PATTERNS OF FRAUD: TOOLS FOR ELECTION FORENSICS by JOSEPH DECKERT A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2013 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Joseph Deckert Title: Patterns of Fraud: Tools for Election Forensics This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Political Science by: Mikhail Myagkov Chairperson Priscilla Southwell Core Member William Terry Core Member George Evans Institutional Representative and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation; Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2013 ii © 2013 Joseph Deckert iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Joseph Deckert Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science June 2013 Title: Patterns of Fraud: Tools for Election Forensics Election fraud is a serious problem in a number of modern democracies. While election observers can combat this problem to some extent, election forensics aims to provide a low-cost supplement. Forensic tools uncover irregular patterns in aggregate election data which are consistent with fraud. This dissertation improves upon existing tools and establishes methods of controlling for other factors which could cause irregular patterns. These tools are utilized in three cases studies in an effort to better understand the nature of election fraud. iv CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Joseph Deckert GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene California State University, Hayward Palomar College, Vista, California DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Political Science, 2013, University of Oregon Master of Science, Political Science, 2012, University of Oregon Master of Science, Economics, 2012, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 2005, California State University, Hayward AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Formal Theory and Methodology Political Economy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, 2007-2012 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Political Science, 2007-2012 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express a great deal of gratitude to my advisor, Mikhail Myagkov. His support and assistance was of tremendous value. I also thank Dr. William Terry, who provided a substantial amount of direction and feedback. This research was supported in part by a William C. Mitchell Summer Research Grant from the Department of Political Science, University of Oregon. vi For my girls: Molly, Anna, and Allison vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 II. METHODS FOR DETECTING AND MEASURING ELECTION FRAUD........ 9 III. FORMAL THEORIES OF ELECTION FRAUD................................................. 36 IV. ELECTION FRAUD IN RUSSIA......................................................................... 50 V. ELECTION FRAUD AND MEXICO'S DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION............. 66 VI. ELECTION FRAUD AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT DURING RECONSTRUCTION AND REDEMPTION IN THE U.S. SOUTH................... 84 VII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 99 APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 105 A. SIMULATION PARAMETER VALUES........................................................ 105 B. SIMULATION RESULTS................................................................................ 106 C. METRICS OF FRAUD IN RUSSIAN ELECTIONS....................................... 118 D. REGRESSION RESULTS FOR URBAN/RURAL DIVIDE IN RUSSIA...... 122 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................ 123 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1. Turnout before and after vote inflation. Synthetic data........................................ 14 2.2. Absolute support for a candidate before and after vote stealing........................... 18 2.3. Turnout with vote inflation or natural non-normality........................................... 20 2.4. Turnout versus absolute support. Vote inflation and natural non-normality........ 22 2.5. Both NNN and Vote inflation............................................................................... 22 2.6. Simulation data..................................................................................................... 24 2.7. Distribution of relative support for Obama, Georgia 2008................................... 25 2.8. Percent of population that identifies as white....................................................... 26 2.9. Residuals from regressing turnout on percentage white....................................... 27 2.10. Relative support for Medvedev and residuals from regressing relative support on population density.......................................................................................... 28 3.1. Game tree for the macro-level model................................................................... 44 4.1. Turnout across oblasts in 2007............................................................................. 52 4.2. Turnout in Chechnya in 2007............................................................................... 53 4.3. Turnout and Absolute Support in Tyumen, 2007................................................. 54 4.4. Residuals from regressing absolute support for UR on turnout............................ 54 4.5. Turnout and Absolute Support in Vladimir, 2007................................................ 55 4.6. Turnout in Russia's 2008 presidential election. All oblasts.................................. 56 4.7. Turnout and absolute support in Mordovia........................................................... 56 4.8. Turnout and absolute support in Belgorod............................................................ 57 4.9. Turnout and absolute support in Murmansk......................................................... 58 ix Figure Page 4.10. Turnout across all regions................................................................................... 59 4.11. Bryansk, 2007 and 2011..................................................................................... 60 4.12. Turnout across all regions................................................................................... 61 4.13. Belgorod in 2012................................................................................................. 62 4.14. Residuals from the absolute support and turnout relationship............................ 63 4.15. Residual analysis for the 2012 election. Oblast level data.................................. 63 5.1. Turnout 2000, 2006............................................................................................... 72 5.2. Relative support for the PAN, 1994-2006............................................................ 73 5.3. Truncated absolute support versus relative support.............................................. 76 5.4. Juarez and Chihuahua state, 2006......................................................................... 77 5.5. Turnout and support in Nayarit, 2006................................................................... 78 5.6. Turnout and absolute support in Aguascalientes, 2006........................................ 79 5.7. Relative support for the PRI in Mexico state and the Federal District................. 80 5.8. Relative support for the PRI in Chihuahua, residuals........................................... 81 6.1. Turnout and relative support for Greeley (D) in Southern states in 1872............ 88 6.2. Turnout, relative and absolute support for Democrats in the Deep South............ 90 6.3. Absolute and relative support for the Democratic candidate, 1880 and 1884...... 92 6.4. 1888 Presidential election. Turnout, relative and absolute support...................... 93 6.5. Relative support for Cleveland (D) in Deep South states without disenfranchisement laws........................................................................................ 93 6.6. Relative support (D) in Deep South states without disenfranchisement laws and with disenfranchisement laws................................................................................ 95 6.7. Relative support (D) in the Deep South and the rest of the Confederate States .. 95 x LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1. Types of election fraud......................................................................................... 8 2.1. Skewness and kurtosis tests for normality of residuals........................................ 29 2.2. Skewness-kurtosis tests for normality of turnout in Minnesota, 2008.................. 31 2.3. Skewness measures for turnout in the absence of natural non-normality............. 32 2.4. Skewness measures for absolute support.............................................................. 33 3.1. Models of election fraud....................................................................................... 39 5.1. Results of tests for skewness and sum-of-squared-differences (SSD).................. 75 5.2. Relative support in regions with reported vote buying........................................