HistoryElections were used as early in history as and ancient Rome, and throughout the Medieval period to select rulers such as the Holy Roman Emperor (see imperial election) and the pope (see papal election). In Vedic period of India, the ''Raja'' (chiefs) of a ''gana, gaṇa'' (a tribal organization) was apparently elected by the ''gana''. The ''Raja'' always belonged to the Kshatriya varna in Hinduism, varna (warrior class), and was typically a son of the previous ''Raja''. However, the ''gana'' members had the final say in his elections. Even during the Sangam Period people elected their representatives by casting their votes and the ballot boxes (Usually a pot) were tied by rope and sealed. After the election the votes were taken out and counted. The Pala Empire, Pala King Gopala (Pala king), Gopala (ruled c. 750s–770s CE) in early medieval Bengal was elected by a group of feudal chieftains. Such elections were quite common in contemporary societies of the region. In the Chola Empire, around 920 CE, in Uthiramerur (in present-day Tamil Nadu), palm leaves were used for selecting the village committee members. The leaves, with candidate names written on them, were put inside a mud pot. To select the committee members, a young boy was asked to take out as many leaves as the number of positions available. This was known as the ''Kudavolai'' system. The first recorded popular elections of officials to public office, by majority vote, where all citizens were eligible both to vote and to hold public office, date back to the Ephors of Sparta in 754 B.C., under the mixed government of the Spartan Constitution. Athenian democratic elections, where all citizens could hold public office, were not introduced for another 247 years, until the reforms of Cleisthenes. Under the earlier Solonian Constitution (circa 574 B.C.), all Athenian citizens were eligible to vote in the popular assemblies, on matters of law and policy, and as jurors, but only the three highest classes of citizens could vote in elections. Nor were the lowest of the four classes of Athenian citizens (as defined by the extent of their wealth and property, rather than by birth) eligible to hold public office, through the reforms of Solon. The Spartan election of the Ephors, therefore, also predates the reforms of Solon in Athens by approximately 180 years. Questions of suffrage, especially suffrage for minority groups, have dominated the history of elections. Males, the dominant cultural group in North America and Europe, often dominated the :wiki: electorate, electorate and continue to do so in many countries. Early elections in countries such as the Elections in the United Kingdom, United Kingdom and Elections in the United States, the United States were dominated by landed gentry, landed or ruling class males. However, by 1920 all Western European and North American democracies had universal adult male suffrage (except Switzerland) and many countries began to consider women's suffrage. Despite legally mandated universal suffrage for adult males, political barriers were sometimes erected to prevent fair access to elections (see civil rights movement).
SuffrageThe question of who may vote is a central issue in elections. The electorate does not generally include the entire population; for example, many countries prohibit those who are under the age of majority from voting, all jurisdictions require a minimum age for voting. In Australia, Aboriginal people were not given the right to vote until 1962 (see Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals), 1967 referendum entry) and in 2010 the federal government removed the rights of prisoners serving for 3 years or more to vote (a large proportion of which were Aboriginal Australians). Suffrage is typically only for citizens of the country, though further limits may be imposed. However, in the European Union, one can vote in municipal elections if one lives in the municipality and is an EU citizen; the nationality of the country of residence is not required. In some countries, voting is required by law; if an eligible voter does not cast a vote, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as a fine. In Western Australia, the penalty for a first time offender failing to vote is a $20.00 fine, which increases to $50.00 if the offender refused to vote prior.
ElectorateHistorically the size of eligible voters, the electorate, was small having the size of groups or communities of privileged men like aristocrats and men of a city (Citizens#History, citizens). With the growth of the number of people with bourgeoisie, bourgeois citizen rights outside of cities, expanding the term citizen, the electorates grew to numbers beyond the thousands. Elections with an electorate in the hundred thousands appeared in the final decades of the Elections in the Roman Republic, Roman Republic, by extending voting rights to citizens outside of Rome with the Lex Julia#Lex Iulia de Civitate Latinis et Sociis Danda (90 BC), Lex Julia of 90 BC, reaching an electorate of 910,000 and estimated voter turnout of maximum 10% in 70 BC,Vishnia 2012, p. 125 only again comparable in size to the 1788–89 United States elections, first elections of the United States. At the same time the Kingdom of Great Britain had in 1780 about 214,000 eligible voters, 3% of the whole population.
Nomination of candidateA requires a procedure to govern nomination for political office. In many cases, nomination for office is mediated through preselection processes in organized political parties. Non-partisan systems tend to be different from partisan systems as concerns nominations. In a direct democracy, one type of non-partisan democracy, any eligible person can be nominated. Although elections were used in ancient Athens, in Rome, and in the selection of popes and Holy Roman emperors, the origins of elections in the contemporary world lie in the gradual emergence of representative government in Europe and North America beginning in the 17th century. In some systems no nominations take place at all, with voters free to choose any person at the time of voting—with some possible exceptions such as through a minimum age requirement—in the jurisdiction. In such cases, it is not required (or even possible) that the members of the electorate be familiar with all of the eligible persons, though such systems may involve indirect elections at larger geographic levels to ensure that some first-hand familiarity among potential electees can exist at these levels (i.e., among the elected delegates). As far as partisan systems, in some countries, only members of a particular party can be nominated (see one-party state). Or, any eligible person can be nominated through a process; thus allowing him or her to be listed.
Electoral systemsElectoral systems are the detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems that convert the vote into a political decision. The first step is to tally the votes, for which various vote counting systems and ballot types are used. Voting systems then determine the result on the basis of the tally. Most systems can be categorized as either Proportional representation, proportional or majoritarian. Among the former are party-list proportional representation and additional member system. Among the latter are First Past the Post electoral system (relative majority) and absolute majority. Many countries have growing electoral reform movements, which advocate systems such as approval voting, single transferable vote, Instant-runoff voting, instant runoff voting or a Condorcet method; these methods are also gaining popularity for lesser elections in some countries where more important elections still use more traditional counting methods. While openness and accountability are usually considered cornerstones of a democratic system, the act of casting a vote and the content of a voter's ballot are usually an important exception. The secret ballot is a relatively modern development, but it is now considered crucial in most free and fair elections, as it limits the effectiveness of intimidation.
SchedulingThe nature of democracy is that elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate (politics), mandate to continue in office. For that reason most democratic constitutions provide that elections are held at fixed regular intervals. In the United States, elections for public offices are typically held between every two and six years in most states and at the federal level, with exceptions for elected judicial positions that may have longer terms of office. There is a variety of schedules, for example presidents: the President of Ireland is elected every seven years, the President of Russia and the President of Finland every six years, the President of France every five years, President of the United States every four years. Pre-decided or fixed election dates have the advantage of fairness and predictability. However, they tend to greatly lengthen campaigns, and make dissolution of parliament, dissolving the legislature (parliamentary system) more problematic if the date should happen to fall at time when dissolution is inconvenient (e.g. when war breaks out). Other states (e.g., the United Kingdom) only set maximum time in office, and the executive decides exactly when within that limit it will actually go to the polls. In practice, this means the government remains in power for close to its full term, and choose an election date it calculates to be in its best interests (unless something special happens, such as a motion of no-confidence). This calculation depends on a number of variables, such as its performance in opinion polls and the size of its majority.
Election campaignsWhen elections are called, politicians and their supporters attempt to influence policy by competing directly for the votes of constituents in what are called campaigns. Supporters for a campaign can be either formally organized or loosely affiliated, and frequently utilize campaign advertising. It is common for political scientists to attempt to predict elections via Political Forecasting methods. The most expensive election campaign included US$7 billion spent on the 2012 United States presidential election and is followed by the US$5 billion spent on the 2014 Indian general election.
Difficulties with electionsIn many of the countries with weak rule of law, the most common reason why elections do not meet international standards of being "free and fair" is interference from the incumbent government. Dictators may use the powers of the executive (police, martial law, censorship, physical implementation of the election mechanism, etc.) to remain in power despite popular opinion in favor of removal. Members of a particular faction in a legislature may use the power of the majority or supermajority (passing criminal laws, defining the electoral mechanisms including eligibility and district boundaries) to prevent the balance of power in the body from shifting to a rival faction due to an election. Non-governmental entities can also interfere with elections, through physical force, verbal intimidation, or fraud, which can result in improper casting or counting of votes. Monitoring for and minimizing electoral fraud is also an ongoing task in countries with strong traditions of free and fair elections. Problems that prevent an election from being "free and fair" take various forms.
Lack of open political debate or an informed electorateThe electorate may be poorly informed about issues or candidates due to lack of freedom of the press, lack of objectivity in the press due to state or corporate control, and/or lack of access to news and political media. Freedom of speech may be curtailed by the state, favoring certain viewpoints or state propaganda.
Unfair rulesGerrymandering, exclusion of opposition candidates from eligibility for office, needlessly high restrictions on who may be a candidate, like ballot access rules, and manipulating thresholds for electoral success are some of the ways the structure of an election can be changed to favor a specific faction or candidate.
Interference with campaignsThose in power may arrest or assassinate candidates, suppress or even criminalize campaigning, close campaign headquarters, harass or beat campaign workers, or intimidate voters with violence. Foreign electoral intervention can also occur, with the United States interfering between 1946 and 2000 in 81 elections and Russia/USSR in 36. In 2018 the most intense interventions, by means of false information, were by China in Taiwan and by Russia in Latvia; the next highest levels were in Bahrain, Qatar and Hungary.
Tampering with the election mechanismThis can include falsifying voter instructions, violation of the secret ballot, ballot stuffing, tampering with voting machines, destruction of legitimately cast ballots, voter suppression, voter registration fraud, failure to validate voter residency, fraudulent tabulation of results, and use of physical force or verbal intimation at polling places. Other examples include persuading candidates not to run, such as through blackmailing, bribery, intimidation or physical violence.
Sham electionA sham election, or show election, is an election that is held purely for show; that is, without any significant political choice or real impact on results of election. Sham elections are a common event in Dictatorship, dictatorial regimes that feel the need to feign the appearance of public Legitimacy (political), legitimacy. Published results usually show nearly 100% voter turnout and high support (typically at least 80%, and close to 100% in many cases) for the prescribed or for the choice that favors the political party in power. Dictatorial regimes can also organize sham elections with results simulating those that might be achieved in democratic countries. Sometimes, only one government approved candidate is allowed to run in sham elections with no opposition candidates allowed, or opposition candidates are arrested on false charges (or even without any charges) before the election to prevent them from running. Ballots may contain only one "yes" option, or in the case of a simple "yes or no" question, security forces often Persecution, persecute people who pick "no", thus encouraging them to pick the "yes" option. In other cases, those who vote receive stamps in their passport for doing so, while those who did not vote (and thus do not receive stamps) are persecuted as Enemy of the people, enemies of the people. In some cases, sham elections can backfire against the party in power, especially if the regime believes they are popular enough to win without coercion or fraud. The most famous example of this was the 1990 Myanmar general election, in which the government-sponsored National Unity Party (Myanmar), National Unity Party suffered a landslide defeat to the opposition National League for Democracy and consequently the results were annulled.
ExamplesExamples of sham elections are the 1929 Italian general election, 1929 and 1934 Italian general election, 1934 Elections in Italy, elections in Kingdom of Italy, Fascist Italy, the 1942 Japanese general election, 1942 general election in Empire of Japan, Imperial Japan, elections in Nazi Germany, the Occupation of the Baltic States, 1940 elections of the People's Parliaments in Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Estonia, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvia and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lithuania, the 1928 Portuguese presidential election, 1928, 1935 Portuguese presidential election, 1935, 1942 Portuguese presidential election, 1942, 1949 Portuguese presidential election, 1949, 1951 Portuguese presidential election, 1951 and 1958 Portuguese presidential election, 1958 elections in Portugal, the 1991 Kazakh presidential election, those in Elections in North Korea, North Korea, and the 1995 Iraqi presidential referendum, 1995 and 2002 Iraqi presidential referendum, 2002 presidential referendums in Ba'athist Iraq, Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In Mexico, all of the presidential elections from Mexican general election, 1929, 1929 to Mexican general election, 1982, 1982 are considered to be sham elections, as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and its predecessors governed the country in a ''de facto'' single-party system without serious opposition, and won all of the presidential elections in that period with percentages of votes well over 70%. The first actually competitive presidential election in modern Mexican history was that of Mexican general election, 1988, 1988, in which for the first time the PRI candidate faced two strong opposition candidates, though the opposition would not win until Mexican presidential election, 2000, 2000. A predetermined conclusion is always established by the regime through Political repression, suppression of the opposition, coercion of voters, Electoral fraud, vote rigging, reporting a number of votes received greater than the number of voters, outright lying, or some combination of these. In an extreme example, Charles D. B. King of Liberia was reported to have won by 234,000 votes in the 1927 Liberian general election, 1927 general election, a "majority" that was over fifteen times larger than the number of eligible voters.
See also*Ballot access *Concession (politics) *Demarchy—"Democracy without Elections" *Electoral calendar *Electoral integrity * Electoral system *Election law *Election litter *Elections by country *Electronic voting *Fenno's paradox *Full slate *Garrat Elections *Gerontocracy *Issue voting *Landslide election *Meritocracy *Multi-party system *Nomination rules *Party system *Pluralism (political philosophy) *Political science *Polling station *Reelection *Slate (elections), Slate *Stunning elections *Two-party system *Voter turnout *Voting system
Bibliography* Kenneth Arrow, Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. ''Social Choice and Individual Values.'' 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. * Benoit, Jean-Pierre and Lewis A. Kornhauser. 1994. "Social Choice in a Representative Democracy." ''American Political Science Review'' 88.1: 185–192. * Corrado Maria, Daclon. 2004. ''US elections and war on terrorism – Interview with professor Massimo Teodori'' Analisi Difesa, n. 50 * Farquharson, Robin. 1969. ''A Theory of Voting.'' New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. * Mueller, Dennis C. 1996. ''Constitutional Democracy.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press. * Owen, Bernard, 2002. "Le système électoral et son effet sur la représentation parlementaire des partis: le cas européen.", LGDJ; * William H. Riker, Riker, William. 1980. ''Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice.'' Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. * Thompson, Dennis F. 2004. ''Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the U.S.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. * Ware, Alan. 1987. ''Citizens, Parties and the State.'' Princeton: Princeton University Press.