Integrity of elections is vital to democratic systems, but it is frequently threatened by malicious actors. The study of algorithmic complexity of the problem of manipulating election outcomes by changing its structural features is known as election control. One means of election control that has been proposed is to select a subset of issues that determine voter preferences over candidates. We study a variation of this model in which voters have judgments about relative importance of issues, and a malicious actor can manipulate these judgments. We show that computing effective manipulations in this model is NP-hard even with two candidates or binary issues. However, we demonstrate that the problem is tractable with a constant number of voters or issues. Additionally, while it remains intractable when voters can vote stochastically, we exhibit an important special case in which stochastic voting enables tractable manipulation.
more »
« less
Voting Against Autocracy
When and how do voters punish politicians for subverting democracy? To investigate the role of the public in democratic backsliding, I develop a conceptual framework that differentiates among three mechanisms: vote switching, backlash, and disengagement. The first mechanism entails defection by voters from a candidate who undermines democracy to one who does not; the latter two mechanisms entail transitions between voting and abstention. I estimate the magnitude of each mechanism by combining evidence from a series of original survey experiments, traditional surveys, and a quasi-experiment afforded by the rerun of the 2019 Istanbul mayoral election, in which the governing party, akp, attempted to overturn the result of an election that it had lost. I find that although vote switching and backlash contributed to the akp's eventual defeat the most, each of the three mechanisms served as a democratic check in some subset of the Istanbul electorate. Persuasion, mobilization, and even demobilization are all viable tools for curbing the authoritarian tendencies of elected politicians.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1851524
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10484160
- Publisher / Repository:
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- World Politics
- Volume:
- 75
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1086-3338
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 647 to 691
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Integrity of elections is vital to democratic systems, but it is frequently threatened by malicious actors.The study of algorithmic complexity of the problem of manipulating election outcomes by changing its structural features is known as election control Rothe [2016].One means of election control that has been proposed, pertinent to the spatial voting model, is to select a subset of issues that determine voter preferences over candidates.We study a variation of this model in which voters have judgments about relative importance of issues, and a malicious actor can manipulate these judgments.We show that computing effective manipulations in this model is NP-hard even with two candidates or binary issues.However, we demonstrate that the problem becomes tractable with a constant number of voters or issues.Additionally, while it remains intractable when voters can vote stochastically, we exhibit an important special case in which stochastic voting behavior enables tractable manipulation.more » « less
-
In representative democracies, regular election cycles are supposed to prevent misbehavior by elected officials, hold them accountable, and subject them to the “will of the people." Pandering, or dishonest preference reporting by candidates campaigning for election, undermines this democratic idea. Much of the work on Computational Social Choice to date has investigated strategic actions in only a single election. We introduce a novel formal model of pandering and examine the resilience of two voting systems, Representative Democracy (RD) and Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD), to pandering within a single election and across multiple rounds of elections. For both voting systems, our analysis centers on the types of strategies candidates employ and how voters update their views of candidates based on how the candidates have pandered in the past. We provide theoretical results on the complexity of pandering in our setting for a single election, formulate our problem for multiple cycles as a Markov Decision Process, and use reinforcement learning to study the effects of pandering by single candidates and groups of candidates over many rounds.more » « less
-
more » « less
We revisit the effect of ballot access laws on voter confidence in the outcome of elections. Previous research found weak or no relationship between voter confidence and election laws regulating ballot access. We argue this non-finding is conditioned by partisanship. Democrats and Republicans view election laws through a partisan lens, which is especially triggered when coalitions lose. Republican voters see ballot restrictions as a means of securing the vote against fraud; Democratic voters see ballot restrictions as voter suppression. We maintain that the conditional partisan effect that election laws have on voter confidence is triggered or attenuated when partisans’ candidates lose elections. We find that in states where ballot access is costly, voter confidence among partisans and supporters of the losing Presidential candidate is significantly higher for Republicans and significantly lower for Democrats than their counterparts in states with less costly ballot access laws. These effects are greater for Republican than Democrats. We discuss the implications of our findings on election ecosystems and voter confidence.
-
How does the public respond to court-packing attempts? Longstanding accounts of public support for courts suggest voters retaliate against incumbents who seek to manipulate well-respected courts. Yet incumbents might strategically frame their efforts in bureaucratic terms to minimize the public’s outcry or use court-packing proposals to activate a partisan base of support. Drawing on a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that strategic politicians can minimize electoral backlash by couching court reform proposals in apolitical language, and institutional legitimacy’s shielding effect dissolves in the face of shared partisanship. These results shed new light on how ambitious politicians might avoid electoral consequences for efforts to bend the judiciary to their will.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2023.a908772
