How are elections manipulated?
FAU expert Prof. Michael Krennerich discusses current mechanisms
According to trusted international observers, the parliamentary elections in Georgia at the weekend were marred by considerable irregularities. Particularly at risk of election manipulation are autocracies, many of which now do actually hold elections, but democracies are not always immune, as shown by Trump’s election campaign in the USA. In a nutshell: Seen on a global scale, the manipulation of elections is not a rare occurrence. But which points are particularly susceptible to manipulation before, during and after elections? An assessment by election law and human rights expert Prof. Dr. Michael Krennerich from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU).
Exclusion of promising candidates
One popular means of guaranteeing an acceptable result of the election is to not allow promising opposition candidates to stand for election. Well-known examples of candidates who were prevented from standing for election are Putin’s former opponent Alexej Nawalny (2018), the opposition candidate Sjarhej Zichanouski in Belarus (2020), whose wife then stood for election, or the winner of this year’s Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament, María Corina Machado, in Venezuela (2024). Opposition candidates in many other autocracies are excluded from standing for elections on the basis of flimsy excuses or false accusations. This was not the problem in Georgia, however.
The election as an “uneven playing field”
A democratic election campaign requires a “level playing field”. Like in rugby, this prevents one team playing uphill and the other playing downhill. The focus is on fair conditions in the competition. This includes state neutrality in the election, no restrictions on people exercising their political rights, freedom of the media, balanced reporting, and a political climate that does not encourage disinformation, hate speech or violence. Each of which are conditions which tend not to be (fully) met in elections held in autocracies, or even in some democracies. Defamatory and disinformation campaigns are becoming rife across the world. Donald Trump’s election campaign and its support from Elon Musk show how the democratic culture in the USA continues to ebb. In Georgia, the polarized election was held in a politically highly volatile situation, in which voters were subjected to pressure and intimidation. Furthermore, there was a significant imbalance in the financial resources of the various parties.
The election and its pitfalls
Election bribes and vote-buying before and on election day are a common means of influencing votes, and evidently also took place during the elections in Georgia. On election day, it appears as if irregularities occurred, with reports of ballot stuffing and of people illegally casting more than one vote. Other areas susceptible to fraud include the counting and recording of votes cast. If (local) election observers are insulted, intimidated and expelled from the polling station without reason, as happened at times in Georgia, then doubts about the integrity of the election are justified. Recounting votes can only partially help in determining the extent of the irregularities in the Georgian elections, as the freedom and fairness of the elections were already subject to restrictions before election day.
Prof. Dr. Michael Krennerich is an international election law and human rights expert and his publications include the monograph “Freie und faire Wahlen? Standards, Kurioses, Manipulationen“. (Free and fair elections? Standards, curiosities, manipulation”) At FAU, he is the academic director of the Center for Human Rights Erlangen-Nürnberg (CHREN): www.humanrights.fau.de
Further information:
Prof. Dr. Michael Krennerich
Center for Human Rights Erlangen-Nürnberg
Phone: + 49 9131 85 23271
michael.krennerich@fau.de