Institut for Statskundskab

Jørgen Elklit

What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?

Publikation: KonferencebidragPaperForskning

Standard

What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity? / Elklit, Jørgen.

2012. Paper præsenteret ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien.

Publikation: KonferencebidragPaperForskning

Harvard

Elklit, J 2012, 'What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?', Paper fremlagt ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien, 07/07/2012 - 07/07/2012.

APA

Elklit, J. (2012). What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?. Paper præsenteret ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien.

CBE

Elklit J. 2012. What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?. Paper præsenteret ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien.

MLA

Elklit, Jørgen What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?. Challenges of Electoral Integrity, 07 jul. 2012, Madrid, Spanien, Paper, 2012. 19 s.

Vancouver

Elklit J. What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?. 2012. Paper præsenteret ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien.

Author

Elklit, Jørgen. / What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?. Paper præsenteret ved Challenges of Electoral Integrity, Madrid, Spanien.19 s.

Bibtex

@conference{f1b70a43d51a409e9dc487d7fa604626,
title = "What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?",
abstract = "This discussion paper attempts to take a comprehensive look at electoral integrity. The concept is initially defined in a way which follows the ordinary language use of “integrity”, i.e. as something which has not in any way been damaged or ruined. Electoral integrity thus refers to the perfect election or at least an election where no one has anything to complain about. In real life, however, such elections are yet to come, but the profession lacks an across-the-board concept, which covers what is sometimes – but often somewhat vaguely or imprecisely – termed “free and fair”, “good”, or “acceptable” elections. “Electoral acceptability” is maybe the concept best covering “real-world electoral integrity”, so that the relationship between the two might remind one of the relationship between “Dahl{\textquoteright}s democracy” and “polyarchy”? The opening discussion is followed by a presentation and discussion of some key points in relation to the eight attributes of electoral integrity suggested here. The conclusion is that electoral integrity is a complicated concept to work with and that it is not enough to measure it solely based on election observation reports or the average of perceptions of a sample of voters or so-called experts. To the extent possible, hard data should also be taken into account.",
keywords = "electoral integrity, election quality",
author = "J{\o}rgen Elklit",
year = "2012",
month = jun,
day = "7",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 07-07-2012 Through 07-07-2012",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - What Kind of Animal is Electoral Integrity?

AU - Elklit, Jørgen

PY - 2012/6/7

Y1 - 2012/6/7

N2 - This discussion paper attempts to take a comprehensive look at electoral integrity. The concept is initially defined in a way which follows the ordinary language use of “integrity”, i.e. as something which has not in any way been damaged or ruined. Electoral integrity thus refers to the perfect election or at least an election where no one has anything to complain about. In real life, however, such elections are yet to come, but the profession lacks an across-the-board concept, which covers what is sometimes – but often somewhat vaguely or imprecisely – termed “free and fair”, “good”, or “acceptable” elections. “Electoral acceptability” is maybe the concept best covering “real-world electoral integrity”, so that the relationship between the two might remind one of the relationship between “Dahl’s democracy” and “polyarchy”? The opening discussion is followed by a presentation and discussion of some key points in relation to the eight attributes of electoral integrity suggested here. The conclusion is that electoral integrity is a complicated concept to work with and that it is not enough to measure it solely based on election observation reports or the average of perceptions of a sample of voters or so-called experts. To the extent possible, hard data should also be taken into account.

AB - This discussion paper attempts to take a comprehensive look at electoral integrity. The concept is initially defined in a way which follows the ordinary language use of “integrity”, i.e. as something which has not in any way been damaged or ruined. Electoral integrity thus refers to the perfect election or at least an election where no one has anything to complain about. In real life, however, such elections are yet to come, but the profession lacks an across-the-board concept, which covers what is sometimes – but often somewhat vaguely or imprecisely – termed “free and fair”, “good”, or “acceptable” elections. “Electoral acceptability” is maybe the concept best covering “real-world electoral integrity”, so that the relationship between the two might remind one of the relationship between “Dahl’s democracy” and “polyarchy”? The opening discussion is followed by a presentation and discussion of some key points in relation to the eight attributes of electoral integrity suggested here. The conclusion is that electoral integrity is a complicated concept to work with and that it is not enough to measure it solely based on election observation reports or the average of perceptions of a sample of voters or so-called experts. To the extent possible, hard data should also be taken into account.

KW - electoral integrity, election quality

M3 - Paper

Y2 - 7 July 2012 through 7 July 2012

ER -