This study sheds new light on whether responses to public opinion polls, namely, preference falsification, can affect the level of election fraud by employing Kuran’s model of preference falsification, which is empirically tested on the data collected from the most recent presidential campaign in Russia (2012). My research findings reveal the presence of a statistically significant effect of preference falsification on election fraud, thus enabling me to conclude that preference falsification is, indeed, conducive to election fraud. My findings can be generalised to a broad set of electoral autocracies, enabling scholars to get a better understanding of the mechanism by which survey polls can incentivise officials to commit election fraud.
AndersonL (1994) Neutrality and Bias in the 1990 Nicaraguan Preelection Polls: A Comment on Bischoping and Schuman. American Journal of Political Science38 (2): 486–494.
2.
AndonieCKuzmicsC (2012) Pre-election Polls as Strategic Coordination Devices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization84 (2): 681–700.
3.
ArceM (2003) Political Violence and Presidential Approval in Peru. The Journal of Politics65 (2): 572–583.
BeltranUValdiviaM (1999) Accuracy and Error in Electoral Forecasts: The Case of Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research11 (2): 115–134.
BuzinALubarevA (2008) Crime without Punishment: Administrative Electoral Technologies in Russian Federal Elections 2007–2008. Moscow, Russia: NIKKOLO M.
11.
CharninR (2012) Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Available at: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/1480077038 (accessed 1 May 2017).
12.
ChaudhuriAChristofidesTC (2007) Item Count Technique is Estimating the Proportion of People with Sensitive Feature. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference137: 589–593.
13.
CorstangeD (2009) Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment Multivariately with LISTIT. Political Analysis17: 45–63.
14.
CouperMPSingerETourangeauR (2003) Understanding the Effects of audio-CASI on Self-Reports of Sensitive Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly67: 385–395.
15.
DiamondL (2002) Elections without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy13 (2): 21–35.
16.
DillmanDTarnaiJ (1991) Mode Effects of Cognitively-Designed Recall Questions: A Comparison of Answers to Telephone and Mail Surveys. In: BiemerP (ed.) Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp.73–93.
17.
EgorovGGurievSSoninK (2009) Why Resource-poor Dictators Allow Freer Media: A Theory and Evidence from Panel Data. American Political Science Review103 (4): 645–668.
18.
EkmanJ (2009) Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes. International Political Science Review104 (3): 482–502.
19.
EnikolopovRKorovkinVPetrovaMet al. (2013) Field Experiment Estimate of Electoral Fraud in Russian Parliamentary Elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110 (2): 448–452.
20.
ForsytheMR (1993) An Experiment on Coordination in Multicandidate Elections: The Importance of Polls and Election Histories. Social Choice and Welfare10: 223–247.
21.
FryeTReuterOJSzakonyiD (2014) Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace. World Politics66 (2): 195–228.
22.
GeddesBZallerJ (1989) Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science33 (2): 319–347.
23.
Gel’manV (2005) Political Opposition in Russia: A Dying Species. Post-Soviet Affairs21 (3): 226–246.
24.
GlynnAN (2013) What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment and Analysis of the List Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly77: 159–172.
25.
GreenDPKernHL (2012) Modeling Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Survey Experiments with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees. Public Opinion Quarterly76: 491–511.
26.
GrovesRKahnR (1979) Survey by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal Interviews. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
27.
Hafner-BurtonEMHydeSDJablonskiRS (2013) When Do Governments Resort to Election Violence?British Journal of Political Science44: 149–179.
KalininKMebaneW (2013) Understanding Electoral Frauds through Evolution of Russian Federalism: The Emergence of Signaling Loyalty. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Science Association, Chicago, 11–14 April.
KlimekPYegorovYHanelRet al. (2012) Statistical Detection of Systematic Election Irregularities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America109 (41): 16469–16473.
34.
KobakDShpilkinSPshenichnikovMS (2012) Statistical Anomalies in 2011-2012 Russian Elections Revealed by 2D Correlation Analysis (Working paper). Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0741
35.
KobakDShpilkinSPshenichnikovMS (2016) Integer Percentages as Electoral Falsification Fingerprints. The Annals of Applied Statistics10: 54–73.
36.
KuranT (1987) Chameleon Voters and Public Choice. Public Choice53 (1): 53–78.
37.
KuranT (1991) Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989. World Politics44: 7–48.
38.
LohmannS (1994) The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91. World Politics47 (1): 42–101.
39.
MagaloniB (2010) The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule. American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 751–761.
40.
MaleskyESchulerP (2010) Nodding or Needling: Analyzing Delegate Responsiveness in an Authoritarian Parliament. American Political Science Review104: 482–502.
41.
MansfieldESnyderJ (1995) Democratization and the danger of war. International Security20 (1): 5–38.
42.
MebaneWR (2016) Election Forensics: Frauds Tests and Observation-Level Frauds Probabilities. Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 7–10 April.
43.
MebaneWRKalininK (2009) Comparative Election Fraud Detection. Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3–6 September 2009.
44.
MillerMK (2014) Elections, Information, and Policy Responsiveness in Autocratic Regimes. Comparative Political Studies48: 691–727.
45.
MyagkovMOrdeshookPCShaikinD (2009) The Forensics of Election Fraud: With Applications to Russia and Ukraine. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Noelle-NeumannE (1984) The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
OtavaJ (1988) Public Opinion Research in Czechoslovakia. Social Research55: 249.
49.
PalfreyTR (1989) A Mathematical Proof of Duverger’s Law. In: OrdeshookP (ed.) Models of Strategic Choice in Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp.69–92.
50.
ReuterOJRobertsonGB (2012) Subnational Appointments in Authoritarian Regimes: Evidence from Russian Gubernatorial Appointments. Journal of Politics74 (4): 1023–1037.
SiegerK (1990) Opinion Research in East Germany: A Challenge to Professional Standards. International Journal of Public Opinion Research2 (4): 323–344.
53.
SimpserA (2005) Making votes not count: Strategic incentives for electoral corruption. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
54.
SimpserA (2013) Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
TaylorCRYildirimH (2010) Public Information and Electoral Bias. Games and Economic Behavior68: 353–375.
56.
TourangeauRSmithT (1996) Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection, Question Format, and Question Context. Public Opinion Quarterly66: 265–278.
57.
TsuchiyaT (2005) Domain Estimators of the Item Count Technique. Survey Methodology1 (31): 41–51.
58.
WayLLevitskyS (2006) The Dynamics of Autocratic Coercion after the Cold War. Communist and Post-Communist Studies39: 387–410.
59.
WintrobeR (1998) The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
