Inadmissible influence on the election

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

Inadmissible influencing of elections refers to interest-based attempts to influence the outcome of elections in violation of the principles of electoral law (e.g. freedom, equality and generality of elections). The measures can start at different levels of the electoral process (electoral legislation, election implementation, voters).

Inadmissible electoral influence is understood here only as actions that are at least formally consistent with the applicable (electoral) legal system. For unlawful acts to influence election results (election fraud, election manipulation) see: election fraud . The limits of impermissible electoral influence understood in this way to admissible electoral influence ( election campaign , need to define specific electoral provisions) on the one hand and electoral fraud on the other hand cannot be precisely determined.

Democratic principles

An essential feature of a democratic constitutional state are free elections , in which competing parties or electoral associations strive for a majority of votes in accordance with the rule of law . For this purpose, electoral principles (general, free, equal and secret election, transparent election implementation) have emerged, which represent general standards for elections.

The boundaries between democratic constitutional states and undemocratic states are fluid in practice. An important yardstick for assessing the rule of law and democracy is the manner in which elections are conducted, for which a number of standards that have been recognized internationally as a characteristic of democratic elections have been established, such as:

  • All citizens of an area above a certain age limit are entitled to vote.
  • The voters are free to choose; they can make this decision in secret.
  • All the rules of the election are determined in advance and their implementation, especially voting and determination of the election result, is independently monitored.

Classification of electoral influence

There are various circumstances in which elections can take the title constitutional and democratic.

Based on the legal status of inadmissible electoral influence, one can distinguish:

  • Methods that explicitly violate the applicable electoral laws (see electoral fraud # methods of electoral fraud ),
  • Methods that are below a direct violation of electoral laws, circumvent or subvert them,
  • Violations of the legislature against democratic standards as well as other state acts that are formally compliant with the law, but primarily serve the purpose of giving preference to certain voters.

The admissibility of measures that concern the last two points is often controversial in individual cases.

Based on the means and procedures used, impermissible electoral influence can be summarized in the following groups:

  • Change in the result of democratically conducted elections (election fraud),
  • Influencing voting by deceiving voters,
  • Withdrawal of the right to vote through bureaucratic measures,
  • Preventing or influencing the voting of certain groups of voters through threats or use of force,
  • Preventing a fair election campaign, e.g. B. by interfering with the reporting of state-controlled media,
  • Election by proxy, especially in the case of postal votes (election fraud).

Methods of influencing elections

Elections can be falsified by numerous methods, which start at different stages.

Before the election

Suffrage

The chances of success of various candidates and groups are already influenced by the design of the right to vote. Ideally, a decision on the applicable electoral law is made within the general electoral law principles solely on the basis of state-political considerations (representation of the will of the electorate, functionality of the government system). If the electoral law is modified in an existing political system, however, it is often foreseeable which political group (s) would benefit from a certain new regulation. A change in the right to vote with the aim of giving preference to certain political groups can be viewed as undue influence on the election. Possible parameters are:

  • Electoral mode: In the case of personality elections, an electoral system with one ballot, in which candidates are elected with a relative majority , prefers large individual parties (compared to the electoral system with an absolute majority with a possible runoff ). In parliamentary elections, the preferred electoral system compared to proportional representation large parties to a great extent. Since it usually ensures stable majorities capable of acting in parliaments, it is still widespread.
  • Elimination clause : It is similar with the electoral clause, in which parties who do not achieve a certain percentage of the vote in a proportional representation are not taken into account in the allocation of seats. A threshold clause makes it easier to find a majority in a parliament, but puts small parties at a disadvantage in favor of the established, large parties.
  • Allocation of seats: When converting numbers of votes into numbers of seats, the D'Hondt procedure can easily favor large parties, while the Hare-Niemeyer procedure or the Sainte-Laguë procedure are neutral towards the size of the party. If one of the procedures is applied separately to partial elective areas or if they are connected one after the other in a multi-level system, the deviation can be considerable.
  • Constituencies : Constituencies can be tailored in majority voting so that as many suitable candidates as possible are elected. A simple way of doing this is to create constituencies of different sizes, measured by the number of eligible voters. Areas with an opposition majority are divided into relatively few, large constituencies, so that only a few opposition candidates are sent to parliament. It is less noticeable that demographic shifts between constituencies over time are only offset by constituency reform if they are harmful to the ruling party. If such a practice is prohibited by law, one can form constituencies of the same size in such a way that the acceptable candidates are likely to achieve relatively tight but safe majorities, and remaining 'oppositional' areas are grouped together. This means that many opposition supporters can only vote for a candidate who has already been elected. This controversial practice is known as gerrymandering in the United States .

Since a specific regulation has to be set by law when defining an electoral law, which may almost inevitably appear less favorable to some political groups than to others, the boundaries between impartial and interest-based decisions are inevitably unclear.

Candidates

In some elections the government tries to prevent promising opposition candidates from participating in the election. There are different possibilities for this:

  • Legally prescribed selection process: In Iran, for example, candidates must be approved by the so-called Guardian Council .
  • Special laws that are introduced before the election and make the right to stand for election subject to new conditions specially selected to exclude certain opposition candidates.
  • Criminalization: A candidate is charged with a misdemeanor and convicted by an insufficiently independent court. Since in many countries convictions for certain offenses automatically or optionally also lose the right to stand as a candidate, the candidate cannot participate in the election, even if he does not have to go to prison.
  • Intimidation: Unpleasant candidates are led to withdraw their candidacy with the threat of physical violence, actual physical violence or the threat of other disadvantages (loss of job, sanctions against relatives).
  • Imprisonment or murder: if other means do not work, promising candidates could be imprisoned or even murdered without pretext, like Benigno Aquino by the regime of Ferdinand Marcos .

Voters

Elections can be influenced by people or interest groups by trying to prevent voters with disagreeable opinions from voting and to support pleasant voters as much as possible or even to generate bogus voters:

  • Targeted legal exclusion of certain groups of voters, for example by targeting the minimum voting age or particularly strict requirements for citizenship (e.g. exclusion of national minorities). Historically, this also includes the census suffrage , in which only wealthy citizens are entitled to vote.
  • Removal of voters who would presumably not make the desired decision from the electoral roll. In the 2000 presidential elections in the USA, the charge was made that this was done in the context of the deletion of allegedly delinquent voters in Florida .
  • It can be made more difficult for supposedly unpleasant voters to register on the electoral roll.
  • Request for postal voting documents for demented and mentally disabled people, in their place of whom relatives, carers or employees of old people's and nursing homes vote.
  • Intimidation of unwelcome voters, for example by threatening physical violence or administrative measures.
  • Introduction of non-objective electoral requirements, with the help of which, through partisan application, unpleasant voters can be singled out and pleasant voters accepted.
  • Voices can really be bought. This is particularly common in the Third World, where voters are promised a small amount of money or food in return for the 'right' vote.

Below the threshold of direct interference in the electoral process, voting can also be influenced by specific disabilities. In this way, it is possible to prevent or make it more difficult to vote in the polling stations of a district or a region that is considered to be the stronghold of the opponent or can be assumed to be such due to its sociological composition.

Methods to prevent voting in individual areas are:

  • Leaflets or phone calls with incorrect information about the election date,
  • insufficient allocation of election workers, voting booths or voting computers to provoke long queues,
  • unfavorable location and low number of polling stations,
  • external disturbances in the electoral process, e.g. B. by bomb threats at a polling station,
  • deliberately induced or tolerated technical problems on voting computers,
  • separate polling stations for “yes” and “no” votes, such as B. in the referendum in Iran in 1953 .

These measures boil down to increasing the inconvenience of voting or delaying voter voting beyond the time the polling stations are closed.

This form of manipulation would be particularly effective in countries in which voting is not carried out on a non-working day (e.g. USA, Canada, the Netherlands). Here, voters might not have enough time to wait before they can vote. Some of these methods can be used with virtually no impunity, as the influence is concealed, the persons responsible remain unclear or they are e.g. B. only bad organization, but no misconduct in the legal sense can prove. Even if the latter is possible for election organizers, this is often not enough to contest the entire election result.

reporting

In many countries it is common practice in the state-controlled mass media to mention the government particularly much and positively and the opposition hardly and then preferably critically. Problems in the country are kept as quiet as possible, especially before elections.

This type of manipulation has a smooth transition to legitimate reporting, and it is not always clear whether there is actually an attempt at manipulation.

When choosing

Ballot paper for the referendum on the annexation of Austria to the German Reich: The desired decision is specified via the size of the circles
  • The locations of polling stations can be selected in such a way that it is easier for voters who are likely to vote 'right' to vote than for other voters. For example, the density of polling stations in 'cheap' areas may be greater than in areas, e.g. B. opposition, in which many unwanted voices are to be expected. This makes it difficult for the voters, who tend to vote inappropriately, to get to a polling station and they have to queue there for longer before they can cast their vote. In addition, such polling stations may be equipped with insufficient ballot papers or have shorter opening times.
  • If postal voting is possible , electoral fraudsters can try to get voters to give them their (not filled out) postal ballot in exchange for money or benefits in kind. In general, it is technically difficult to check with postal voting whether the voter to whom the voting documents are assigned has voted personally .
  • Election day is working day. In this case, the choice is made more difficult for those who have to work (especially employees).
  • Unpleasant voters can be deterred from voting through intimidation, often through threats of physical violence.
  • The secrecy of the election can de facto be removed. This happened, for example, in the GDR , where the use of the voting booths was already seen as an expression of distrust of the government and was unofficially threatened with sanctions.
  • Ballot papers can be designed manipulatively. In this way, the government candidates can be associated with the national colors or questions can be asked during referendums. For example: “Should the successful President X officiate for life for the good of the nation?” This is particularly important if a specific measure is to be voted on in referendums (see: Suggestive question ).
  • Ballot papers can be designed in different colors, such as B. at the constitutional referendum in Iran in March 1979 .
  • Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that people with disabilities should be given the opportunity to take part in elections. Even the diagnosis of “dementia” is not a sufficient reason to exclude an eligible voter from voting. The need for assistance from third parties resulting from disabilities opens up many opportunities for abuse, as professional supervisors and helpers can de facto vote on behalf of the voters or by removing the principle of secrecy of the election by providing assistance during the election process.

After the election

  • Party decision by the election management, election supervision and competent courts on applications for election review and election appeals , recounts or determination of election violations.

Tampering with the counting of the votes cast, the transmission of partial results and the calculation of the overall result are generally considered to be election fraud .

literature

  • Frank. W. Schroft: " Influencing elections in mayoral elections: manual for practice" , VDM-Verlag, Saarbrücken 2011, ISBN 978-3-639-28352-5