6. Disputed Elections Methodology

The narratives referenced in the chapter above have concrete manifestations in the ways in which parties and candidates deal with the outcomes of elections and, from there, in the ways in which voters perceive and understand or evaluate the integrity of an election. The ideal data to use in analysing public perceptions of electoral integrity would, of course, be survey data. However, the data of this kind that are available have limited coverage, and there are often significant time lags in publication. An alternative measurement approach is to leverage the known connections between the public statements and actions of political parties and candidates and public perceptions, measuring the former as an incomplete (but still helpful) indicator of the latter.

In the analysis that follows, we investigate elections that have been the subject of political or legal disputes, defined here as elections marked by (a) calls for or actual boycotts of an election by political parties; (b) the refusal to concede on the part of any losing candidate or party regardless of how minor the party is; and (c) court cases that allege that elections were flawed. Though the cases examined were filed by different actors, they (mainly CSOs and political parties and candidates) all enjoy a direct connection with the public, either because they represent significant portions of the public or because they are mandated to work in the public interest, or because they are members of the public (Costello et al. 2021; Klüver and Sagarzazu 2016; Kopecký and Mudde 2003; Lane and Ersson 1997; McLaverty 2002). This is particularly the case with parties and candidates, from whom the public takes cues regarding what to care about (Arceneaux 2008; Druckman, Peterson and Slothuus 2013; Pyeatt and Yanus 2016; Zaller 1990). Given this connection between political elites and the public, the grounds upon which election-related cases are filed represent at least a core set of the issues people (and their leaders) prioritize when considering electoral integrity. It is important to note that legal challenges are not the only sign that an election result or process is in dispute. Indeed, protests and violence can be important signs of public disagreement. However, violence has been studied slightly apart from electoral integrity to this point and is not included in most data sets that cover electoral integrity.

The following analysis is based on an original data set that covers all national elections that took place during the last four years, specifically between May 2020 and April 2024. On the basis of press reports, court rulings, observer reports and other sources, we coded (a) whether or not an opposition party boycotted or called for the boycott of an election; (b) whether or not a losing party or candidate publicly rejected the validity of an election; (c) whether or not any actor filed a legal challenge to an election; (d) the aspects of an election that were the subject of a legal complaint (according to the major categories of the PEI data set questionnaire); and (e) data about who undertook these actions. These data inform the analysis that follows.

Next up