Public Choice

, Volume 125, Issue 1–2, pp 189–202 | Cite as

Rigging elections with violence

  • Ashish ChaturvediEmail author


In most developing countries even today, political parties spend a substantial fraction of their resources in attracting voters through ideological exhortation as well as force. In this paper we present a model of political contest between two parties that compete in two distinct arenas though the goal of the contest in both arenas is the same-to garner more political support. In the first, which we call “ideological”, the contest involves no use of force. In the second, which we call “conflictual”, party activists use violence either to force ideological supporters of the competing party to vote in their favor or restrain them from voting. We show that a party with lower initial political support will resort to more political violence, ceteris paribus and as the fraction of undecided voters goes up, elections will tend to be less conflictual. We also show that if there is an incumbency advantage, then the resources devoted to creating political unrest increase in equilibrium and political competition is more violent. We also provide some historic and journalistic evidence that supports our results.


Public Finance Political Party Substantial Fraction Political Support Political Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aranson, P. H., Melvin, J. H, & Ordeshook, P. C. (1974). Election goals and strategies: equivalent and non-equivalent objectives. American Political Science Review, 68, 135–152.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, D. (1994). Democracy and violence in India and Sri Lanka, RIIA Chatham House Papers.Google Scholar
  3. Baumol, W. (1992). Innovation and strategic sabotage as a feedback process. Japan and the World Economy, 4, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brass, P. (1997). Theft of an idol: text and context in the representation of collective violence, Princeton: Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Chibber, P. (1998). Democracy without associations: Transformation of the party system and social cleavages in India, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dahrendorf, R. (2004). Democracy without Democrats, project Syndicate, See website Scholar
  7. Hibbs, D. (1973). Mass political violence: A cross-national causal analysis, Wiley. New York.Google Scholar
  8. Konrad, K. (2000). Sabotage in rent seeking contests. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, V 16(N1), 155–165.Google Scholar
  9. Lazear, E. (1989). Pay equality and industrial politics. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rapoport, D., & Weinberg, L. (2001). Elections and violence. In The Democratic Experience and Political Violence, Frank Cass Publishers. London; Portland OR.Google Scholar
  11. Seymour, C., & Frary, D. P. (1918). How the world votes—The story of democratic development in elections. C.A. Nichols Company. Springfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 82, 720–739.Google Scholar
  13. Skaperdas, S. (1996). Contest success functions. Economic Theory, 7, 283–290.Google Scholar
  14. Skaperdas, S. (2003). Restraining the genuine homo economicus: Why the economy cannot be divorced from its governance. Economics and Politics, 15, 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sutter, D. (2003). Detecting and correcting election fraud. Eastern Economic Journal, 29, 433–451.Google Scholar
  16. Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a Theory of the Rent Seeking Society, College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wantchekon, L., & Ellman, M. (2000). Electoral competition under the threat of political unrest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 499–531.Google Scholar
  18. Wantchekon, L. (1999). On the nature of first democratic elections. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(2), 230–243.Google Scholar
  19. Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracies. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations