Статья 'Распределение явки: норма и аномалии.' - журнал 'Социодинамика' - NotaBene.ru
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial board > Peer-review process > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial collegium
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents

Turnout distribution: anomalies and the norm.

Shalaev Nikita

Post-graduate student, the department of Political Institutions and Applied Political Research, St. Petersburg State University

191124, Russia, St. Petersburg, Smolnogo Street 1-3




Review date:


Publish date:


Abstract: Turnout has been widely used to operationalize a large number of variables, from the level of support for political institutes to the degree of electorate consolidation. In recent years, yet another application emerged: statistical distribution of turnout as an indicator of electoral fraud. This application, however, rests on a weakly substantiated assumption that in absence of electoral fraud the turnout distribution should be Gaussian (normal). The goal of this paper is to find out whether there is a certain distribution that describes most cases of elections, and whether deviations from normality are indeed anomalous. Eastern Europe appears to be a promising testing ground for these assumptions, providing an array of countries which started developing electoral democracy at almost the same time, after decades of sharing similar political regimes; the properties of electoral competition are similar as well. This study corroborates the hypothesis that elections are usually exhibiting the same turnout patterns, but shows that the most regularly found distribution isn't normal: the values of skewness and kurtosis do not match those expected of a Gaussian distribution. Finally, it reveals that the deviations from said distribution are indeed exceptions from the general rule, and are accompanied by unusually frequent and/or rapid changes in turnout shape between the elections.

Keywords: comparative political science, electoral anomalies, presidential elections, parliamentary elections, electoral forensics, statistical analysis, Eastern Europe, turnout distribution, turnout, democratization
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

Lehoucq F. ELECTORAL FRAUD: Causes, Types, and Consequences // Annual Review of Political Science. 2003. Vol. 6. Pp. 233–256.
Klimek P. Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities. / Peter Klimek, Yuri Yegorov et al // PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). 2012. Vol. 109 (41). Pp. 16469–16473.
Mebein U. Elektoral'nye fal'sifikatsii v Rossii: kompleksnaya diagnostika vyborov 2003–2004, 2007–2008 gg. / Mebein, U., Kalinin, K. // Rossiiskoe Elektoral'noe Obozrenie. 2009. № 2. S. 57–70.
Lukinova, E. Metastasised Fraud in Russia's 2008 Presidential Election / Evgeniya Lukinova, Mikhail Myagkov, Peter C. Ordeshook // Europe-Asia Studies. 2011. Vol. 63:4. Pp. 603–621.
Tkacheva, O. Internet Freedom and Political Space. / Olesya Tkacheva, Lowell H. Schwartz, Martin C. Libicki, Julie E. Taylor, Jeffrey Martini and Caroline Baxter. Santa Monica, CA. RAND Corporation. 2013. 261 p.
Kunov A. Rossiya i Ukraina: neregulyarnye rezul'taty regulyarnykh vyborov / Kunov A., Myagkov M., Sitnikov A., Shakin D. M., 2005. 37 s.
Kobak D. Statistical anomalies in 2011–2012 Russian elections revealed by 2D correlation analysis. [Elektronnyi resurs] / Dmitry Kobak, Sergey Shpilkin, Maxim S. Pshenichnikov // Rezhim dostupa: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0741.— Zagl. s ekrana (15.04.2013).
Shpil'kin S. Matematika vyborov — 2011 // Troitskii variant. 2011. № 94. S. 2–4.
Deckert J. The Irrelevance of Benford’s Law for Detecting Fraud in Elections. [Elektronnyi resurs.] / Joseph Deckert, Mikhail Myagkov and Peter C. Ordeshook. // Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Working Paper. No. 9. 2010. — Rezhim dostupa: http://vote.caltech.edu/content/irrelevance-benfords-law-detecting-fraud-elections — Zagl. s ekrana (20.10.2014).
Grofman B. Comparing and Contrasting the Uses of Two Graphical Tools for Displaying Patterns of Multiparty Competition: Nagayama Diagrams and Simplex Representations. / Bernard Grofman, Alessandro Chiaramonte, Roberto D'Alimonte and Scott L. Feld // Party Politics. 2004. Vol. 10. Pp. 273–299.
Silverman B. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall. London, 1986. 175 p.
Churov V. Itogi vyborov. Analiz elektoral'nykh predpochtenii / Churov V.E., Arlazarov V.L., Solov'ev A.V. // Trudy ISA RAN. 2008. T. 38. S. 6–22.
Myagkov M. The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine. / Mikhail Myagkov, Peter C. Ordeshook, Dimitri Shakin. NY.: Cambridge University Press. 2009. 289 p.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.

Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated" Website