What is it about?
Electoral violence is a broad term and includes many different forms of violence. It can include violence intended to delegitimize or stop an election from occurring. The Taliban, when it was outside government, used violence in this way. It can also include violence that occurs after an election in order to object to the outcome of the election, as we saw in the US with the January 6th insurrection.
Featured Image
Photo by Chad Stembridge on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The type of electoral violence that my co-author and I analyze in this research is violence that is used to change the outcome of an election, and it can occur before, during or after an election. Violence can change the outcome of an election in a number of ways: - it can force candidates to drop out of an election. - it can prevent candidates from running in an election by killing or severely injuring them - it can deter voters from not going to the polls to vote for certain candidates. - it can compel voters to vote for candidates that they would otherwise not vote for in an election. - it can even be used after votes have been cast to destroy ballots.
Perspectives
The observability, we argue, makes it less likely that the people that candidates hire to steal elections for them shirk their responsibilities, by not committing either fraud or violence. With fraud, the risk of shirking is very high. A candidate, for example, can offer voters $50 in exchange for their vote. Once in the polling booth (and outside anyone’s view), the voter can do whatever they want. They could vote for another candidate. They could submit a blank or invalid ballot. Or, they may not even vote at all. With violence, the risk of shirking is much lower because violence is more observable and a candidate can better monitor whether this person commits violence for them or not. A candidate can offer a person $50 to attack another candidate, and unlike in the case of fraud, the candidate can monitor well whether this person attacks the other candidate or not because violence is more observable. The candidate may not personally observe the person attacking the other candidate, but they will likely hear about it in the news or by word-of-mouth from others who have observed the attack, or its aftermath. As a result, the person paid to commit the violence is less likely to shirk. If they do shirk, they are likely to be punished in some way. They may not get paid or hired for another job. Or, they may get attacked themselves.
Dr. Dawn Brancati
Brown University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Stealing an Election: Violence or Fraud?, Journal of Conflict Resolution, September 2022, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/00220027221120595.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
