Data

Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI), global

I am co-publisher of the ‘Perception of Electoral Integrity’ (PEI) expert survey dataset with Professor Pippa Norris and other colleagues from the Electoral Integrity Project. The data is available freely in the public domain: Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, (PEI-5.5)

The PEI datasets have been downloaded over 9,000 times, generated a large number of scholarly outputs including eight books, seven policy reports, and 21 peer-reviewed book chapters and journal articles, and have been featured in more than 450 press articles across 46 countries. The current release of the global dataset includes the assessment of 2,961 election experts, assessing 260 contests in 161 countries between 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2016.

The data allows a globally comparative look at the extent to which elections adhere to international norms and standards of electoral integrity. Here a little #Dataviz of the survey results I compiled with Tableau:

It also affords the opportunity to compare different aspects of electoral integrity across countries.

Comparison of the integrity of the 2015 elections in Myanmar and Singapore along eleven sub-dimensions of electoral integrity. (Source: PEI 4.5)
Comparison of the integrity of the 2015 elections in Myanmar and Singapore along eleven sub-dimensions of electoral integrity. (Source: PEI 4.5)

Or to focus in on any of 49 individual survey items.

Restrictions to international and domestic election observers in 153 countries. (Source: PEI 4.5)
Restrictions to international and domestic election observers in 153 countries. (Source: PEI 4.5)

Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI), sub-national

In addition to the global PEI survey, I have also worked on sub-national expert surveys measuring electoral integrity within countries. Thus far, the data for three such sub-national studies are available online:

2017      Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, US 2016 (PEI_US_1.0), with Pippa Norris, and Alessandro Nai. Harvard Dataverse, V1, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YXUV3W.
2015      Perceptions of Electoral Integrity-Russia, (PEI-Russia 1.0), with Pippa Norris, Martínez i Coma, and Alessandro Nai. Harvard Dataverse, V1, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8LYUAY.
2015      Perceptions of Electoral Integrity-Mexico, (PEI-Mexico 1.0), with Pippa Norris, Martínez i Coma, and Alessandro Nai. Harvard Dataverse, V1, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/O6UCIM.

For the 8 November US presidential election (PEI_US_1.0), evaluations from 726 political scientists based at universities in each US state were gathered. Two weeks after polling day, experts were asked to evaluate electoral integrity of the contest, as it was conducted in their own state. This data allows a disaggregated look at electoral integrity across all US states. More commentary here and here.

Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in the 8 Nov 2016 US presidential election, by state (Source: PEI_US_1.0)
Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in the 8 Nov 2016 US presidential election, by state (Source: PEI_US_1.0)

Domestic election monitoring initiatives (DEMIs)

For my dissertation I have conceptualized, designed and implemented an original research instrument for the purpose of gathering new data on the to-date understudied area of domestic election monitoring. In so doing, I have assembled the first systematic and globally comparative dataset of domestic election monitoring initiatives, encompassing more than 1000 groups in 114 countries.
The dataset measures media attention to these groups, their organizational characteristics, advocacy strategies, and relationship to political elites, based on an organizational survey and in-person interviews.

The dataset will eventually be made available freely for the practitioner community and for scholarly research. The data will allow country-level analysis of prevalence of domestic observers, and media attention towards them. At the organizational level, a host of group characteristics will be available for use as dependent or independent variables. For instance in studying the causes and consequences of DEMIs’ reform advocacy, social media tactics, funding sources, interactions with the government and international donors, to name just a few.

Number of domestic election monitoring initiatives (DEMIs) per million inhabitants in countries around the world (2015) (Source: DEMI dataset)
mean-involvement
Domestic election monitoring initiatives’ (DEMIs’) mean involvement (0-1) in four different advocacy strategies (Source: DEMI dataset; N=206)