed to meet international standards.
- Elections ranked highest were held in Norway, Lithuania, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Germany.
- States in Africa and the Middle East face the greatest risks of failed elections, but there are certain clear exceptions within these regions, notably the successful Tunisian presidential and legislative elections, and fairly well‐rated contests in Mauritius and South Africa.
- Elections in the United States were poorly rated by experts, scoring lowest among Western nations. The 2014 Congressional race ranked 48th worldwide in the PEI index, slightly worse than the 2012 Presidential election (42nd). Experts were concerned about American electoral laws and voter registration procedures, both areas of heated partisan debate.
- The most serious risks arise during the campaign from disparities in political finance and media coverage, assessed as more common problems than malpractices occurring on election‐day or its aftermath.
- Overall electoral integrity is strengthened by democracy, development, and power-sharing constitutions. Longer experience over successive contests consolidates democratic practices, deepens civic cultures, and builds the capacity of professional electoral management bodies.
|
|
|
The evidence is derived from a global survey of 1,429 election experts (a response rate of 29%). Immediately after each contest, the survey asks domestic and international experts to monitor the quality based on 49 indicators. These responses are then clustered into eleven stages occurring during the electoral cycle and summed to construct an overall 100‐point expert Perception of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index and ranking.
Subsequent annual reports will cover national elections every year, to broaden the comparison worldwide.
“More elections are held worldwide during recent decades but there is widespread concern about their integrity,” Pippa Norris commented, “Too often elections are deeply flawed, or even failing to meet international standards. This study is the first to gather reliable evidence from experts to pinpoint where contests are problematic‐ such as in Bahrain, Syria and Afghanistan – and also to celebrate where they succeed, such as in Lithuania, Costa Rica and Sweden.”
We invite you to share this with your colleagues, media and other contacts who might be interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
