The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A framework for the systematic study of election quality
Abstract
This article offers the beginnings of a methodology for assessing the quality of a national election, its freeness, fairness and administrative efficacy. The historical lack of a comprehensive framework of analysis has compelled election observers to make pronouncements on the basis of incomplete evidence, usually gathered on the day of the vote and count. It has allowed international observation missions to ‘call’ the results of elections on the basis of political expediency rather than the facts of the case. The intent in this article is not to offer a foolproof method for categorizing election quality but rather to lay out a framework which we believe is more comprehensive and meaningful than anything that has come before. To illustrate its workings the article scores six multi-party elections: two in established democracies – Australia and Denmark 2001– and four in fledgling democracies – South Africa 1994 and 2004, East Timor 2001 and Zimbabwe 2002. The framework outlined here will make it possible to identify patterns of success and failure in the fairness of elections. It should enable all kinds of observers from academics and election administrators to election observers to spotlight the weak areas of election administration, where a government might then choose to focus its efforts to improve the quality of subsequent elections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M., Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., et al. (2011) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592711000880 · Cited by 954
Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis
Birch, S. (2008) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.005 · Cited by 280
D-Minus Elections: The Politics and Norms of International Election Observation
Kelley, J. (2009) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818309990117 · Cited by 153
Piccolino, G. (2016) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2014.983906 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Elklit, J., & Reynolds, A.
- Venue
- Democratization
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 147-162
- ISSN
- 1351-0347 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-890X
- OpenAlex
- W2078403854
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for the systematic study of election quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13510340500069204
- The paper
- Elklit, J., & Reynolds, A. (2005). A framework for the systematic study of election quality. Democratization. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340500069204
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.