English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Since the 1970s there has been a large number of countries that combineformal democratic institutions with authoritarian practices. Although in suchcountries the ruling elites may receive considerable voter support they oftenemploy several manipulation tools to control election outcomes. A commonpractice of these regimes is the coercion and mobilization of a significantamount of voters to guarantee the electoral victory. This electoralirregularity is known as voter rigging, distinguishing it from vote rigging,which involves ballot stuffing or stealing. Here we develop a statistical testto quantify to which extent the results of a particular election display tracesof voter rigging. Our key hypothesis is that small polling stations are moresusceptible to voter rigging, because it is easier to identify opposingindividuals, there are less eye witnesses, and supposedly less visits fromelection observers. We devise a general statistical method for testing whethervoting behavior in small polling stations is significantly different from thebehavior of their neighbor stations in a way that is consistent with thewidespread occurrence of voter rigging. Based on a comparative analysis, themethod enables to rule out whether observed differences in voting behaviormight be explained by geographic heterogeneities in vote preferences. Weanalyze 21 elections in ten different countries and find significant anomaliescompatible with voter rigging in Russia from 2007-2011, in Venezuela from2006-2013, and in Uganda 2011. Particularly disturbing is the case of Venezuelawhere these distortions have been outcome-determinative in the 2013presidential elections.

Testing for voter rigging in small polling stations