Why do oppressive regimes cheat in the election process rather than simply faking the results?

Question

Why do so many authoritarian regimes bother with voter fraud and ballot stuffing? For example, after Hitler's annexation of Austria, intrusive propaganda and threats were used to make everybody vote for the Anschluss, but historians seem to think that the votes were correctly counted. In the case of Soviet elections, people were presented with pre-marked ballots and had to non-secretly erase the marks to vote against Communist.

More recently, Putin's United Russia party was suspected of stuffing ballots after polls are closed in remote regions of Russia, such as Chechnya.

Why did authoritarian regimes need to do this? I mean, they can easily hold a fair election without election-time fraud, completely ignore the voting results, and make up a number. They could even make up a number that looks democratic, like 58% support of the ruling party, rather than the ridiculous 99% support ratios garnered with intimidation and ballot stuffing. Electoral observers would also be satisfied. Why don't they? Do authoritarian regimes typically have weak control over the vote counting people?

Answer 1

This answer applies to post WWII European soviet style societies:

Votes were not about gauging or displaying public support for a position, but demonstrating and moulding public opinion behind a previously agreed position, or "line." That people turned out to "vote" at all was a demonstration of the nomenklatura's control over workers, and of workers acquiesence to this control. This was as true in parliamentary elections as local monthly meetings; in mass "protests" and in public inquests. The purpose of voting in the soviet style societies was fundamentally different to that of the West.

Bibliography

• Đilas. The New Class

• Aczel and Meray. The Revolt of the Mind.

• Haraszti. Worker in a Worker's State.

Answer 2

Regarding your exact question. There are regimes with no elections. For example, Saudi Arabia. British queen is also not elected. So if you do not want elections and competition, you just do not conduct it.

There is actually no benefit in conducting fake elections compared to not conducting elections at all.

• Your fake elections will not convince anybody.

• Any government, democratic or not, is interested in keeping legality. Faking elections would mean forcing some low-level personnel to conducting a crime. This undermines the state, the order and the ideology.

Answer 3

I can't speak to the reason for having elections in the first place, but I'm pretty sure the reason for the overwhelming percentages is psychological. If you say that 58% of the people support you, that means that 42% of them are unhappy under your leadership. That, in turn, means that the dictator is doing something wrong, because his people are unhappy with him.

In addition, telling people who may be unhappy that there are that many other dissatisfied people tells them that they're not alone in their dissatisfaction, which can encourage them to do something about it.

Far better to make it seem like everyone overwhelmingly supports the dictator, even if other countries can easily dismiss the results.

Answer 4

One does not exclude the other. Since there could be many different cases where the two actions could coexist for different reasons.

• Authoritarian regimes that bar challenging candidates: Here the rigging is evident, but if they allowed the challenging candidates and manipulated the count the election would be even less credible, even without exit polls people could see the mismatch. It is better an election evidently rigged, but where the main candidate gets a huge majority, it leaves some uncertainty about the amount of rigging and the real support for the regime. Every side will be allowed to make their own assumptions. Making the exercise as credible as possible might not be enough at home, but still needed to save the face on the international stage.

• Regimes that are not compact as it seems: Local leaders might be jostling for power in their own areas, this would lead to ballot stuffing only where they are powerful enough to do this. It would not prevent others from adjusting the counts later, but there is a limit to the amount of adjustments they can make without spooking the local candidates or triggering further protests.

• Regimes that have to deal with ongoing local protests: Actions like ballot stuffing might let people believe that it is necessary because the final count is not manipulated. In this case it could actually add some credibility to an election with little credibility.

In all the cases it is better to keep in mind that even without exit polls people wonder after the elections who voted this or that candidate. If the count is too far from the real voting intentions the fraud becomes evident. This is why often regimes spread voices and rumours like: "people in that poor rural area sold their vote for a bag of rice". In other cases they simply spread allegations of ballot stuffing because it gives the impression of small manipulations at a low level, letting people believe that the counting done at a high level was fair.

Answer 5

In every elections in a country with real politics there are accusations that somebody cheated at the elections. This is indicative that the country has real politics and sharp controversies.

Conversely, in countries with deeply rooted dominating ideology the elections usually conducted calmly, without any scandals, unrest and accusations.

Answer 6

There are three main reasons I can think of. First, it serves as a way to ensure you have internal control over your government. If you tell lower ranking officials to stuff the ballots and they do it, it confirms that you have power over them, which can tell the leadership if there's a problem brewing around the country.

The second reason is because of historical precedence. It worked in the past so why change the playbook?

The third reason is if they are asked to do a recount. If you fake the number and your opponents ask for a recount, then it can be easily proved that you faked the elections. Some people believe the results, so why not just stuff the ballots?

Answer 7

As a complement to Samuel Russell's really good answer: by cheating on the election count, instead of just making the numbers up, the dominant power tries to get away from elections as pure 'demonstrations of support on previously agreed lines' thus creating the feel of legitimate choice for at least some participants.

The old model of just making up results just stopped working in many places. I think it is good sign for democracy in general.

Answer 8

If you hold "fair elections", then you need to allow opposing parties to form and to gather, and also to be present in the media.

This is a threat to your government.