Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T03:37:56.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quality of Vote Tallies: Causes and Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2020

CRISTIAN CHALLÚ ,
ENRIQUE SEIRA  and
ALBERTO SIMPSER Open the ORCID record for ALBERTO SIMPSER [Opens in a new window]
CRISTIAN CHALLÚ*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
ENRIQUE SEIRA*
Affiliation:
ITAM-CIE
ALBERTO SIMPSER*
Affiliation:
ITAM-CIE
*
Cristian Challú, PhD student, Machine Learning, Carnegie Mellon University, cchallu@andrew.cmu.edu.
Enrique Seira, Professor, Department of Economics and Center for Economic Research, ITAM, enrique.seira@itam.mx.
Alberto Simpser Professor, Department of Political Science and Center for Economic Research, ITAM, alberto.simpser@itam.mx.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The credibility of election outcomes hinges on the accuracy of vote tallies. We provide causal evidence on the drivers and the downstream consequences of variation in the quality of vote tallies. Using data for the universe of polling stations in Mexico in five national elections, we document that over 40% of polling-station-level tallies display inconsistencies. Our evidence strongly suggests these inconsistencies are nonpartisan. Using data for more than 1.5 million poll workers, we show that lower educational attainment, higher workload, and higher complexity of the tally cause more inconsistencies. Finally, using an original survey of close to 80,000 poll workers together with detailed administrative data, we find that inconsistencies cause recounts and recounts lead to lower trust in electoral institutions. We discuss policy implications.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 114 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 1071 - 1085
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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

The authors thank Francisco Cantú, Scott Gehlbach, Andrei Gomberg, Miguel Rueda, seminar participants at the University of Texas at Austin, ITAM, and the Instituto Nacional Electoral, and conference participants at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting and the Society for Institutional and Organizational Economics Conference for helpful comments. An online appendix contains supplementary materials referenced throughout the text. We thank the Instituto Nacional Electoral for its help in making this research possible. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4M0HEN.

References

Altonji, Joseph G., Elder, Todd E., and Taber, Christopher R.. 2005. “Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools.” Journal of Political Economy 113 (1): 151–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Hall, Thad E.. 2008. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Goodrich, Melanie, Thad Hall, D. Kiewiet, and Sled, Sarah. 2004. “The Complexity of the California Recall Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (1): 23–26.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, Jonathan N., and Hill, Sarah A.. 2009. “Machines versus Humans: The Counting and Recounting of Pre-Scored Punchcard Ballots.” Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/96569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Reeves, Andrew. 2004. “Using Recounts to Measure the Accuracy of Vote Tabulations: Evidence from New Hampshire Elections 1946–2002.” Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/96548.Google Scholar
Aparicio, Javier. 2009. “Análisis estadístico de la elección presidencial de 2006: ¿Fraude o errores aleatorios?” Política y Gobierno 16 (SPE2): 225–243.Google Scholar
Autheman, Violaine. 2004. “The Resolution of Disputes Related to ‘Election Results’: A Snapshot of Court Practice in Selected Countries around the World.” In IFES Rules of Law Conference Paper Series. http://aceproject.org/ero-en/topics/electoral-dispute-resolution/ConfPaper_Indonesia_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Cantú, Francisco. 2014. “Identifying Irregularities in Mexican Local Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 936–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantú, Francisco. 2018. “The Fingerprints of Fraud: Evidence from Mexico’s 1988 Presidential Election.” Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantú, Francisco, and Ley, Sandra. 2017. “Poll Worker Recruitment: Evidence from the Mexican Case.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 16 (4): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., Magleby, David B., Monson, J. Quinn, and Patterson, Kelly D. 2008. “At Your Service: Voter Evaluations of Poll Worker Performance.” American Politics Research 36 (4): 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, José Antonio. 2006. Hablan las actas: Las debilidades de la autoridad electoral mexicana. México: Editorial Debate.Google Scholar
Datta, Saugato, and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2014. “Behavioral Design: A New Approach to Development Policy.” Review of Income and Wealth 60 (1): 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, Thomas S. 2007. “Technology and Voter Intent: Evidence from the California Recall Election.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (4): 674–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, Jorge I., and McCann, James A.. 1998. Democratizing Mexico: Public Opinion and Electoral Choices. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gailliot, Matthew T., Roy F. Baumeister, C. Nathan DeWall, Jon K. Maner, E. Ashby Plant, Dianne M. Tice, Lauren E. Brewer, and Brandon J. Schmeichel. 2007. “Self-Control Relies on Glucose As a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (2): 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, Stephen N., Byrne, Michael D., and Gilbert, Juan E.. 2012. “Post-Election Auditing: Effects of Procedure and Ballot Type on Manual Counting Accuracy, Efficiency, and Auditor Satisfaction and Confidence.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 11 (1): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Thad E., Monson, J. Quin, and Patterson, Kelly D.. 2009. “The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 62 (3): 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2007. “The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” World Politics 60 (1): 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. 2004. “The Wrong Man is President! Overvotes in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (3): 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. 2010. “Fraud in the 2009 Presidential Election in Iran?” Chance 23 (1): 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinar, Juan. 1991. El Tiempo de la Legitimidad: Elecciones, Autoritarismo y Democracia En México. Mexico: Cal Y Arena.Google Scholar
Myagkov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter C., and Shakin, Dimitri. 2010. The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oster, Emily. 2019. “Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 37 (2): 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Páez Benalcázar, Andrés. 2017. “Los ecuatorianos tienen derecho al recuento.” The New York Times ES. July 13. https://www.nytimes.com/es/2017/04/13/los-ecuatorianos-tienen-derecho-al-recuento/.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 1995. “Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research.” Biometrika 82 (4): 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, Pliego, Fernando, . 2007. El Mito del Fraude Electoral en México. México: Editorial Pax México.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2000. “Florida 2000: a Legal and Statistical Analysis of the Election Deadlock and the Ensuing Litigation.” The Supreme Court Review 2000: 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2009. “Inconsistencias Contaminantes: Gobernación Electoral y Conflicto Poselectoral en las Elecciones Presidenciales del 2006 en México.” América Latina Hoy 51: 41.Google Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2012. “The Risk of Partyarchy and Democratic Backsliding: Mexico’s 2007 Electoral Reform.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 8 (1): 31–56.Google Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2014. “The 2012 Elections in Mexico: Return of the Dominant Party.” Electoral Studies 34: 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2016. “Vote Buying with Illegal Resources: Manifestation of a Weak Rule of Law in Mexico.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 8 (1): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, Alberto. 2012. “Does Electoral Manipulation Discourage Voter Turnout? Evidence from Mexico.” The Journal of Politics 74 (3): 782–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, Alberto. 2013. Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice, and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Challú et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4M0HEN
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Challú et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Challú et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 8.4 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.