Elections and election fraud in Georgia and Armenia
In: Caucasus SurveySearch for other papers by Dustin Gilbreath in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Sona Balasanyan in
Current site
Google Scholar
Elections on unfair playing fields are common. Yet election day fraud can result in authoritarians losing office. The freer the environment, the more an authoritarian must rely on means other than election day fraud to retain office, because they are less capable of coercing the population without facing repercussions. Among those other means is cooptation through public policy. A common theme in this special issue is that public policy has been of greater import in Georgia than Armenia. This article begins to explain this phenomenon using comparative case studies of election day fraud in Armenia and Georgia over time. To do so, the article uses methods from the field of election forensics to provide a quantitative comparison of the scale of election day fraud in each country’s elections since 2007 using precinct level election results for parliamentary and presidential elections. The test results suggest, as has been widely believed, that Georgia’s elections have had less election day fraud than Armenia’s during this period. This finding provides a theoretical basis to explain why public policy has been a greater concern in Georgia than Armenia.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 666 | 385 | 58 |
| Full Text Views | 34 | 13 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 63 | 26 | 14 |
Elections and election fraud in Georgia and Armenia
In: Caucasus SurveySearch for other papers by Dustin Gilbreath in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sona Balasanyan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Elections on unfair playing fields are common. Yet election day fraud can result in authoritarians losing office. The freer the environment, the more an authoritarian must rely on means other than election day fraud to retain office, because they are less capable of coercing the population without facing repercussions. Among those other means is cooptation through public policy. A common theme in this special issue is that public policy has been of greater import in Georgia than Armenia. This article begins to explain this phenomenon using comparative case studies of election day fraud in Armenia and Georgia over time. To do so, the article uses methods from the field of election forensics to provide a quantitative comparison of the scale of election day fraud in each country’s elections since 2007 using precinct level election results for parliamentary and presidential elections. The test results suggest, as has been widely believed, that Georgia’s elections have had less election day fraud than Armenia’s during this period. This finding provides a theoretical basis to explain why public policy has been a greater concern in Georgia than Armenia.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 666 | 385 | 58 |
| Full Text Views | 34 | 13 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 63 | 26 | 14 |