A free and fair election is defined by political scientist
Robert Dahl as an
election in which "
coercion is comparatively uncommon". A free and fair election involves
political freedoms and fair processes leading up to the
vote, a fair count of eligible voters who cast a ballot (including such aspects as
electoral fraud or
voter suppression), and acceptance of election results by all parties. An election may partially meet international standards for free and fair elections, or may meet some standards but not others.[1]
Factors
A 2016 study evaluated ten dimensions of the conduct of elections between 1975–2011:[2]
legal framework (whether there was a constitutional
right of citizens to vote and seek office, whether elections were held at regular intervals, and whether
election-related laws were not changed immediately before an election);
electoral management (whether
gerrymandering occurred and whether election management bodies, if they existed, were independent,
impartial, and
accountable);
electoral rights (whether citizens were generally able to vote on the basis of
equal suffrage and access);
voter registers (whether they were accurate, current, and open to voters for easy and effective
voter registration);
nomination rules/
ballot access (whether candidates had in practice a right to compete in the election, with rejections of candidate applications being based on "internationally recognizable and acceptable norms" and with no candidate receiving more than 75% of the votes, a signal of malpractice or
election boycotts);
campaign process (whether elections were carried out without violence,
intimidation, bribery (
vote buying), use of government resources to advantage the incumbent, or a "massive financial advantages" for the incumbent);
voting process (whether elections were conducted by
secret ballot on a
one person, one vote basis, with adequate security to protect voters and protection against
ballot box stuffing, multiple voting, destruction of valid ballots, and other forms of manipulation);
The study of 169 countries from 1975 to 2011 estimated that only about half of elections were free and fair.[2] The study wondered whether the increase in
non-democratic regimes holding elections over time alongside a rise in global efforts around election observation led to a rise in the proportion of elections that were deemed to not be free and fair. The presence of election monitors and constraints on
executive power were associated with a 31% higher probability of a free and fair elections in the study.[2]
^
abcBishop, Sylvia; Hoeffler, Anke (2016). "Free and fair elections: A new database". Journal of Peace Research. 53 (4): 608–616.
doi:
10.1177/0022343316642508.
S2CID110571606.
^https://www.v-dem.net/documents/24/codebook_v13.pdf Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Sandra Grahn, Allen Hicken, Katrin Kinzelbach, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Anja Neundorf, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Oskar Rydén, Johannes von Römer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundström, Eitan
Tzelgov, Luca Uberti, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2023. V-Dem Codebook v13, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Geisler, Gisela (1993). "Fair? What Has Fairness Got to Do with It? Vagaries of Election Observations and Democratic Standards". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 31 (4): 613–637.
doi:
10.1017/S0022278X00012271.
S2CID154664000.
Mercurio, Bryan; Williams, George (2004). "Australian Electoral Law: 'Free and Fair'?". Federal Law Review. 32 (3): 365–395.
doi:
10.22145/flr.32.3.3.
S2CID220285411.
A free and fair election is defined by political scientist
Robert Dahl as an
election in which "
coercion is comparatively uncommon". A free and fair election involves
political freedoms and fair processes leading up to the
vote, a fair count of eligible voters who cast a ballot (including such aspects as
electoral fraud or
voter suppression), and acceptance of election results by all parties. An election may partially meet international standards for free and fair elections, or may meet some standards but not others.[1]
Factors
A 2016 study evaluated ten dimensions of the conduct of elections between 1975–2011:[2]
legal framework (whether there was a constitutional
right of citizens to vote and seek office, whether elections were held at regular intervals, and whether
election-related laws were not changed immediately before an election);
electoral management (whether
gerrymandering occurred and whether election management bodies, if they existed, were independent,
impartial, and
accountable);
electoral rights (whether citizens were generally able to vote on the basis of
equal suffrage and access);
voter registers (whether they were accurate, current, and open to voters for easy and effective
voter registration);
nomination rules/
ballot access (whether candidates had in practice a right to compete in the election, with rejections of candidate applications being based on "internationally recognizable and acceptable norms" and with no candidate receiving more than 75% of the votes, a signal of malpractice or
election boycotts);
campaign process (whether elections were carried out without violence,
intimidation, bribery (
vote buying), use of government resources to advantage the incumbent, or a "massive financial advantages" for the incumbent);
voting process (whether elections were conducted by
secret ballot on a
one person, one vote basis, with adequate security to protect voters and protection against
ballot box stuffing, multiple voting, destruction of valid ballots, and other forms of manipulation);
The study of 169 countries from 1975 to 2011 estimated that only about half of elections were free and fair.[2] The study wondered whether the increase in
non-democratic regimes holding elections over time alongside a rise in global efforts around election observation led to a rise in the proportion of elections that were deemed to not be free and fair. The presence of election monitors and constraints on
executive power were associated with a 31% higher probability of a free and fair elections in the study.[2]
^
abcBishop, Sylvia; Hoeffler, Anke (2016). "Free and fair elections: A new database". Journal of Peace Research. 53 (4): 608–616.
doi:
10.1177/0022343316642508.
S2CID110571606.
^https://www.v-dem.net/documents/24/codebook_v13.pdf Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Sandra Grahn, Allen Hicken, Katrin Kinzelbach, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Anja Neundorf, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Oskar Rydén, Johannes von Römer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundström, Eitan
Tzelgov, Luca Uberti, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2023. V-Dem Codebook v13, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Geisler, Gisela (1993). "Fair? What Has Fairness Got to Do with It? Vagaries of Election Observations and Democratic Standards". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 31 (4): 613–637.
doi:
10.1017/S0022278X00012271.
S2CID154664000.
Mercurio, Bryan; Williams, George (2004). "Australian Electoral Law: 'Free and Fair'?". Federal Law Review. 32 (3): 365–395.
doi:
10.22145/flr.32.3.3.
S2CID220285411.