Cote d’Ivoire is capturing headlines for all the wrong reasons, but there is another African nation that finds itself in a tense post-election environment. Ikililou Dhoinine on Sunday won the second round of presidential elections in the Comoros islands. Dhoinine captured 61 percent of the vote while his main competitor, Mohamed Said Fazul, took 33 […]
Author Archives: JD
Measuring Autocracy Promotion
Peter Burnell, Professor at the University of Warwick, England, has written a new article exploring whether democracy assistance practitioners should measure autocracy promotion.
The questions that arise are not simply how far democrats should be concerned but whether there are specific implications for democracy assistance. While the answers are not yet clear, a strong case can be made on precautionary grounds for developing new ways of assessing the true measure of autocracy promotion/export and evaluating it against the performance of democracy support. Although setting a difficult challenge in its own right, this work could help move democracy assistance and democratisation forward in the challenging times that at present both of them undoubtedly face.
The article is well worth a read, as it tackles several important issues of current relevance. Among those are the increased demand to measure development programs, and the debate surrounding the extent that autocracy promotion poses a threat (or even exists). The topic of the paper is based upon Burnell’s upcoming book, Promoting Democracy Abroad: Policy and Performance, and can also be be read in his recent paper in the University of Warwick’s Journal of Law. In that paper, Burnell argues that much of the original research into the effectiveness of democracy assistance was conducted in an environment where such programs went largely unchallenged by other countries. With the spread of autocracy promotion, however, such efforts need to be reevaluated. Democracy assistance programs, he argues, need to be measured against the success of their autocratic rivals.
Burnell acknowledges some of the major barriers to such assessments happening. Financial and time constraints mean DG practitioners are often reluctant to engage in impact evaluation for democracy assistance programs. It would seem to be asking a lot, therefore, to take on the additional burden of assessing the competition’s programs as well. Furthermore, conducting such assessments would be challenging. Impact evaluation for DG programs is in itself problematic, as many indicators are difficult to quantify. These problems would only be more prevalent in assessing autocracy promotion, as the inherently nontransparent nature of such programs would make data collection unreliable.
Burnell explores a variety of issues related to developing a meaningful strategy of such assessments, but concludes that the inherent difficulties in such an exercise should not prevent donor agencies from undertaking the challenge.
What reality TV can teach us about election managment
Not a lot it turns out, but enough for a blog post.
The structure of an Electoral Management Body (EMB) is a critical element in effective and fair election administration. The legal framework for how the members of an EMB are appointed varies greatly from country to country, with each model offering a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.
Although practitioners should be aware that local context is important, it is always helpful to have an understanding of how EMB design can shape incentives and affect the management of elections. In a paper submitted to APSA, Barry C. Burden, David T. Canon, Stéphane Lavertu, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan have explored the effect of partisan EMB membership on the body’s behavior. In their paper, Election Officials: How Selection Methods Shape Their Policy Preferences and Affect Voter Turnout, the authors find that how clerks are selected has a noticeable impact on the body’s priorities.
We employ a uniquely rich dataset that includes the survey responses of over 1,200 Wisconsin election officials, structured interviews with dozens of these officials, and data from the 2008 presidential election. Drawing upon a natural experiment in how clerks are selected, we find that elected officials support policies that emphasize voter access rather than ballot security, and that their municipalities are associated with higher voter turnout. For appointed officials, we find that voter turnout in a municipality is noticeably lower when the local election official’s partisanship differs from the partisanship of the electorate. Overall, our results support the notion that selection methods, and the incentives that flow from those methods, matter a great deal. Elected officials are more likely to express attitudes and generate outcomes that reflect their direct exposure to voters, in contrast to the more insulated position of appointed officials.
I think the recent kerfuffle with Bristol Palin does a good job of demonstrating this tradeoff in priorities. Bristol Palin, daughter of the ubiquitous Sarah, lost in the Dancing with the Stars finale the other night. Palin’s run generated a fair amount of controversy due to the fact that she kept advancing despite receiving poor scores from the judges. This was exacerbated after accusations surfaced of Tea Party activists exploiting a glitch in ABC’s internet voting system that allowed supporters to cast an infinite amount of votes. Whether of not this electronic ballot stuffing actually happened in a way that influenced outcomes, it demonstrates how incentives shape behavior for EMBs. ABC’s incentive for the show’s voting system was access, not security, which is a perfectly understandable tradeoff for what they were doing. There were definitely steps ABC could have taken to strengthen the verification process, but it would have probably reduced convenience for users. We shouldn’t be surprised that many reality TV systems have security holes, as long as there is a tradeoff with accessibility involved.
Related, electoral system design is also critical in reality TV voting. I noticed that Last Comic Standing, for example, used a Cumulative voting system. Viewers were allowed to cast ten votes, but could distribute those votes in anyway they wanted (meaning they could vote 10 times for one contestant). I’m guessing this method was employed in order to ensure adequate minority/female representation in the higher rounds. If we assume that female viewers are more likely to support female contestants, and the same being for minorities, than those viewers would be able to contribute all their votes to the few female candidates while men would spread their votes among men.
Our long national nightmare is over
Nov 5
I’m referring of course to Nauru, if that wasn’t obvious. Nauru is a pretty interesting country. In fact, unlike America, it actually is exceptional in a number of ways. For one it’s the only country to use a Borda count system for electing its parliament. (Slovenia uses a Borda count for two reserved seats for […]
Joementum can save Washington
Thomas Friedman has a new column out, which advocates the need for a third party in America to fix our broken system. This argument gets thrown out there quite frequently, but I was a bit surprised that I had to hear it from Friedman, who managed to write one of the most clueless articles I’ve read in a long time. It starts out with a comparison to the fall of Rome, which I’m sure in some way can teach us about the inevitable fall of the United States. I’m not sure how it is supposed to do this, but smart people have long told me that it is the case, so I suppose it’s true.
Friedman then moves on to his main argument; the American system is broken and it it going to cause a third party candidate to emerge.
But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.
Ah yes a third party will save America, just like Unity 08 did! I agree that it is bold to make a prediction that people make every cycle and almost never comes true. It’s also bold to make one that seems to ignore some entry level political science about why such an scenario won’t happen. But what is really annoying is the lack of an explanation over how a third party candidate could be effective at solving the problems that Friedman mentions. But maybe I’m speaking to soon, lets see if he manages to make a convincing case that a third party is needed to help our deadlocked system. Unfortunately, he doesn’t start out to well:
President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments. He passed a health care expansion, a financial regulation expansion, stabilized the economy, started a national education reform initiative and has conducted a smart and tough war on Al Qaeda.
Okay, starting out with a paragraph that basically disproves your entire argument that Washington isn’t working probably is not the best way to go, but I’ll keep reading.
There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center.
How did I know we were going to get here? I don’t know why Friedman wants us to feel bad for the poor ignored centrists who always lack a voice. But I’m even more curious as to why Friedman thinks the center can help us get out of this mess. For example, he goes on to list the things he laments were not accomplished, mainly a powerful climate bill, improved infrastructure, tougher financial regulation and a better health care bill. But does he really believe that a centrist third party would have made these things possible? Out of every problem he cites, I can’t think of one that wasn’t slowed down and weakened by the centrists in Congress. But no, I must be wrong, a clean energy bill surly would have been possible if only we had more Ben Nelsons in the Senate!
Friedman continues:
We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you.
I’m wondering at this point if Friedman wrote this article in about five minutes without doing a spot check on his logic. He talks about the need for a third party candidate to run for president, but every example he gives of special interests and good legislation getting stalled happens in….the Congress! In fact he acknowledges that the presidency isn’t the problem earlier in his piece:
Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority.
So if we have a President with the right ideas, but is unable to pass his agenda because of the way congress operates, the obvious solution is to change the presidency, got it? I was happy to see Friedman quote Larry Diamond in the piece, but adding a second mustache doesn’t save this astonishingly clueless column.
Direct Democracy and Thresholds
Sep 27
On Saturday, Slovakia will vote on a six-question referendum, the seventh such vote in country history. In order for the referendum to be valid, more than half of all registered voters must turn out to the poll; a threshold most experts believe this vote will not meet. In fact, only one referendum in the country’s […]
Plurality Vote
Sep 21
I’m always happy to see electoral reform brought up in the news because, well, our country really needs it. It’s for this reason that I’m glad former Congressman Mickey Edwards took to the Atlantic to address what he feels is a problem with our system – the lack of an absolute majority required for winning […]
Ahwa Talk 