Using new comparative expert data about the 2016 US Presidential Election, this article explores the effects of experts’ ideological preferences on their evaluations of electoral integrity. Without contesting the claim that the 2016 election faced challenges of integrity, our analyses reveal a substantial association between negative evaluation of election integrity and experts’ ideological orientation. Our results also suggest that this ideological effect is stronger in States that ‘swung’ from Democratic to Republican in the 2016 election.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
2.
AlvarezRMGrofmanB (eds.) (2014) Election Administration in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AlvarezRMAtkesonLRHallTE (eds.) (2012) Confirming Elections: Creating Confidence and Integrity Through Election Auditing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
AndersonCJSingerMM (2008) The sensitive left and the impervious right: multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies41(4–5): 564–599.
5.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91: 66–81.
6.
ArcenauxKNickersonDW (2009) Modeling certainty with clustered data: a comparison of methods. Political Analysis17(2): 177–190.
7.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
8.
BirchS (2008) Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: a cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies27(2): 305–320.
9.
BrooksDJMurovM (2012) Assessing accountability in a post-Citizens United era: the effects of attack ad sponsorship by unknown independent groups. American Politics Research40(3): 383–418.
10.
BudgeI (2000) Expert judgements of party policy positions: uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research37(1): 103–113.
11.
BurdenBCStewartCIII (eds.) (2014) The Measure of American Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CainBEDonovanTTolbertCJ (2008) Democracy in the States: Experimentation in Election Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings.
13.
CampbellJENorpothHAbramowitzAI, et al. (2017) A recap of the 2016 election forecasts. PS: Political Science & Politics50(2): 331–338.
14.
CastlesFGMairP (1984) Left–right political scales: some ‘expert’ judgments. European Journal of Political Research12(1): 73–88.
15.
ClarkAJamesTS (2017) “Poll Workers”. In: PippaNorrisAlessandroNai (eds.), Election Watchdogs. Transparency, Accountability and Integrity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–164.
16.
CuriniL (2010) Experts’ political preferences and their impact on ideological bias: an unfolding analysis based on a Benoit-Laver expert survey. Party Politics16(3): 299–321.
17.
DevosTSpiniDSchwartzSH (2002) Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British Journal of Social Psychology41(4): 481–494.
18.
DonovanTBowlerS (2004) Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
19.
ElklitJReynoldsA (2005) A framework for the systematic study of election quality. Democratization12(2): 147–162.
20.
EysenckHJ (1954) The Psychology of Politics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
21.
FifeBL (2010) Reforming the Electoral Process in America: Toward More Democracy in the 21st Century. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
22.
FleskenAHartlJ (2017) Party support, values, and perceptions of electoral integrity. Political Psychology39: 707–724. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12431.
23.
FrankRWMartínez i ComaF (2017) How election dynamics shape perceptions of electoral integrity. Electoral Studies48: 153–165.
24.
FriedmanJNHoldenRT (2009) The rising incumbent reelection rate: What’s gerrymandering got to do with it?The Journal of Politics71(2): 593–611.
25.
GarnettHAZavadskayaM (2017) Introduction. In GarnettHAZavadskayaM (eds.), Electoral Integrity and Political Regimes. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–17.
26.
GershtensonJLadewigJPlaneDL (2006) Parties, institutional control, and trust in government. Social Science Quarterly8: 882–901.
27.
GogginSNByrneMDGilbertJE (2012) Post-election auditing: effects of procedure and ballot type on manual counting accuracy, efficiency, and auditor satisfaction and confidence. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy11(1): 36–51.
28.
HoDEImaiKKingG, et al. (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis15(3): 199–236.
29.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichA, et al. (2010) Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
30.
IacusSMKingGPorroG (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis20(1): 1–24.
31.
JacobsonGC (2017) The triumph of polarized partisanship in 2016: Donald Trump’s improbable victory. Political Science Quarterly132(1): 9–41.
32.
JostJTNosekBAGoslingSD (2008) Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science3(2): 126–136.
33.
KnutsenCHMøllerJSkaaningSE (2016) Going historical: measuring democraticness before the age of mass democracy. International Political Science Review37(5): 679–689.
34.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition. London: Routledge.
35.
LeighleyJENaglerJ (2013) Who Votes Now?: Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36.
MairP (2001) Searching for the positions of political actors: a review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. In: LaverMichael (ed.) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. New York: Routledge, pp. 10–30.
37.
Martínez i ComaFFrankRW (2014) Expert judgments. In: NorrisPFrankRWMartínez i ComaF (eds.), Advancing electoral integrity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–72.
38.
Martínez i ComaFvan HamC (2015) Can experts judge elections? Testing the validity of expert judgments for measuring election integrity. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 305–325.
39.
McCartyNPooleKTRosenthalH (2009) Does gerrymandering cause polarization?American Journal of Political Science53(3): 666–680.
40.
McCloskyHChongD (1985) Similarities and differences between left-wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science15(3): 329–363.
41.
MyagkovMOrdeshookPCShakinD (2009) The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NaiA (2017) “The Fourth Estate”. In: NorrisPNaiA (eds.), Election Watchdogs. Transparency, Accountability and Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 191–210.
43.
NaiAMaierJ (2018) Perceived personality and campaign style of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Personality and Individual Differences121: 80–93.
44.
NewtonKNorrisP (2000) Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture or performance? In: PharrSPutnamR (eds.), Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 54–73.
45.
NorrisP (2014) Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
NorrisP (2017) Why American Elections Are Flawed (And How to Fix Them). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
47.
NorrisPVan EsAA (eds.) (2016) Checkbook Elections?: Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
NorrisPFrankRWMartínez i ComaF (2013) Assessing the quality of elections. PS: Political Science & Politics47(4): 789–798.
49.
NorrisPGarnettHGrömpingM (2017) The 2016 American Presidential Election– Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, US 2016 subnational study, Release 1.0, (PEI_US_1.0). Sydney: The Electoral Integrity Project, University of Sydney. Available at: https://thedata.harvard.edu/dataverse/PEI (accessed 10 July 2018).
PivenFFMinniteLCGroarkeM (2009) Keeping down the Black vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters. New York: New Press.
52.
RokeachM (1960) The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.
53.
SekhonJ (2010) The Neyman-Rubin model of causal inference and estimation via matching methods. In: Box-Steff EnsmeierJMBradyHECollierD (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methdology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–299.
54.
SteenbergenMR (2000) Item similarity in scale analysis. Political Analysis8(3): 261–283.
55.
SteenbergenMRMarksG (2007) Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research46: 347–366.
56.
TerhanianG (2017) What survey researchers can learn from the 2016 US pre-election polls. Journal of Advertising Research57(2): 182–189.
57.
ThompsonDF (2004) Election time: normative implications of temporal properties of the electoral process in the United States. American Political Science Review98(1): 51–63.
58.
VanhammeJSneldersD (2001) The role of surprise in satisfaction judgements. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior14: 27–45.
59.
ZeelenbergMPietersR (2004) Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal of Business Research57(4): 445–455.
