Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,155

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico

·2007·Choice Reviews Online
DOI 10.5860/choice.44-4695
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

1. Equilibrium party hegemony 2. Structural determinants of mass support 3. Budget cycles under autocracy 4. The politics of vote-buying 5. Judging economic performance in hard times 6. Ideological divisions in the opposition camp 7. How voters choose and mass coordination dilemmas 8. Electoral fraud and the game of electoral transitions 9. Conclusion.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.44-4695

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 134 references

Cited by

See all 1,155

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Publisher
American Library Association
Published
2007-04-01
Volume
44
Issue
08
Pages
44-4695-44-4695
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
DOI
10.5860/choice.44-4695
OpenAlex
W1533204478
Cited by
1,155
References
134
Type
book review
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: Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.44-4695
The paper
Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. (2007). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-4695

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.