What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Rig an Election
Please Read Notes: Brand New, International Softcover Edition, Printed in black and white pages, minor self wear on the cover or pages, Sale restriction may be printed on the book, but Book name, contents, and author are exactly same as Hardcover Edition. Fast delivery through DHL/FedEx express.
Hardcover
First published April 24, 2018
71 people are currently reading
960 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
November 23, 2018
This book illustrates how elections enable authoritarian leaders to keep power. It is a truism that while the number of elections conducted over the world is increasing, the world (as a whole) is by all measures becoming less democratic.
This paradox is explained by the authors in 8 chapters that develop the idea of the 'dictator's toolbox' - the 6 methods commonly used to rig elections. The book then concludes with recommendations on how to make electoral mischief harder.
Key Takeaways
1. Invisible Rigging
This happens before votes have even been cast. They are used to make the playing field 'un level.'
The most common forms of invisible rigging are:
(i) Gerrymandering - this is basically fixing voting districts
(ii) Fixing the electorate - creating barriers to registering/voting (eg US voter identification laws)
(iii) Political exclusion - making it difficult for opposition politicians to participate.
2. Buying Votes
This is using the network of patronage to advance political ends. There is, however, a risk associated with this; if you don't deliver on promises, people will just take the money and vote with their conscience.
Because political systems are often unresponsive to the needs of people, voters see the time before elections as an opportunity to at least get something.
This, in part, explains why elections cost so much in some parts of the world.
Opposition parties tend to be more successful when they have access to resources (eg. credit from banks). This explains why autocrats tend to keep tight controls/regulations on financial services.
Common ways to execute vote buying:
(i) Convince people that their vote is not secret
(ii) Monitor voting at community level
(iii) Get more people to sign up for assisted voting.
The problem with methods of reducing vote buying is that they may reduce voter turnout. In this regard, its probably better to encourage people to take the gifts and vote with their conscience.
Other solutions: (i) Voter education - this is a limited solution
(ii) Economic development - this is also limited because the middle class often finance the vote buying and may themselves be susceptible to bribes.
3. Divide And Rule
Use of political violence is more likely when:
(i) Incumbents operate in weak political systems and
(ii) they have support from a powerful/rich country.
4. Hacking The Election
Fake news helps autocrats to rubbish narratives that are against the state position as lies. It also reduces voter confidence in institutions and facts.
Digital tools are also often used by counterfeit democrats to ensure that people censor themselves.
Personal data has been used to sway voters eg. Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Other forms of hacking include hacking voting machines or e-votes, the voters roll and the final tabulation.
Solutions to the hacking problem may be for opposition parties to independently tabulate results as they come in, as happened in Ghana. Fake news may be countered by setting up sites for fact checking - but these are less likely to gain traffic.
5. Ballot box stuffing
This is the most risky form of rigging and is often used as a last resort or in combination with the other methods. This method also doesn't guarantee victory - as was the case in Kenya in 2007.
The 4 main strategies:
(i) Multiple voting
(ii) Getting underage or unregistered voters to vote
(iii) Stuffing boxes with additional ballots
(iv) Tampering with the counting process.
Inherent with ballot box stuffing is the temptation to over-rig. The sweet spot for victory margin is 5-15%. Too small a margin attracts investigations because the race is so tight, while too big a margin is not believable.
Possible solutions to this problem:
(i) Local observers and civil society can have their own independent parallel vote count
(ii) Biometric technology
(iii) Send observers to remote areas
6. Potemkin Elections
These are elections specifically for show - they present a facade of being free and fair.
Autocrats hold elections because it increases the chances of regime survival.
Western nations often knowingly endorse sham elections:
(i) to maintain good relations and pursue their geopolitical agendas
(ii) because some countries are in strategic positions eg allies in the "War on Terror"
(iii) because calling out electoral fraud could trigger violence and instability in that country
(iv) because calling out fraud may reverse diplomatic gains eg leading to future observer missions being refused entry
(v) because they deliberately lower the standard of an acceptable election, depending on the country. A Gabon is treated differently to a Germany
(vi)flawed elections may be an improvement on past ones and the foundation for better elections in the future.
However, it can very well be argued that lowering the standard, discourages autocrats from really reforming.
Ways in which Western countries are part of rigging:
(i) turning a blind eye
(ii) endorsing elections, even after observers raise issues
More should be done to strengthen the role of observers. Methods of monitoring have not changed much, while forms of electoral manipulation have gotten more advanced. Observers are often limited in resources and are not allowed to go to more 'dangerous' parts, but this is often where manipulation happens. As a result, most will endorse elections as long as there is no overt violence.
Zombie monitors are used by autocrats to endorse rigged elections. These monitors are often supported by authoritarian regimes, but often have independent sounding names.
Independent monitoring groups eg the Carter Centre are the best hope for condemning sham elections in the present climate.
7. Conclusion - How To Make Rigging Harder
Why protect elections? Or rather, why not allow 1 party states eg Rwanda?
- By and large, democracies respect human rights
- Most people would prefer to live in a democratic society, if given the choice
- Repressive regimes are, more often than not, not doing well economically. The successes are more anomalies than the rule
- Most countries already hold elections - it is easier to improve them than to develop new forms of governance
6 benefits of rigged elections to autocrats:
(i) Often the minimum standards to join regional and international organisations like the AU and SADC are elections
(ii) Access to loans and aid
(iii) PR - to show that the leader is liked by the people (pictures of rallies and the actual votes)
(iv) Establish tighter control of the ruling party
(v) Divide opposition parties
(vi) Facilitate elite renewal and keep leadership fresh.
Possible ways to make rigging hard:
- Democratic countries can refuse to financially and politically support governments who abuse human rights
- Western countries must be consistent and deal with issues in their own countries
- Regional bodies must condemn sham elections
- Reforming institutions
- Reforming the election monitoring process to increase the political cost of rigging by, (a) policing deployment of bio-metric information, data storage etc; (b) refusing to monitor elections in countries that have not applied previous recommendations, (c) insist that all observers issue a joint statement - to deal with zombie observers
-Digitizing elections by using biometric registration - this gets rid of ghost voters and ensures people only vote once. When counting, have a digital count at the same time as the manual count. But this is useless if the electoral commission is compromised.
- Give more support to civic society and opposition parties.
Conclusion
This was an excellent read. Late in the year, I will say this was the best I've read this year. Provocative and informative as well as very well structured, this is essential reading for those concerned about the eminence of totalitarian governments in the modern world. Truly an invaluable resource in the fight for democracy.
This paradox is explained by the authors in 8 chapters that develop the idea of the 'dictator's toolbox' - the 6 methods commonly used to rig elections. The book then concludes with recommendations on how to make electoral mischief harder.
Key Takeaways
1. Invisible Rigging
This happens before votes have even been cast. They are used to make the playing field 'un level.'
The most common forms of invisible rigging are:
(i) Gerrymandering - this is basically fixing voting districts
(ii) Fixing the electorate - creating barriers to registering/voting (eg US voter identification laws)
(iii) Political exclusion - making it difficult for opposition politicians to participate.
2. Buying Votes
This is using the network of patronage to advance political ends. There is, however, a risk associated with this; if you don't deliver on promises, people will just take the money and vote with their conscience.
Because political systems are often unresponsive to the needs of people, voters see the time before elections as an opportunity to at least get something.
This, in part, explains why elections cost so much in some parts of the world.
Opposition parties tend to be more successful when they have access to resources (eg. credit from banks). This explains why autocrats tend to keep tight controls/regulations on financial services.
Common ways to execute vote buying:
(i) Convince people that their vote is not secret
(ii) Monitor voting at community level
(iii) Get more people to sign up for assisted voting.
The problem with methods of reducing vote buying is that they may reduce voter turnout. In this regard, its probably better to encourage people to take the gifts and vote with their conscience.
Other solutions: (i) Voter education - this is a limited solution
(ii) Economic development - this is also limited because the middle class often finance the vote buying and may themselves be susceptible to bribes.
3. Divide And Rule
Use of political violence is more likely when:
(i) Incumbents operate in weak political systems and
(ii) they have support from a powerful/rich country.
4. Hacking The Election
Fake news helps autocrats to rubbish narratives that are against the state position as lies. It also reduces voter confidence in institutions and facts.
Digital tools are also often used by counterfeit democrats to ensure that people censor themselves.
Personal data has been used to sway voters eg. Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Other forms of hacking include hacking voting machines or e-votes, the voters roll and the final tabulation.
Solutions to the hacking problem may be for opposition parties to independently tabulate results as they come in, as happened in Ghana. Fake news may be countered by setting up sites for fact checking - but these are less likely to gain traffic.
5. Ballot box stuffing
This is the most risky form of rigging and is often used as a last resort or in combination with the other methods. This method also doesn't guarantee victory - as was the case in Kenya in 2007.
The 4 main strategies:
(i) Multiple voting
(ii) Getting underage or unregistered voters to vote
(iii) Stuffing boxes with additional ballots
(iv) Tampering with the counting process.
Inherent with ballot box stuffing is the temptation to over-rig. The sweet spot for victory margin is 5-15%. Too small a margin attracts investigations because the race is so tight, while too big a margin is not believable.
Possible solutions to this problem:
(i) Local observers and civil society can have their own independent parallel vote count
(ii) Biometric technology
(iii) Send observers to remote areas
6. Potemkin Elections
These are elections specifically for show - they present a facade of being free and fair.
Autocrats hold elections because it increases the chances of regime survival.
Western nations often knowingly endorse sham elections:
(i) to maintain good relations and pursue their geopolitical agendas
(ii) because some countries are in strategic positions eg allies in the "War on Terror"
(iii) because calling out electoral fraud could trigger violence and instability in that country
(iv) because calling out fraud may reverse diplomatic gains eg leading to future observer missions being refused entry
(v) because they deliberately lower the standard of an acceptable election, depending on the country. A Gabon is treated differently to a Germany
(vi)flawed elections may be an improvement on past ones and the foundation for better elections in the future.
However, it can very well be argued that lowering the standard, discourages autocrats from really reforming.
Ways in which Western countries are part of rigging:
(i) turning a blind eye
(ii) endorsing elections, even after observers raise issues
More should be done to strengthen the role of observers. Methods of monitoring have not changed much, while forms of electoral manipulation have gotten more advanced. Observers are often limited in resources and are not allowed to go to more 'dangerous' parts, but this is often where manipulation happens. As a result, most will endorse elections as long as there is no overt violence.
Zombie monitors are used by autocrats to endorse rigged elections. These monitors are often supported by authoritarian regimes, but often have independent sounding names.
Independent monitoring groups eg the Carter Centre are the best hope for condemning sham elections in the present climate.
7. Conclusion - How To Make Rigging Harder
Why protect elections? Or rather, why not allow 1 party states eg Rwanda?
- By and large, democracies respect human rights
- Most people would prefer to live in a democratic society, if given the choice
- Repressive regimes are, more often than not, not doing well economically. The successes are more anomalies than the rule
- Most countries already hold elections - it is easier to improve them than to develop new forms of governance
6 benefits of rigged elections to autocrats:
(i) Often the minimum standards to join regional and international organisations like the AU and SADC are elections
(ii) Access to loans and aid
(iii) PR - to show that the leader is liked by the people (pictures of rallies and the actual votes)
(iv) Establish tighter control of the ruling party
(v) Divide opposition parties
(vi) Facilitate elite renewal and keep leadership fresh.
Possible ways to make rigging hard:
- Democratic countries can refuse to financially and politically support governments who abuse human rights
- Western countries must be consistent and deal with issues in their own countries
- Regional bodies must condemn sham elections
- Reforming institutions
- Reforming the election monitoring process to increase the political cost of rigging by, (a) policing deployment of bio-metric information, data storage etc; (b) refusing to monitor elections in countries that have not applied previous recommendations, (c) insist that all observers issue a joint statement - to deal with zombie observers
-Digitizing elections by using biometric registration - this gets rid of ghost voters and ensures people only vote once. When counting, have a digital count at the same time as the manual count. But this is useless if the electoral commission is compromised.
- Give more support to civic society and opposition parties.
Conclusion
This was an excellent read. Late in the year, I will say this was the best I've read this year. Provocative and informative as well as very well structured, this is essential reading for those concerned about the eminence of totalitarian governments in the modern world. Truly an invaluable resource in the fight for democracy.
June 14, 2018
I was very impressed by its international comprehensiveness & data-driven approach. I also liked all of the small history lessons about countries and politics around the world. As someone who hasn’t read much beyond NYT and WaPo headlines and newsletters for twenty years, I have a lot of catching up to do about the rest of the world. The whole book was interesting and informative, well done.
The book design is also really great. I can’t tell online if Yale Press always prints right on the covers with no paper cover and uses such high quality paper. But it makes me extra eager to pick the book up every time. It has a really nice feeling to my hands, a weight and smoothness inside and out that’s really appealing. The cover design is also unique, and deeply appropriate. The text was somewhat larger print, very easy to read.
The book design is also really great. I can’t tell online if Yale Press always prints right on the covers with no paper cover and uses such high quality paper. But it makes me extra eager to pick the book up every time. It has a really nice feeling to my hands, a weight and smoothness inside and out that’s really appealing. The cover design is also unique, and deeply appropriate. The text was somewhat larger print, very easy to read.
June 3, 2022
for a book of this sort, there is nothing about psephology. There is nothing about politics either, except for a sanitised form of liberal politics, to which the whole world ought to aspire. There is nothing about class, and about how coalitions are formed. Pity, because the authors do make some very valid points, which might otherwise have been useful parts of an argument
March 26, 2019
Really enjoyed reading this one. Election malpractices are discussed all the time, but there's seldom an organized, comprehensive account of exactly how elections are rigged. This book does that, and takes a refreshingly global perspective. One particular peeve - one particular chapter focuses, unsurprisingly, on the 2016 US Presidential election. While the point being made is represented well, the US Presidential election has received enough coverage already, and it might have been more useful to the reader had the writers chosen a different country to make the same point, and perhaps make a comparison. Just covering the United States just becomes lazy.
Having said that, purely for the effort put into establishing a global framework, and into actually enumerating and describing electoral malpractices, I'd recommend this book to any amateur students of electoral practices and polity in general.
Having said that, purely for the effort put into establishing a global framework, and into actually enumerating and describing electoral malpractices, I'd recommend this book to any amateur students of electoral practices and polity in general.
May 3, 2021
Осенью 1998 года, придя на выборы в Заксобрание Петербурга, избиратели одного из участков обнаружили в бюллетенях трех Олегов Е. Сергеевых вместо одного ожидавшегося, а мировая копилка инструментов фальсификации выборов пополнилась новой остроумной уловкой.
На самом деле, как показывают хорошо изучившие вопрос британские профессора, махинации в день выборов на избирательных участках, равно как и при подсчете результатов, это признак плохой к ним подготовки, так как расчет лишь на них сопряжен с высокими рисками проигрыша и прочими сложностями. Так, украинское ноу-хау с исчезающими чернилами в ручках на участках вскрылось и вызвало скандал. Тогда же, в 1998, оригинальный Сергеев победил не смотря на усилия политтехнологов. Однако эта книга не о неудачниках, а о том, как нужные результаты на выборах все-таки достигаются. Речь, разумеется, идет о всех видах приемов.
Авторы признают, что у находящегося в должности шансы переизбраться уже высоки: сейчас по миру такие выигрывают в семи из десяти случаев. В странах суверенной демократии и хуже с конца Холодной войны руководители из-за выборов теряли свои посты вообще лишь в 11% раз. А еще долгосрочный анализ кейсов от Аргентины до Зимбабве позволил провести определенную категоризацию вероятности смены режимов в зависимости от условий свободы выборов. Россия попала в группу к Кении, Уганде и Малайзии и пр., где вероятность того, что мы скажем «до свидания» любимым руководителям составляет всего лишь 16% каждый год. Интересно, что автократы с регулярными выборами держатся у власти значительно дольше тех, что их не проводят.
Не последняя роль в успехе отводится ЦИКу, который в случаях подотчетности президенту может послужить хорошим подспорьем в деликатном деле достижения нужных результатов. К лучшим практикам относится и работа с фейковыми ньюсмейкерами. Хорошим тоном стало создание нескольких альтернативных иностранных организаций-наблюдателей, финансированием которых можно заниматься сообща с другими странами, заинтересованными в предсказуемости избирательного процесса.
Хотя фейковый О. Е. Сергеев (на самом деле пенсионер) и не выиграл в 1998, он, тем не менее, занял 9 место из 21, оттянув немало голосов у реального претендента. Так что даже маленькие хитрости могут пригодиться. Самый же надежный способ нам хорошо известен: не допустить проблемного кандидата до участия выборов. Однако, знакомство с остальными практиками тоже весьма поучительно.
На самом деле, как показывают хорошо изучившие вопрос британские профессора, махинации в день выборов на избирательных участках, равно как и при подсчете результатов, это признак плохой к ним подготовки, так как расчет лишь на них сопряжен с высокими рисками проигрыша и прочими сложностями. Так, украинское ноу-хау с исчезающими чернилами в ручках на участках вскрылось и вызвало скандал. Тогда же, в 1998, оригинальный Сергеев победил не смотря на усилия политтехнологов. Однако эта книга не о неудачниках, а о том, как нужные результаты на выборах все-таки достигаются. Речь, разумеется, идет о всех видах приемов.
Авторы признают, что у находящегося в должности шансы переизбраться уже высоки: сейчас по миру такие выигрывают в семи из десяти случаев. В странах суверенной демократии и хуже с конца Холодной войны руководители из-за выборов теряли свои посты вообще лишь в 11% раз. А еще долгосрочный анализ кейсов от Аргентины до Зимбабве позволил провести определенную категоризацию вероятности смены режимов в зависимости от условий свободы выборов. Россия попала в группу к Кении, Уганде и Малайзии и пр., где вероятность того, что мы скажем «до свидания» любимым руководителям составляет всего лишь 16% каждый год. Интересно, что автократы с регулярными выборами держатся у власти значительно дольше тех, что их не проводят.
Не последняя роль в успехе отводится ЦИКу, который в случаях подотчетности президенту может послужить хорошим подспорьем в деликатном деле достижения нужных результатов. К лучшим практикам относится и работа с фейковыми ньюсмейкерами. Хорошим тоном стало создание нескольких альтернативных иностранных организаций-наблюдателей, финансированием которых можно заниматься сообща с другими странами, заинтересованными в предсказуемости избирательного процесса.
Хотя фейковый О. Е. Сергеев (на самом деле пенсионер) и не выиграл в 1998, он, тем не менее, занял 9 место из 21, оттянув немало голосов у реального претендента. Так что даже маленькие хитрости могут пригодиться. Самый же надежный способ нам хорошо известен: не допустить проблемного кандидата до участия выборов. Однако, знакомство с остальными практиками тоже весьма поучительно.
September 15, 2020
In Orwell's 1984, Winston says that the best books are the ones that tell you what you already know. This is what i found brilliant about this book. It has an analysis that makes sense of things that i already knew. This is not to say that there is nothing to learn here. There is a lot of information, especially historical.
This book talks about the many ways in which elections in banana republics are rigged. The crucial insight, i think, is that elections can be rigged way before election day.
I did have a few problems with the book. First, the things that the authors characterized as "rigging" are very open for debate. For example, the book considers "fake news stories" as a kind of rigging. However, an incumbent spending money on specific groups or campaigning with tax money is not rigging. The distinction seems arbitrary to me.
The discussion on gerrymandering was also underwhelming to me. Perhaps because when it was applied to the US, the book read like like a campaign pamphlet. There was something similar with requiring IDs to vote.
The discussion on "digital hacking" was the lowest point of the book. The implicit argument of the topic was that people are stupid. At least that was my impression.
All in all, this is an excellent book for everyone to read. It is also sad because at the end of the book o realised that Zambia was a very long way from having a fair and free election.
This book talks about the many ways in which elections in banana republics are rigged. The crucial insight, i think, is that elections can be rigged way before election day.
I did have a few problems with the book. First, the things that the authors characterized as "rigging" are very open for debate. For example, the book considers "fake news stories" as a kind of rigging. However, an incumbent spending money on specific groups or campaigning with tax money is not rigging. The distinction seems arbitrary to me.
The discussion on gerrymandering was also underwhelming to me. Perhaps because when it was applied to the US, the book read like like a campaign pamphlet. There was something similar with requiring IDs to vote.
The discussion on "digital hacking" was the lowest point of the book. The implicit argument of the topic was that people are stupid. At least that was my impression.
All in all, this is an excellent book for everyone to read. It is also sad because at the end of the book o realised that Zambia was a very long way from having a fair and free election.
February 20, 2021
Great overview of election rigging that reads a little bit like a cross between a poli-sci textbook and a Bachelor/Master-thesis. I enjoyed the numerous examples (missing a little bit from Europe and Australia, but this is probably due to the fact that those elections are relatively free and fair).
At times the whole book is a little repetitive, which, for the most part, is not really an issue and sometimes is kind of nice because it makes the reading a little easier. However, there are just some phrases and expressions the authors love to use and that just pop up a little too much (e.g., “have the cake and eat it” and “level playing field”). Overall, that’s not a big issue.
What was a little disappointing is that the authors mention, at the beginning of the book, the problems concerning the use of biometric voter registrations (especially in the US) and then proceed to tell us what a great solution to a some problems it is. There is not discussion of the drawbacks and tension.
I also found that there were some really odd placements of commas, especially concerning subsentences.
Nonetheless, this book presents a great overview and is definitely worth the read.
At times the whole book is a little repetitive, which, for the most part, is not really an issue and sometimes is kind of nice because it makes the reading a little easier. However, there are just some phrases and expressions the authors love to use and that just pop up a little too much (e.g., “have the cake and eat it” and “level playing field”). Overall, that’s not a big issue.
What was a little disappointing is that the authors mention, at the beginning of the book, the problems concerning the use of biometric voter registrations (especially in the US) and then proceed to tell us what a great solution to a some problems it is. There is not discussion of the drawbacks and tension.
I also found that there were some really odd placements of commas, especially concerning subsentences.
Nonetheless, this book presents a great overview and is definitely worth the read.
September 28, 2018
Good information, but a tough read. I’ve worked my way through a few books with heavy/dry content recently and they were way easier because the writing was way more engaging. It reads like a 240 page undergrad literature review. It somehow managed to feel really repetitive and redundant while still being confusing and leaving gaps at times.
On a side note if you live in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand prepare to feel completely non-existent. “The west” is Europe and the United States. I know we’re not necessarily important but sometimes the omissions were glaring. For example, in a brief mention of oil producing countries that don’t have an authoritarian government, the list (which the authors admitted was not exhaustive) was USA and... wait for it... Norway. Canada produces around the 7th most oil in the world (5th on some lists), Norway falls at around 15th and population wise is about 1/6 the size, but sure, skip down to Norway. Just kind of weird.
Overall, if you are really interested the subject matter, go for it. If you aren’t, you may want to pass on this one.
On a side note if you live in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand prepare to feel completely non-existent. “The west” is Europe and the United States. I know we’re not necessarily important but sometimes the omissions were glaring. For example, in a brief mention of oil producing countries that don’t have an authoritarian government, the list (which the authors admitted was not exhaustive) was USA and... wait for it... Norway. Canada produces around the 7th most oil in the world (5th on some lists), Norway falls at around 15th and population wise is about 1/6 the size, but sure, skip down to Norway. Just kind of weird.
Overall, if you are really interested the subject matter, go for it. If you aren’t, you may want to pass on this one.
September 24, 2018
I gave this a 4 because it is solid information that is important to understand in order to understand a lot about elections today. It discussed the political systems of countries that I'd venture to say most westerners don't know much about. It also importantly connected all these mechanisms to the USA and it's elections (because our elections are not 100% ideal). I had a hard time getting through this book, despite its value, because it wasn't always the most engaging or clear. I didn't enjoy it as much as I might have if it had been written a little less like a textbook.
December 14, 2019
The book has valid points. But it is scattered all over and repeated. It could have been a lot more concise and straightforward.
The facts in the book is exciting as much as it is revealing nonetheless.
The facts in the book is exciting as much as it is revealing nonetheless.
August 20, 2020
I have very much enjoyed this book. It felt like just the right combination of theory and case studies emanating from the research of the authors themselves (teaching me about some of the most ridiculous ways that autocrats have rigged elections, but also reminding of the reality of geopolitics).
For anyone asking the question, why do some autocrats even bother holding elections (like Lukashenko), this book is sure to give you an answer.
My only small criticism is that at times it felt a bit like a textbook/strictly academic text reminding me of all my work (so a very personal critique, not the fault of the book itself), making me give it 4 stars.
For anyone asking the question, why do some autocrats even bother holding elections (like Lukashenko), this book is sure to give you an answer.
My only small criticism is that at times it felt a bit like a textbook/strictly academic text reminding me of all my work (so a very personal critique, not the fault of the book itself), making me give it 4 stars.
October 19, 2020
Fantastic book with a wide variety of compelling examples and a clear easy-to-read logical flow. As someone working with politicians abroad, I found the framework and illustrative examples very insightful. The political junky in me really appreciated having some language to put around phenomena that is all too common in democracies around the world. The book left space to be more critical of developed democracies to avoid coming off as neo-colonial. With the rise of Trump and populism, it is clear that many of the highlighted problems are not unique to the Global South.
December 30, 2021
Excellent Book
A really clear and helpful book about how dictators rig elections and hold power. The details are very valid and dangers are clear. Dictatorships don’t respect the population and human rights.
A really clear and helpful book about how dictators rig elections and hold power. The details are very valid and dangers are clear. Dictatorships don’t respect the population and human rights.
March 8, 2022
Книга про фальсификации на выборах. Большинство демократий в мире - «фальшивые». Выборы в общем полезны диктаторам, но все же лучше с ними, чем без. К сожалению в книге нет реальных рецептов для изменения ситуации
May 9, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Лучше уснуть, а проснуться под залпы Авроры,
Когда заборы упадут и спадут оковы,
Когда свобода слова будет не просто словом,
И можно смело положить десятиметровый.
Удивительно, что такая книга была издана в России, ибо Российская Федерация является типичным образчиком фальшивой демократии. Когда это произошло? Я думаю, почти сразу после 1993 года. Уже выборы 1996 г. крайне трудно назвать честными и конкурентными. Да, многие либералы заявляют, что «другого выбора не было». Однако я считаю, что выбор был. Если КПРФ в то время являлась угрозой демократической России, то следовало в таком случаи КПРФ запретить. Когда же им дают право на существование (я имею в виду, сторонников левой идеи, т.е. не обязательно коммунистов), но при этом отказывают в победе на выборах, то это является типичным авторитарным признаком. Так что да, книга актуальна для России. Даже если и когда в России появится всё же настоящая демократия, книга станет хорошим помощником для укрепления этой демократии.
Что примечательно, последние годы правления Путина стали включать в себя уже все без исключения методы поддержания фальшивой демократии. Читая книгу, возникало ощущение, что я читаю историю выборов не в какой-нибудь далёкой африканской стране, которой в книге отводится больше всего места, а о путинской России. Потому что фактически, были имплементированы все способы, чтобы Путин и его группировка оставались у власти пожизненно. Приведу пример. Вот в России есть оппозиция, которую можно назвать внесистемной или оппозиция, резко критикующая Путина. Разница состоит в том, что эти люди критикуют именно Путина, а не каких-то третьеразрядных чиновников от которых мало что зависит (чем как раз и занимается так называемая парламентская «оппозиция»). Какая у них судьба в России? Правильно, их под разными предлогами не допускают к выборам. О том же пишут и авторы книги: «Когда и это не срабатывает, правительство избавляется от конкуренции, исключив соперников из гонки на основе благовидной нормы закона». И дело даже не только в Навальном, самом популярном лидере внесистемной оппозиции в России, а в том, что и других представители внесистемной оппозиции не допускают к выборам. Власти аргументируют это тем, что были якобы выявлены тем или иные «нарушения». Главным тут является то, что эти так называемые «нарушения», из-за которых оппозицию в России не допускают к выборам, являются искусственно созданными. Грубо говоря, создаются условия, когда для одних людей правила и законы не действуют, а для других, соблюдаются максимально жёстко. Как говорится, «Друзьям — всё, врагам — закон».
Ещё одним ярким примером свойственным и для России является ситуация, когда, как пишут авторы, «В фальшивых демократиях главы избирательных комиссий, как правило, назначаются президентом и правящей партией, в противовес международным стандартам». В России делается вид, что эти люди в Центризбиркоме независимы от верховной власти. Но на самом деле и на словах и на деле эти люди абсолютно подчинены Путину, а следовательно, в России больше 20 лет работает сталинский принцип «не важно кто и как голосует, а важно кто и как считает». Именно из-за этого многие внесистемные оппозиционеры предлагали просто бойкотировать любые выборы, ибо если сама власть считает голоса, то и участие в них выглядит и бессмысленным, дискредитирующ��м саму идею демократии.
Среди более тонких методов поддержания фальшивой демократии я бы отметил метод создания фальшивых организаций по мониторингу выборов. Суть их состоит в том, что как пишут авторы, «если за выборами наблюдает лишь горстка западных наблюдателей (от Евросоюза, из Центра Картера и т.д.) то, скорее всего, они единодушно выскажутся в негативном ключе. Но если разбавить их голоса другими наблюдателями, которые вынесут противоположный вердикт, власти смогут развести руками и сказать, что наличие фальсификаций – спорный вопрос». Чаще всего на пространстве СНГ такие фальшивые организации, которые якобы призваны следить за честностью выборов, используются на взаимовыгодных условиях. Я даже думаю, что у всех автократий существует негласное правило поддерживать друг друга в фальсификациях, из-за чего народ этих стран пребывает в иллюзии, что демократия в их странах развивается, пусть и медленно. На самом деле, в этих странах есть лишь иллюзия демократии. Возможно, для многих людей это является ещё неким самоуспокоением, самообманом.
Разумеется, автор критикуют проведение выборов не только в откровенных автократиях, типа России, Белоруссии и многих стран Африки и Азии (минус Китай, ибо там нет даже фальшивой демократии), но и в таких странах как США. Однако критиковать выборы в США, как по мне, не очень интересно. У США есть проблемы, разумеется, ибо нет идеальных стран, но ставить в один ряд Россию и США видится мне ошибочным. Чтобы это понять, достаточно посмотреть, как живут люди в России и в США (не в крупных городах). После этого все вопросы отпадут сами собой. Более интересным видится мне замечание авторов о непоследовательности западных стран в целом.
Так авторы пишут, что «Критически важна последовательность. Если одни сфальсифицированные выборы получают одобрение международных игроков, а другие подвергаются критике, складывается впечатление несправедливых двойных стандартов». Проблема тут состоит в том, что такие страны как Саудовская Аравия или Турция, рассматриваются западными странами как исключение из правил, в отношении которых критика мягкая, а действия вообще отсутствуют. Как замечают авторы, это может иметь отрицательные последствия для развития демократии, ибо возникает ощущение, что западные страны не совсем привержены идеи демократии и законности. Тут трудно не согласится с авторами.
Ну и последнее, что хотелось бы отметить, это главная причина существования фальшивых демократий: «Проблема имеет более глубокие корни: фальсификации становятся возможны там, где изначально слабы политические институты и демократические нормы». Это особенно хорошо видно на примере Веймарской республики и постсоветской России. И в том и в другом случаи инструменты демократии использовались для прихода к власти диктаторов. И как мы видим, схожесть этих двух режимов просто поразительная: и тот и другой режим закончили войной.
It is surprising that such a book was published in Russia because the Russian Federation is a typical example of fake democracy. When did this happen? I think almost immediately after 1993. Even the 1996 elections can hardly be called fair and competitive. Yes, many liberals say that "there was no other choice." However, I believe that there was a choice. If the CPRF was a threat to democratic Russia at the time, then the CPRF should have been banned. When they are given the right to exist (I mean, supporters of leftist ideas, i.e., not necessarily communists) but are denied the right to win elections, this is a typical authoritarian sign. So yes, the book is relevant to Russia. Even if and when a true democracy emerges in Russia, the book will be a good aid to strengthening this democracy.
Remarkably, the last years of Putin's rule have already included every method of maintaining fake democracy without exception. Reading the book, I had the feeling that I was reading the history of elections not about some distant African country, to which the book devotes most of its space, but about Putin's Russia. Because, in fact, there have been implemented all the mechanisms for Putin and his faction to remain in power for life. Let me give you an example. Here in Russia, there is an opposition that can be called non-systemic or an opposition that is sharply critical of Putin. The difference is that these people criticize Putin and not some third-rate officials on whom little depends (which is exactly what the so-called parliamentary "opposition" does). What is their fate in Russia? Right, under various pretexts they are not allowed to participate in elections. The authors of the book say the same thing: "When that doesn't work either, the government gets rid of the competition by excluding rivals from the race on the basis of a plausible rule of law." And it's not even about Navalny, the most popular leader of the non-systemic opposition in Russia, but about the fact that other representatives of the non-systemic opposition are not allowed to participate in elections either. The authorities argue that this is because some "violations" have been allegedly identified. The main point here is that these so-called "violations," because of which the opposition in Russia is not allowed to take part in the elections, are artificially created (it's a fake). Roughly speaking, conditions are created when the rules and laws do not work for some people and are enforced as strictly as possible for others. As the saying goes, "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
Another striking example, also typical of Russia, is the situation when, as the authors write, "In false democracies, the heads of election commissions are usually appointed by the president and the ruling party, contrary to international standards." In Russia, it is pretended that these people in the Central Election Commission are independent of the supreme power. But in reality, in word and deed, these people are absolutely subordinate to Putin and, consequently, in Russia for over 20 years, the Stalinist principle of "it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." This is why many non-systemic oppositionists suggested simply boycotting any elections because if the authorities themselves count the votes, then participation in them also looks meaningless, discrediting the very idea of democracy.
Among the more subtle methods of maintaining a fake democracy, I would mention the method of creating fake election monitoring organizations. The essence of them is that, as the authors write, "if only a handful of Western observers (from the European Union, the Carter Center, etc.) observe the elections, they are likely to unanimously express a negative opinion. But if their voices are diluted by other observers who give the opposite verdict, the authorities will be able to throw up their hands and say that the presence of fraud is a moot point." Most often in the CIS space such fake organizations, which are supposedly designed to monitor the fairness of elections, are used on mutually beneficial terms. I think that all autocracies have an unspoken rule to support each other in falsifications, due to which the people of these countries are under the illusion that democracy in their countries is developing. In fact, there is only the illusion of democracy in these countries. Perhaps for many people, this is still a kind of self-soothing, self-deception.
Of course, the author criticizes the holding of elections not only in outright autocracies like Russia, Belarus, and many countries in Africa and Asia (minus China, because there is not even a fake democracy there) but also in countries like the United States. Criticizing elections in the United States, however, does not sound very interesting to me. The U.S. has problems, of course, because no country is perfect, but to put Russia and the U.S. on the same level seems to me to be a mistake. To understand this, it is enough to see how people live in Russia and in the United States (not in large cities). Then the questions disappear by themselves. I find the authors' observation about the inconsistency of Western countries more interesting.
Thus, the authors write that "Consistency is critical. If some rigged elections receive the approval of international players and others are criticized, the impression is of an unfair double standard." The problem here is that countries like Saudi Arabia or Turkey are seen by Western countries as the exception to the rule, for which criticism is mild and action is non-existent. As the authors point out, this can have negative consequences for the development of democracy because there is a feeling that Western countries are not fully committed to the idea of democracy and the rule of law. It is hard not to agree with the authors.
The last thing I would like to mention is the main reason for the existence of fake democracies: "The problem has deeper roots: falsifications are possible where political institutions and democratic norms are weak from the beginning." This is particularly well illustrated by the Weimar Republic and post-Soviet Russia. In both cases, the instruments of democracy were used to bring dictators to power. And as we can see, the similarities between the two regimes are striking: Both ended in war.
Лучше уснуть, а проснуться под залпы Авроры,
Когда заборы упадут и спадут оковы,
Когда свобода слова будет не просто словом,
И можно смело положить десятиметровый.
Удивительно, что такая книга была издана в России, ибо Российская Федерация является типичным образчиком фальшивой демократии. Когда это произошло? Я думаю, почти сразу после 1993 года. Уже выборы 1996 г. крайне трудно назвать честными и конкурентными. Да, многие либералы заявляют, что «другого выбора не было». Однако я считаю, что выбор был. Если КПРФ в то время являлась угрозой демократической России, то следовало в таком случаи КПРФ запретить. Когда же им дают право на существование (я имею в виду, сторонников левой идеи, т.е. не обязательно коммунистов), но при этом отказывают в победе на выборах, то это является типичным авторитарным признаком. Так что да, книга актуальна для России. Даже если и когда в России появится всё же настоящая демократия, книга станет хорошим помощником для укрепления этой демократии.
Что примечательно, последние годы правления Путина стали включать в себя уже все без исключения методы поддержания фальшивой демократии. Читая книгу, возникало ощущение, что я читаю историю выборов не в какой-нибудь далёкой африканской стране, которой в книге отводится больше всего места, а о путинской России. Потому что фактически, были имплементированы все способы, чтобы Путин и его группировка оставались у власти пожизненно. Приведу пример. Вот в России есть оппозиция, которую можно назвать внесистемной или оппозиция, резко критикующая Путина. Разница состоит в том, что эти люди критикуют именно Путина, а не каких-то третьеразрядных чиновников от которых мало что зависит (чем как раз и занимается так называемая парламентская «оппозиция»). Какая у них судьба в России? Правильно, их под разными предлогами не допускают к выборам. О том же пишут и авторы книги: «Когда и это не срабатывает, правительство избавляется от конкуренции, исключив соперников из гонки на основе благовидной нормы закона». И дело даже не только в Навальном, самом популярном лидере внесистемной оппозиции в России, а в том, что и других представители внесистемной оппозиции не допускают к выборам. Власти аргументируют это тем, что были якобы выявлены тем или иные «нарушения». Главным тут является то, что эти так называемые «нарушения», из-за которых оппозицию в России не допускают к выборам, являются искусственно созданными. Грубо говоря, создаются условия, когда для одних людей правила и законы не действуют, а для других, соблюдаются максимально жёстко. Как говорится, «Друзьям — всё, врагам — закон».
Ещё одним ярким примером свойственным и для России является ситуация, когда, как пишут авторы, «В фальшивых демократиях главы избирательных комиссий, как правило, назначаются президентом и правящей партией, в противовес международным стандартам». В России делается вид, что эти люди в Центризбиркоме независимы от верховной власти. Но на самом деле и на словах и на деле эти люди абсолютно подчинены Путину, а следовательно, в России больше 20 лет работает сталинский принцип «не важно кто и как голосует, а важно кто и как считает». Именно из-за этого многие внесистемные оппозиционеры предлагали просто бойкотировать любые выборы, ибо если сама власть считает голоса, то и участие в них выглядит и бессмысленным, дискредитирующ��м саму идею демократии.
Среди более тонких методов поддержания фальшивой демократии я бы отметил метод создания фальшивых организаций по мониторингу выборов. Суть их состоит в том, что как пишут авторы, «если за выборами наблюдает лишь горстка западных наблюдателей (от Евросоюза, из Центра Картера и т.д.) то, скорее всего, они единодушно выскажутся в негативном ключе. Но если разбавить их голоса другими наблюдателями, которые вынесут противоположный вердикт, власти смогут развести руками и сказать, что наличие фальсификаций – спорный вопрос». Чаще всего на пространстве СНГ такие фальшивые организации, которые якобы призваны следить за честностью выборов, используются на взаимовыгодных условиях. Я даже думаю, что у всех автократий существует негласное правило поддерживать друг друга в фальсификациях, из-за чего народ этих стран пребывает в иллюзии, что демократия в их странах развивается, пусть и медленно. На самом деле, в этих странах есть лишь иллюзия демократии. Возможно, для многих людей это является ещё неким самоуспокоением, самообманом.
Разумеется, автор критикуют проведение выборов не только в откровенных автократиях, типа России, Белоруссии и многих стран Африки и Азии (минус Китай, ибо там нет даже фальшивой демократии), но и в таких странах как США. Однако критиковать выборы в США, как по мне, не очень интересно. У США есть проблемы, разумеется, ибо нет идеальных стран, но ставить в один ряд Россию и США видится мне ошибочным. Чтобы это понять, достаточно посмотреть, как живут люди в России и в США (не в крупных городах). После этого все вопросы отпадут сами собой. Более интересным видится мне замечание авторов о непоследовательности западных стран в целом.
Так авторы пишут, что «Критически важна последовательность. Если одни сфальсифицированные выборы получают одобрение международных игроков, а другие подвергаются критике, складывается впечатление несправедливых двойных стандартов». Проблема тут состоит в том, что такие страны как Саудовская Аравия или Турция, рассматриваются западными странами как исключение из правил, в отношении которых критика мягкая, а действия вообще отсутствуют. Как замечают авторы, это может иметь отрицательные последствия для развития демократии, ибо возникает ощущение, что западные страны не совсем привержены идеи демократии и законности. Тут трудно не согласится с авторами.
Ну и последнее, что хотелось бы отметить, это главная причина существования фальшивых демократий: «Проблема имеет более глубокие корни: фальсификации становятся возможны там, где изначально слабы политические институты и демократические нормы». Это особенно хорошо видно на примере Веймарской республики и постсоветской России. И в том и в другом случаи инструменты демократии использовались для прихода к власти диктаторов. И как мы видим, схожесть этих двух режимов просто поразительная: и тот и другой режим закончили войной.
It is surprising that such a book was published in Russia because the Russian Federation is a typical example of fake democracy. When did this happen? I think almost immediately after 1993. Even the 1996 elections can hardly be called fair and competitive. Yes, many liberals say that "there was no other choice." However, I believe that there was a choice. If the CPRF was a threat to democratic Russia at the time, then the CPRF should have been banned. When they are given the right to exist (I mean, supporters of leftist ideas, i.e., not necessarily communists) but are denied the right to win elections, this is a typical authoritarian sign. So yes, the book is relevant to Russia. Even if and when a true democracy emerges in Russia, the book will be a good aid to strengthening this democracy.
Remarkably, the last years of Putin's rule have already included every method of maintaining fake democracy without exception. Reading the book, I had the feeling that I was reading the history of elections not about some distant African country, to which the book devotes most of its space, but about Putin's Russia. Because, in fact, there have been implemented all the mechanisms for Putin and his faction to remain in power for life. Let me give you an example. Here in Russia, there is an opposition that can be called non-systemic or an opposition that is sharply critical of Putin. The difference is that these people criticize Putin and not some third-rate officials on whom little depends (which is exactly what the so-called parliamentary "opposition" does). What is their fate in Russia? Right, under various pretexts they are not allowed to participate in elections. The authors of the book say the same thing: "When that doesn't work either, the government gets rid of the competition by excluding rivals from the race on the basis of a plausible rule of law." And it's not even about Navalny, the most popular leader of the non-systemic opposition in Russia, but about the fact that other representatives of the non-systemic opposition are not allowed to participate in elections either. The authorities argue that this is because some "violations" have been allegedly identified. The main point here is that these so-called "violations," because of which the opposition in Russia is not allowed to take part in the elections, are artificially created (it's a fake). Roughly speaking, conditions are created when the rules and laws do not work for some people and are enforced as strictly as possible for others. As the saying goes, "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
Another striking example, also typical of Russia, is the situation when, as the authors write, "In false democracies, the heads of election commissions are usually appointed by the president and the ruling party, contrary to international standards." In Russia, it is pretended that these people in the Central Election Commission are independent of the supreme power. But in reality, in word and deed, these people are absolutely subordinate to Putin and, consequently, in Russia for over 20 years, the Stalinist principle of "it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." This is why many non-systemic oppositionists suggested simply boycotting any elections because if the authorities themselves count the votes, then participation in them also looks meaningless, discrediting the very idea of democracy.
Among the more subtle methods of maintaining a fake democracy, I would mention the method of creating fake election monitoring organizations. The essence of them is that, as the authors write, "if only a handful of Western observers (from the European Union, the Carter Center, etc.) observe the elections, they are likely to unanimously express a negative opinion. But if their voices are diluted by other observers who give the opposite verdict, the authorities will be able to throw up their hands and say that the presence of fraud is a moot point." Most often in the CIS space such fake organizations, which are supposedly designed to monitor the fairness of elections, are used on mutually beneficial terms. I think that all autocracies have an unspoken rule to support each other in falsifications, due to which the people of these countries are under the illusion that democracy in their countries is developing. In fact, there is only the illusion of democracy in these countries. Perhaps for many people, this is still a kind of self-soothing, self-deception.
Of course, the author criticizes the holding of elections not only in outright autocracies like Russia, Belarus, and many countries in Africa and Asia (minus China, because there is not even a fake democracy there) but also in countries like the United States. Criticizing elections in the United States, however, does not sound very interesting to me. The U.S. has problems, of course, because no country is perfect, but to put Russia and the U.S. on the same level seems to me to be a mistake. To understand this, it is enough to see how people live in Russia and in the United States (not in large cities). Then the questions disappear by themselves. I find the authors' observation about the inconsistency of Western countries more interesting.
Thus, the authors write that "Consistency is critical. If some rigged elections receive the approval of international players and others are criticized, the impression is of an unfair double standard." The problem here is that countries like Saudi Arabia or Turkey are seen by Western countries as the exception to the rule, for which criticism is mild and action is non-existent. As the authors point out, this can have negative consequences for the development of democracy because there is a feeling that Western countries are not fully committed to the idea of democracy and the rule of law. It is hard not to agree with the authors.
The last thing I would like to mention is the main reason for the existence of fake democracies: "The problem has deeper roots: falsifications are possible where political institutions and democratic norms are weak from the beginning." This is particularly well illustrated by the Weimar Republic and post-Soviet Russia. In both cases, the instruments of democracy were used to bring dictators to power. And as we can see, the similarities between the two regimes are striking: Both ended in war.
Read
December 6, 2023”if we care about democracy, we must act now. there is no time to waste.”
as a poli sci major this was definitely interesting!!
the surplus of data inundated me more than i’d like to admit though hahah
no rating bc it’s just entirely different than what i pick up when reading on my own volition
(also i didn’t read two of the chapters… awkward)
as a poli sci major this was definitely interesting!!
the surplus of data inundated me more than i’d like to admit though hahah
no rating bc it’s just entirely different than what i pick up when reading on my own volition
(also i didn’t read two of the chapters… awkward)
September 30, 2021
The book begins with a contradiction which unfortunately is true that the world is holding more elections and yet more countries are becoming less democratic. It contends that in the past, authoritarian leaders needed to not hold elections to stay in power but now they have to hold elections to stay in power.
This reminds me of a quote that said something like all it matters is that people should know that elections were held but how people vote is insignificant because everything is determined by the people who tally those votes.
After introducing the readers to why the world is holding more elections it introduces the six main strategies that are adopted by authoritarian leaders and governments which does comprise countries like the USA and the UK too. Although primarily these strategies were innovated in these countries they're generally now practised and wielded in the developing and underdeveloped countries of the world.
It deciphers all the strategies in very nice detail and with a decent number of examples from across the world which certainly blows your mind and makes you wonder whether we can trust the elections that happen around the world. It also made me realise that although a lot of people across the world want democracy very few have it and those who do have it don't realise how complicated it's to make a prosperous democracy.
The pillars of democracy are incredibly hard to erect and those who live in a free country should stand up for democracy and not take their system for granted.
It's a thought-provoking book and makes you question so many characteristics of elections. What's saddening is that it mentions that the countries who moan the most about democracy that's the USA and the UK do little for democracy to prosper in other parts of the world. The power that they carry is often dismissed because of international politics and it's easier to conduct fake elections or no elections at all by those who are strategically vital to these influential countries.
But times are changing as countries like China are growing bigger, there's less to bother about not being democratic as it isn't enthusiastic in a system that it doesn't believe in itself. There's going to be tough times for democracy ahead because of this and the personal interest of the powerful countries mentioned.
The authors conclude with what can be done to conserve democracy but unfortunately, that's not a very convincing chapter and that's probably because the authors in my opinion realise that it's going to be extremely difficult to save democracy in the future because one's who should uphold it are the one's ignoring it.
This reminds me of a quote that said something like all it matters is that people should know that elections were held but how people vote is insignificant because everything is determined by the people who tally those votes.
After introducing the readers to why the world is holding more elections it introduces the six main strategies that are adopted by authoritarian leaders and governments which does comprise countries like the USA and the UK too. Although primarily these strategies were innovated in these countries they're generally now practised and wielded in the developing and underdeveloped countries of the world.
It deciphers all the strategies in very nice detail and with a decent number of examples from across the world which certainly blows your mind and makes you wonder whether we can trust the elections that happen around the world. It also made me realise that although a lot of people across the world want democracy very few have it and those who do have it don't realise how complicated it's to make a prosperous democracy.
The pillars of democracy are incredibly hard to erect and those who live in a free country should stand up for democracy and not take their system for granted.
It's a thought-provoking book and makes you question so many characteristics of elections. What's saddening is that it mentions that the countries who moan the most about democracy that's the USA and the UK do little for democracy to prosper in other parts of the world. The power that they carry is often dismissed because of international politics and it's easier to conduct fake elections or no elections at all by those who are strategically vital to these influential countries.
But times are changing as countries like China are growing bigger, there's less to bother about not being democratic as it isn't enthusiastic in a system that it doesn't believe in itself. There's going to be tough times for democracy ahead because of this and the personal interest of the powerful countries mentioned.
The authors conclude with what can be done to conserve democracy but unfortunately, that's not a very convincing chapter and that's probably because the authors in my opinion realise that it's going to be extremely difficult to save democracy in the future because one's who should uphold it are the one's ignoring it.
September 30, 2021
Miks autoritaarsed riigijuhid üldse hakkavad valimisi läbi viima? Miks on valimisi korraldavad võlts-demokraatlikud režiimid stabiilsemad kui riigid, mis hääletusi suu sissegi ei võta? Ja kui ma ikka olen vähem või rohkem kahtlastel viisidel võimule saanud autokraat, kellel on suur-suur hirm oma võimu säilimise pärast, siis mida ma peaksin tegema, et tagada garanteeritud tulemus hääletuskastide juures?
Vähem poliitilises maailmas elavatele inimestele oleks raamat pakkunud rohkem uusi teadmisi. Aga annab hea süstemaatilise ülevaate küll, mis on levinud valimiste võltsimise võtted, nende tugevused ja miinused (autokraadi jaoks siis, mitte teistele) ning milliseid lahendusi peaksid opositsioon või teised riigid kasutusele võtma.
Illustreerivad näited varieeruvad naljakatest šokeerivate kas-tõesti'deni. Naljakas: 1998. aastal Peterburi kohalikel valimistel oli Oleg Sergejev pinnuks silmas toonasele kubernerile Vladimir Jakovlevile. Jakovlev polnud sugugi rõõmus, kui Sergejev hakkas volikokku tagasi kandideerima. Tuli vaid leida sobivad kandidaadid tema vastu. Kelleks olid... Oleg Sergejev ja Oleg Sergejev. Üks pensionär, teine töötu. Kolmest samanimelisest inimesest hääletussedelil piisas, et valijaid sassi ajada ning paljud andsid oma hääle valele inimesele.
(2004 juhtus sama asi USAs, kui José E. Serrano vastu kandideeris New Yorgis Jose Serrano, töötu mees, kelle põhjendus kandideerimiseks oli "mul polnud midagi muud teha". Minu meelest on seda varem ja hiljem rohkemgi USAs juhtunud, aga nagu Cheeseman ja Klaas raamatus ka mainivad, paljud valimiste võltsimise viisid ja nende nimetused said alguse USAst. Mis jällegi ei ole üllatav, kui tegemist on vanima demokraatiaga, mis suur osa oma ajaloost ei ole kuigi demokraatlik olnud, kui arvestada naiste ja mustanahaliste valimisõigust või selle puudumist. Aga ma kaldun kõrvale.)
Kas-tõesti: Zimbabwe ei paista silma just kuigi säravpuhtate valimistega. Ühel kolmest Zimbabwe lapsest ei ole sünnitunnistust ning viimaste raportite järgi on vähem dokumente välja antud opositsioonilise MDC toetusaladel, kus praktiliselt ühelgi lapsel pole sünnitunnistust. Osa haiglad ei anna tõendeid välja, kui emad ei maksa lõivu, aga see jätab ikkagi küsimuse, et miks mõningates piirkondades sertifikaate antakse ja mõningates mitte. Sünnitunnistust on aga vaja, et saada ID-kaart, mis annab valimisõiguse...
Kas tõesti teeb Zimbabwe valitsus plaane, et jätta terve põlvkond potentsiaalselt opositsiooniliselt meelestatud inimesi ilma valimisõiguseta 18 aastat hiljem? Cheeseman, kes ei pidanud valitsevat parteid päris nii küüniliseks või ettemõtlevaks, küsis seda endiselt ZANU-PF partei esindajalt. Ta olla toolil tagasi naaldunud, naeru kihistanud ja öelnud: "That I can neither confirm nor deny... but, you know, you have to get up very early in the morning to beat Zanu-PF."
Mine võta kinni, on see nüüd teadlik strateegia või lihtsalt üks endine poliitik, kes tahab end tähtsaks teha.
Hirmus raamat. Ma ikka mõtlen vahepeal, kui üle noatera läks Eestil 1990. aastatel, et iha jõuda läänemaailma oli nii palju suurem kui mõne mehe (enamasti on nad ju mehed, eriti veel toona) tahe toolist kinni hoida. Cheeseman ja Klaas klassifitseerivad Balti riigid post-sovietlikuks, kui nad selle piirkonna kohta üldistusi teevad. Mis on vaieldav, eks ole, ja aegunud ka, aga näitab väga hästi, et meid saab panna samasse seltskonda, kus kus keskmine valimiste kvaliteet 2012-2015 oli 4,6 10-palli skaalal (Euroopa 8,9, Sahara-alune Aafrika 4,9, Aasia 4,8, Lähis-Ida 5,4, Ladina-Ameerika 7,3 Election Integrity Projecti andmetel).
Kus 56,2% juhtudest allub valimiskomisjon riigile (Euroopas 0%, Ladina-Ameerikas 18,2%, Lähis-Idas 42,9%, Aasias 47,8%, Sahara-aluses Aafrikas 34,4% V-Demi andmetel). Eestis... "on riigi valimisteenistus Riigikogu kantselei struktuuriüksus, mis on valimisseadusest tulenevate ülesannete täitmisel iseseisev." Ma ei tea, kuidas V-Dem Eestit sellel juhul klassifitseerib, kõlab, et riigi kontrollile allutatult siiski. Mis ei ole tingimata negatiivne, meil on ka üks post-sovietlikus maailmas harvaesinevaid avalik-õiguslikke ringhäälinguid, mis ei ole riigimeedia. Aga ohukohaks on see kindlasti.
Veel toredaid numbreid. 2012.-16. aastatel kasutas riik opositsiooni vastu vägivalda, hirmutamist või ahistamist post-sovietlikes riikides 46,9% juhtudest, Euroopas suur ümmargune null. Peaaegu kõigis neis graafikutes on post-sovietlik kõige halvemal kohal, halvemal kui Aafrika või Lähis-Ida, mis on enamasti halva mängu sünonüümideks (aga jällegi, kõik post-sovietlikud riigid viivad läbi valimisi, erinevalt neist kahest piirkonnast, mis mõjutab seda, milliseid andmeid saab üldse vaadelda. Saudi Araabia oleks ka puhas poiss, kui vaadeldakse ainult valimistel hirmutamist.)
Valimispäevadel ebakorrapärasusi oli post-sovietlikes riikides 65,6%, Euroopas 4,2% juhtudest. Hääli osteti post-sovietlikes riikides 43,8% valimistel, Euroopas 14,6% (päris kõrge. Autorid toovad ühes peatükis loomulikult välja, et häälte ostmine ei tähenda tingimata, et ostjad selle eest ka hääli saavad, aga põnevalt kõrge tulemus ikkagi, selle kohta tahaks kohe rohkem teada).
Selline tore võrdlus siis. Lugeda! Kas seda või midagi teist, see polegi niivõrd oluline. Erinevate mõõdikute järgi oleme me juba pikemat aega demokratiseerumise kolmandast lainest jõudnud hiiliva autokratiseerumiseni. Varem on arvatud, et demokraatia kukub põmm! näiteks mõne sõjaväelise riigipöörde käigus ning kõik teavad, et nii juhtus. Praegust lainet iseloomustab just hiilivus, seesama näiliste valimiste korraldamine, institutsioonide nõrgenemine, usaldusväärse kadumine. Mitte paugu, vaid sosinaga.
Vähem poliitilises maailmas elavatele inimestele oleks raamat pakkunud rohkem uusi teadmisi. Aga annab hea süstemaatilise ülevaate küll, mis on levinud valimiste võltsimise võtted, nende tugevused ja miinused (autokraadi jaoks siis, mitte teistele) ning milliseid lahendusi peaksid opositsioon või teised riigid kasutusele võtma.
Illustreerivad näited varieeruvad naljakatest šokeerivate kas-tõesti'deni. Naljakas: 1998. aastal Peterburi kohalikel valimistel oli Oleg Sergejev pinnuks silmas toonasele kubernerile Vladimir Jakovlevile. Jakovlev polnud sugugi rõõmus, kui Sergejev hakkas volikokku tagasi kandideerima. Tuli vaid leida sobivad kandidaadid tema vastu. Kelleks olid... Oleg Sergejev ja Oleg Sergejev. Üks pensionär, teine töötu. Kolmest samanimelisest inimesest hääletussedelil piisas, et valijaid sassi ajada ning paljud andsid oma hääle valele inimesele.
(2004 juhtus sama asi USAs, kui José E. Serrano vastu kandideeris New Yorgis Jose Serrano, töötu mees, kelle põhjendus kandideerimiseks oli "mul polnud midagi muud teha". Minu meelest on seda varem ja hiljem rohkemgi USAs juhtunud, aga nagu Cheeseman ja Klaas raamatus ka mainivad, paljud valimiste võltsimise viisid ja nende nimetused said alguse USAst. Mis jällegi ei ole üllatav, kui tegemist on vanima demokraatiaga, mis suur osa oma ajaloost ei ole kuigi demokraatlik olnud, kui arvestada naiste ja mustanahaliste valimisõigust või selle puudumist. Aga ma kaldun kõrvale.)
Kas-tõesti: Zimbabwe ei paista silma just kuigi säravpuhtate valimistega. Ühel kolmest Zimbabwe lapsest ei ole sünnitunnistust ning viimaste raportite järgi on vähem dokumente välja antud opositsioonilise MDC toetusaladel, kus praktiliselt ühelgi lapsel pole sünnitunnistust. Osa haiglad ei anna tõendeid välja, kui emad ei maksa lõivu, aga see jätab ikkagi küsimuse, et miks mõningates piirkondades sertifikaate antakse ja mõningates mitte. Sünnitunnistust on aga vaja, et saada ID-kaart, mis annab valimisõiguse...
Kas tõesti teeb Zimbabwe valitsus plaane, et jätta terve põlvkond potentsiaalselt opositsiooniliselt meelestatud inimesi ilma valimisõiguseta 18 aastat hiljem? Cheeseman, kes ei pidanud valitsevat parteid päris nii küüniliseks või ettemõtlevaks, küsis seda endiselt ZANU-PF partei esindajalt. Ta olla toolil tagasi naaldunud, naeru kihistanud ja öelnud: "That I can neither confirm nor deny... but, you know, you have to get up very early in the morning to beat Zanu-PF."
Mine võta kinni, on see nüüd teadlik strateegia või lihtsalt üks endine poliitik, kes tahab end tähtsaks teha.
Hirmus raamat. Ma ikka mõtlen vahepeal, kui üle noatera läks Eestil 1990. aastatel, et iha jõuda läänemaailma oli nii palju suurem kui mõne mehe (enamasti on nad ju mehed, eriti veel toona) tahe toolist kinni hoida. Cheeseman ja Klaas klassifitseerivad Balti riigid post-sovietlikuks, kui nad selle piirkonna kohta üldistusi teevad. Mis on vaieldav, eks ole, ja aegunud ka, aga näitab väga hästi, et meid saab panna samasse seltskonda, kus kus keskmine valimiste kvaliteet 2012-2015 oli 4,6 10-palli skaalal (Euroopa 8,9, Sahara-alune Aafrika 4,9, Aasia 4,8, Lähis-Ida 5,4, Ladina-Ameerika 7,3 Election Integrity Projecti andmetel).
Kus 56,2% juhtudest allub valimiskomisjon riigile (Euroopas 0%, Ladina-Ameerikas 18,2%, Lähis-Idas 42,9%, Aasias 47,8%, Sahara-aluses Aafrikas 34,4% V-Demi andmetel). Eestis... "on riigi valimisteenistus Riigikogu kantselei struktuuriüksus, mis on valimisseadusest tulenevate ülesannete täitmisel iseseisev." Ma ei tea, kuidas V-Dem Eestit sellel juhul klassifitseerib, kõlab, et riigi kontrollile allutatult siiski. Mis ei ole tingimata negatiivne, meil on ka üks post-sovietlikus maailmas harvaesinevaid avalik-õiguslikke ringhäälinguid, mis ei ole riigimeedia. Aga ohukohaks on see kindlasti.
Veel toredaid numbreid. 2012.-16. aastatel kasutas riik opositsiooni vastu vägivalda, hirmutamist või ahistamist post-sovietlikes riikides 46,9% juhtudest, Euroopas suur ümmargune null. Peaaegu kõigis neis graafikutes on post-sovietlik kõige halvemal kohal, halvemal kui Aafrika või Lähis-Ida, mis on enamasti halva mängu sünonüümideks (aga jällegi, kõik post-sovietlikud riigid viivad läbi valimisi, erinevalt neist kahest piirkonnast, mis mõjutab seda, milliseid andmeid saab üldse vaadelda. Saudi Araabia oleks ka puhas poiss, kui vaadeldakse ainult valimistel hirmutamist.)
Valimispäevadel ebakorrapärasusi oli post-sovietlikes riikides 65,6%, Euroopas 4,2% juhtudest. Hääli osteti post-sovietlikes riikides 43,8% valimistel, Euroopas 14,6% (päris kõrge. Autorid toovad ühes peatükis loomulikult välja, et häälte ostmine ei tähenda tingimata, et ostjad selle eest ka hääli saavad, aga põnevalt kõrge tulemus ikkagi, selle kohta tahaks kohe rohkem teada).
Selline tore võrdlus siis. Lugeda! Kas seda või midagi teist, see polegi niivõrd oluline. Erinevate mõõdikute järgi oleme me juba pikemat aega demokratiseerumise kolmandast lainest jõudnud hiiliva autokratiseerumiseni. Varem on arvatud, et demokraatia kukub põmm! näiteks mõne sõjaväelise riigipöörde käigus ning kõik teavad, et nii juhtus. Praegust lainet iseloomustab just hiilivus, seesama näiliste valimiste korraldamine, institutsioonide nõrgenemine, usaldusväärse kadumine. Mitte paugu, vaid sosinaga.
February 18, 2025
Visuotinio nepasitikėjimo politinėmis institucijomis akivaizdoje Nic Cheeseman ir Brian Klaas knyga „How to Rig an Election“ įgauna ypatingą reikšmę. Jau iš pavadinimo suprantame, kad autoriai mėgina praskleisti uždangą nuo manipuliacijų bei gudrybių, kurios iškreipia demokratijos esmę visame pasaulyje.
Nuo akivaizdaus balsų pirkimo ir bauginimo iki subtilesnių metodų, pavyzdžiui, žiniasklaidos kontrolės ar dezinformacijos kampanijų – knygoje pabrėžiama, kad laisvi rinkimai nėra savaime suprantamas reiškinys. Autoriai pabrėžia, kaip net ir iš pažiūros stabilios demokratijos gali tapti pažeidžiamos, jeigu piliečiai nekritiškai vertina politinius procesus.
Šioje išsamioje studijoje gausu konkrečių pavyzdžių iš įvairių pasaulio šalių, pradedant autoritariniais režimais, kurie rinkimus paverčia fasadu savo valdžiai legitimuoti, ir baigiant ilgą demokratijos istoriją turinčiomis valstybėmis, kuriose gajus viešųjų erdvių monopolizavimas. Cheeseman ir Klaas ne tik išsamiai aprašo problemą, bet ir siūlo praktinius sprendimus, kaip visuomenė gali apsisaugoti nuo manipuliacijų.
Nic Cheeseman, Birmingamo universiteto politologas, ir Brian Klaas, Londono universiteto dėstytojas, pasitelkia ilgametę akademinę patirtį, todėl jų analizė įgyja mokslinį pagrindą, o pateikiami duomenys – svarią faktinę bazę. Daugelis kritikų vertina šių autorių tiriamąją kompetenciją, nes knyga skatina ne tik aptarti šiuolaikines grėsmes demokratijai, bet ir gilintis į jų priežastis bei galimus sprendimus.
Man asmeniškai įdomiausia pasirodė dalis, kurioje nagrinėjama, kaip autokratiniai režimai pasitelkia „pseidorinkimus“ tam, kad sukurtų tariamą legitimumą – nors iš tiesų tai tėra režimo „šou“. Tokie pavyzdžiai primena, jog demokratinių procedūrų iškraipymai gali laipsniškai pradėti dominuoti ir aplinkybėms susiklosčius bet kurioje kitoje valstybėje.
„How to Rig an Election“ – tai daugiau nei knyga apie suklastotus rinkimus. Tai kvietimas rimtai įvertinti, kiek ir kaip saugome demokratijos tradicijas bei kodėl aktyvi, gerai informuota visuomenė yra būtina visos sistemos sėkmei.
Nuo akivaizdaus balsų pirkimo ir bauginimo iki subtilesnių metodų, pavyzdžiui, žiniasklaidos kontrolės ar dezinformacijos kampanijų – knygoje pabrėžiama, kad laisvi rinkimai nėra savaime suprantamas reiškinys. Autoriai pabrėžia, kaip net ir iš pažiūros stabilios demokratijos gali tapti pažeidžiamos, jeigu piliečiai nekritiškai vertina politinius procesus.
Šioje išsamioje studijoje gausu konkrečių pavyzdžių iš įvairių pasaulio šalių, pradedant autoritariniais režimais, kurie rinkimus paverčia fasadu savo valdžiai legitimuoti, ir baigiant ilgą demokratijos istoriją turinčiomis valstybėmis, kuriose gajus viešųjų erdvių monopolizavimas. Cheeseman ir Klaas ne tik išsamiai aprašo problemą, bet ir siūlo praktinius sprendimus, kaip visuomenė gali apsisaugoti nuo manipuliacijų.
Nic Cheeseman, Birmingamo universiteto politologas, ir Brian Klaas, Londono universiteto dėstytojas, pasitelkia ilgametę akademinę patirtį, todėl jų analizė įgyja mokslinį pagrindą, o pateikiami duomenys – svarią faktinę bazę. Daugelis kritikų vertina šių autorių tiriamąją kompetenciją, nes knyga skatina ne tik aptarti šiuolaikines grėsmes demokratijai, bet ir gilintis į jų priežastis bei galimus sprendimus.
Man asmeniškai įdomiausia pasirodė dalis, kurioje nagrinėjama, kaip autokratiniai režimai pasitelkia „pseidorinkimus“ tam, kad sukurtų tariamą legitimumą – nors iš tiesų tai tėra režimo „šou“. Tokie pavyzdžiai primena, jog demokratinių procedūrų iškraipymai gali laipsniškai pradėti dominuoti ir aplinkybėms susiklosčius bet kurioje kitoje valstybėje.
„How to Rig an Election“ – tai daugiau nei knyga apie suklastotus rinkimus. Tai kvietimas rimtai įvertinti, kiek ir kaip saugome demokratijos tradicijas bei kodėl aktyvi, gerai informuota visuomenė yra būtina visos sistemos sėkmei.
July 13, 2020
I read this book on July 2020. I have to say that the Albanian translation which I opt-out to read in order to improve my vocabulary in my Native language was not good which many spelling mistakes.
Despite this negative, I have to say that this book is a bible on how to protect our countries from elections being rigged. It brings the methods that are available in our sub-conscience to our conscience where we can see it with real world examples.
This is also a good book for every Albanian to read as since it is being discussed now for the introduction of the digital voting system, we have to say that, despite everyone thinking of the advantages of this system there are many disadvantages, hacking being one of them. So instead of just electronic it seems that another firewall would be also to keep a paper trail record to just check against that electronic system that can be rigged with all the 6th methods mentioned in the book.
Definitely would recommend to anyone who has a general interest in politics!
Despite this negative, I have to say that this book is a bible on how to protect our countries from elections being rigged. It brings the methods that are available in our sub-conscience to our conscience where we can see it with real world examples.
This is also a good book for every Albanian to read as since it is being discussed now for the introduction of the digital voting system, we have to say that, despite everyone thinking of the advantages of this system there are many disadvantages, hacking being one of them. So instead of just electronic it seems that another firewall would be also to keep a paper trail record to just check against that electronic system that can be rigged with all the 6th methods mentioned in the book.
Definitely would recommend to anyone who has a general interest in politics!
December 21, 2021
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, electoral exclusion, vote buying (and the accompanied financial malfeasance), violence, repression, misinformation, disinformation, hacking of voting machines and systems, compromising (if not already controlling) electoral commissions, and ballot-box stuffing are ways despots use to rig elections, give a false sense of legitimacy, and stay in power. This book discusses their history, background, mechanics, rationale, consequences, and possible ways to counter them. Quite a number of case vignettes are provided – some of them actually quite funny (that is unless you happen to live in one of those despotic countries). Some elections are so egregiously rigged that they are really just “election-type events” (p.165). International election monitors whilst useful are hamstrung by geopolitical strategies and pragmatic concerns and thus limited in their effectiveness in combating electoral malpractices. The concluding chapter paints a somewhat potentially bleak future which demands real effort to avert. Very entertaining. Four stars.
January 30, 2022
Similar to what others posted, this book is clearly well researched, well organized, and provided a number of good cases studies that balanced the content. That being said, this book was a bit of a challenge to get through. The whole book reads like an undergraduate research paper, and at times, it felt clunky and repetitive.
In addition, I read this four years after it was published. It’s apparent how they tried to tap into the post-2016 US election crowd, as significant time is dedicating to discussing Donald Trump specifically. I know other political commentaries published around this time did the same thing, and I don’t disagree with the writing, but it felt very click-bait-y to me (in addition to the title).
Finally, I was surprised that there were only a few mentions of Europe (I don’t know the history well enough to say if there are good examples, it just seemed a bit imbalanced at times).
In addition, I read this four years after it was published. It’s apparent how they tried to tap into the post-2016 US election crowd, as significant time is dedicating to discussing Donald Trump specifically. I know other political commentaries published around this time did the same thing, and I don’t disagree with the writing, but it felt very click-bait-y to me (in addition to the title).
Finally, I was surprised that there were only a few mentions of Europe (I don’t know the history well enough to say if there are good examples, it just seemed a bit imbalanced at times).
October 13, 2018
For anyone interested in elections and the future of democracy, this book is a must-read. It starts from a troubling observation: while the number of elections in the world has overall increased, democracy itself is in decline. Starting from there the book provides an insightful account of how electoral manipulation plays a central role in explaining why elections have failed to topple dictators, and on occasion has even enabled them to strengthen their hold on power. The authors delve into the various strategies of vote rigging used by authoritarian leaders, why most of them manage to get away with it, and what can be done to try to counter vote rigging. The book is dense with information, yet is very readable, and draws on extensive research and often highly entertaining (though sometimes dramatic) anecdotes from across the world. While the book doesn’t break new ground, it offers a great introduction to the current state of knowledge about elections and vote rigging and puts forward some thoughtful suggestions for policy responses.
September 17, 2019
This is a good overview of a rarely understood yet critical issue. As is the case with so many books, there is a perceptible difference in the quality of writing in the introduction with the rest of the chapters. The writing gets progressively clunkier as the book unfolds. In the author's defense though, writing about electoral systems to a broad, non-specialized audience can be difficult given the technical subject matter. Still, as the introduction of the book shows, the authors could have done a more rigorous job of ensuring that the book doesn't seem dry.
I would have rated this book 3.5 stars if Goodreads had let me. But I've recently resolved to be more generous in my ratings, hence the 4 stars.
I would have rated this book 3.5 stars if Goodreads had let me. But I've recently resolved to be more generous in my ratings, hence the 4 stars.
May 6, 2025
Partisan bullshit that knocks on Republicians, from a liberal university. It chooses to give its negative examples for Republicians, even though it is obvious that in such a large and populated country as America, there will be plenty of examples available for both parties. Yet, most of the examples are selected from Republicians.
The examples themselves seem valid though. I am not saying they are not true. I am questioning why it selectively chooses examples.
The examples themselves seem valid though. I am not saying they are not true. I am questioning why it selectively chooses examples.
August 28, 2018
With the November midterms looming I highly recommend this book for anyone who wnats to be totally informed of the many ways authoritatian regimes rig elections in order to maintain power and control. The 2016 US election is prominant in the chapter on hacking, but there are five other types of rigging used by many other countries, such as ballot-box stuffing and the Potemkin ploy.
November 3, 2018
This book is a little bit textbook-y (dry) but given the material, it's expected. The pace of the audiobook was a little slow, though, so I listened to it on double-speed which helped a lot (sounded a little sped-up but not comically so).
The author did overuse certain phrases like "as a result", "indeed", and "in the event...". And the intro was over an hour long.
The author did overuse certain phrases like "as a result", "indeed", and "in the event...". And the intro was over an hour long.
March 13, 2020
How to Rig an Election does a great job of laying out the six methods most commonly used by - to use their term - counterfeit democracies to steal elections, or unfairly tip the scales in their favor. There are many things to be concerned about when it comes to the future of democracy, but there are also steps we can take to prevent the worst case scenarios from coming true.
November 5, 2018
Nice little book. All the known methods of conducting sham elections to preserve the incumbency while maintaining the pretense of democracy including the costs & benefits of the various approaches. The book ends with recommendations for detecting, defeating & preventing the rigging of elections.
December 9, 2019
Masterful summary of undemocratic methods used to ensure the "right" result in counterfeit democracies, with well done, if underemphasised acknowledgement of the echoes of these in established democracies' histories and sometimes presents.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews