Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:01:57.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Orientation, Information and Perceptions of Election Fraud: Evidence from Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2015

Graeme Robertson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Citizen perceptions of the extent of fraud in a given authoritarian election can differ widely. This article builds on the literature on information acquisition and processing in democracies to argue that much of this variation is due to the way in which citizens’ underlying political orientations affect both the kind of information they gather and how they process that information. These differences in information acquisition and processing have important implications for how election monitoring reports, access to the internet and other sources of information are likely to affect the stability of contemporary authoritarian regimes. The theory is tested using observational data and a survey experiment from the Russian presidential election of 2012.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 589 - 608
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (email: [email protected]). Data replication sets are available at http:dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS, and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123415000356.

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Persily, Nathaniel. 2008. Voter Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder. Harvard Law Review 121 (7):1738–1774.Google Scholar
Baron, Jonathan. 2000. Thinking and Deciding, 3rd ed, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beissinger, Mark. 2013. The Semblance of Democratic Revolution: Coalitions in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. American Political Science Review 107 (3):574–592.Google Scholar
Birch, Sarah. 2008. Electoral Institutions and Popular Confidence in Electoral Processes: A Cross-National Analysis. Electoral Studies 27:305–320.Google Scholar
Birch, Sarah. 2010. Perceptions of Electoral Fairness and Voter Turnout. Comparative Political Studies 43 (12):1601–1622.Google Scholar
Brancati, Dawn. 2013. Building Confidence in Elections: The Case of Electoral Monitors in Kosova, Manuscript. St. Louis, MO: Washington University.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie, and Sharon Wolchik, . 2011. Defeating Authoritarian Leaders in PostCommunist Countries. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chernykh, Svitlana. 2014. When Do Political Parties Protest Election Results? Comparative Political Studies 47 (10):1359–1383.Google Scholar
Colton, Timothy J., and Hale, Henry E.. 2009. The Putin Vote: Presidential Electorates in Hybrid Regimes. Slavic Review 68 (3):473–503.Google Scholar
Cottle, Simon. 2011. Media and the Arab Uprisings of 2011: Research Notes. Journalism 12 (5):647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, Stefano, and Gentzkow, Matthew. 2010. Persuasion: Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Economics 2 (1):643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNardo, James. 1985. Power in Numbers: The Political Strategy of Protest and Rebellion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2010. Liberation Technology. Journal of Democracy 21 (3):69–83.Google Scholar
Enikolopov, Ruben, Petrova, Maria, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina. 2011. Media and Political Persuasion: Evidence from Russia. American Economic Review 101 (7):3253–3285.Google Scholar
Enikolopov, Ruben, Korovkina, Vasily, Petrova, Maria, Sonin, Konstantin, and Zakharov, Alexei. 2013. Field Experiment Estimate of Electoral Fraud in Russian Parliamentary Elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2):448–452.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, and Zaller, John. 1989. Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science 33 (2):319–347.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Hill, Seth J.. 2013. Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 57:537–551.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel J., and Ladd, Jonathan M.. 2014. The Consequences of Broader Media Choice: Evidence from the Expansion of Fox News. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (1):115–135.Google Scholar
Hyde, Susan. 2007. The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. World Politics 60 (1):37–63.Google Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2011. Catch Us if You Can: International Election Monitoring and Norm Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):356–369.Google Scholar
Hyde, Susan D., and Marinov, Nikolay. 2012. Which Elections Can Be Lost? Political Analysis 20 (2):191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2009. Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication 59 (1):19–39.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanot, Hahn, Kyu S., Krosnick, Jon A., and Walker, John. 2008. Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership. The Journal of Politics 70 (1):186–200.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith G. 2008. Assessing the Complex Evolution of Norms: The Rise of International Election Monitoring. International Organization 62 (2):221–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith G. 2012. Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works and Why It Often Fails. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith, and Kolev, Kiril. 2010. Election Quality and International Observation 1975-2004: Two New Datasets. Available from SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1694654, accessed 12 June 2015.Google Scholar
Kern, Holger Lutz. 2011. Foreign Media and Protest Diffusion in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of the 1989 East German Revolution. Comparative Political Studies 44:1179–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Holger Lutz, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2009. Opium for the Masses: How Foreign Media can Stabilize Authoritarian Regimes. Political Analysis 17:377–399.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989. World Politics 44 (1):7–48.Google Scholar
LeHoucq, Fabrice. 2003. Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types and Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 6:233–256.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way, . 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1994. Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-1991. World Politics 47:42–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, and Lepper, Mark R.. 1979. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11):2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, Michael, Wolak, Jennifer, Keele, Luke, and Marcus, George E.. 2010. Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2):440–458.Google Scholar
McCann James, A., and Dominguez, Jorge I.. 1998. Democratizing Mexico: Public Opinion and Electoral Choices. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelson, Sarah, and Gerber, Theodore P.. 2008. Us and Them: Anti-American Views of the Putin Generation. The Washington Quarterly 31 (2):131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Darks Side of Internet Freedom. Philadelphia, PA: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Oates, Sarah. 2013. Revolution Stalled: The Political Limits of the Internet in the Post-Soviet Sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2013. Media and Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16:101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter, Ora John, and Szakonyi, David. 2015. Online Social Media and Political Awareness in Authoritarian Regimes. British Journal of Political Science 45 (1):29–51.Google Scholar
Shirky, Clay. 2011. The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, January/February: 1–9.Google Scholar
Stroud, Natalie J. 2008. Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. Political Behavior 30 (3):341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2011. Presidential Popularity in a Hybrid Regime: Russia Under Yeltsin and Putin. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):590–609.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2007. Enough! Electoral Fraud, Collective Action Problems, and Post-Communist Colored Revolutions. Perspectives on Politics 1 (3):535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Jeremy. 2013. Cities, Redistribution, and Authoritarian Regime Survival. The Journal of Politics 75 (3):632–645.Google Scholar
Westen, Drew, Blagov, Pavel S., Harenski, Keith, Kilts, Clint, and Hamann, Stephan. 2006. Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18 (11):1947–1958.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Graeme Robertson supplementary material S1

Supplementary Appendix

Download Graeme Robertson supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 646.2 KB