Electoral integrity – The winner takes it all? Evidence from three British general elections

Justin Fisher,Yohanna Sällberg

doi:10.1177/1369148120912668

Justin Fisher, Yohanna Sällberg

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120912668

Copy DOI

Abstract

Studies of electoral integrity typically focus on electoral evaluators (expert surveys), electoral consumers (electors) and, occasionally, electoral producers (electoral administrators). Using a unique new data set collected at the British general elections of 2010, 2015 and 2017, this article examines evaluations of electoral integrity among a previously unresearched group of electoral users – the election agents of candidates standing for election. Using measures of both negative and positive electoral integrity, the article models explanations of users’ evaluations, focusing on the agent characteristics, geography and electoral status of the district or constituency. It shows that evaluations of electoral integrity vary significantly and highlights both that questions of electoral integrity are more localised than widespread, and that despite the significant impact of winner/loser effects, issues of electoral integrity are strongly related to the urban characteristics of an electoral district. In so doing, it makes a significant contribution to the literature on electoral integrity.

Highlights

A significant international literature has developed on electoral integrity, illustrating importantly that concerns are confined to developing democracies, but to mature ones as well (Alvarez et al, 2008; Birch, 2008, 2011; Bowler and Donovan, 2013; Karp et al, 2018; Lehoucq, 2003; Norris, 2014, 2015)
What is apparent first is that the levels of satisfaction are high – around 80% in both 2010 and 2017, despite the fact that non-proportional electoral systems tend to be associated with poorer perceptions of electoral fairness (Birch, 2008: 308)
Such evaluations are generally comparable with perceptions of electoral evaluators, which are relevant to and comparable with those made by electoral users

Summary

Introduction

A significant international literature has developed on electoral integrity, illustrating importantly that concerns are confined to developing democracies, but to mature ones as well (Alvarez et al, 2008; Birch, 2008, 2011; Bowler and Donovan, 2013; Karp et al, 2018; Lehoucq, 2003; Norris, 2014, 2015). Expect to see similar variation in these analyses – both because election administration is conducted at the local authority level rather than at the national level, and because, while the Electoral Commission, which oversees electoral management, is a UK-wide body, it is organised on a semi-federal basis with key offices in each of the countries within the United Kingdom. Given that electoral agents are, by definition, more committed – at least to the candidate if not the party – than voters, we would expect to see the common pattern of the effect of winning or losing being reflected in both perceptions of fraud, and in satisfaction with electoral administration.

Results

Conclusion

The 2010 question wording is as follows