Electoral Integrity

Electoral integrity refers to the extent to which elections are conducted in a free, fair, transparent, and impartial manner, adhering to international democratic standards. It encompasses elements such as voter access, accurate voter rolls, unbiased administration, and the absence of fraud or coercion. In societies grappling with political polarization or extremism, the perceived legitimacy of electoral processes plays a pivotal role in maintaining stability. When elections are seen as credible and rules are applied evenly, political actors and their supporters are more likely to channel their grievances through institutional mechanisms rather than resort to violence or anti-democratic tactics. The Electoral Integrity Project demonstrates that high electoral integrity is correlated with greater trust in institutions and lower levels of political violence, underscoring its stabilizing effect (Norris, 2014). Conversely, flawed or manipulated elections can exacerbate perceptions of injustice and marginalization, fueling extremist narratives that claim the democratic process is rigged or futile - a dynamic observed in post-election unrest in cases such as Kenya (2007) and Belarus (2020) (Birch, 2011; Wilson, 2021). Therefore, electoral integrity serves not only as a cornerstone of democratic governance but also as a key variable in either deterring or amplifying extremist sentiments.

The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) is one of the most comprehensive international efforts to evaluate and compare the quality of elections across democratic and semi-democratic regimes. Founded by Professor Pippa Norris and hosted at institutions such as Harvard University and the University of Sydney, the EIP conducts expert surveys to generate the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index. This index scores national and subnational elections from 0 to 100 across eleven key dimensions that span the entire electoral cycle, from legal frameworks to the announcement and acceptance of results. These dimensions are designed to reflect international standards grounded in documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and regional charters. In its United States-specific assessment of the 2020 presidential election, the EIP gathered expert evaluations across all 50 states to measure how the U.S. compares to global best practices in electoral governance. The results present a nuanced portrait of a system that is procedurally resilient but politically vulnerable.

The first category, electoral laws, received a score of approximately 60, indicating a medium level of integrity. While the United States has a long-established legal framework governing elections, including federal statutes like the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), recent years have seen increasing politicization of election law changes at the state level. These include restrictions on mail-in voting, shortened voting periods, and legal disputes over ballot design and counting procedures, many of which are driven by partisan interests. This legal patchwork introduces inconsistencies that weaken overall legal integrity.

Electoral procedures were rated slightly higher, around 65, reflecting generally robust but uneven administration. The decentralized structure of the U.S. electoral system means that each state (and often individual counties) controls the specifics of election administration. While many jurisdictions demonstrate high professionalism and technical capacity, the lack of national standards leads to significant disparities in training, equipment, and administrative practices - particularly around absentee voting and ballot processing.

The dimension of electoral boundaries, which deals with the drawing of district lines, was one of the lower-performing categories with a score near 55. Experts highlighted persistent gerrymandering - especially in congressional and state legislative districts - as a major flaw in electoral fairness. Although some states have introduced independent redistricting commissions to mitigate partisan influence, most boundaries remain politically manipulated, undermining the principle of equal representation.

In terms of voter registration, the United States performed relatively well, scoring around 70. Initiatives such as automatic voter registration, online registration platforms, and data-sharing agreements like the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) have improved list accuracy and accessibility. Nonetheless, inconsistencies between state policies - especially regarding deadlines, purging practices, and ID requirements - still create barriers and administrative confusion.

The category of party registration received one of the highest scores, approximately 75. The U.S. maintains a relatively open environment for political party formation and competition, with few legal or procedural obstacles preventing new or third-party candidates from entering the political arena. However, systemic disadvantages - such as ballot access laws and the dominance of the two-party system - still limit practical competitiveness.

Media coverage, however, was rated poorly, with a score of around 55. Experts cited the increasingly partisan nature of mainstream media, combined with the rise of misinformation on social media platforms, as a threat to fair electoral discourse. While press freedom remains legally protected, the quality and balance of campaign coverage are often compromised by editorial biases and unregulated online content.

The weakest-performing dimension was campaign finance, with a score near 50. The U.S. system of political funding is heavily shaped by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which removed many restrictions on independent expenditures. The result has been a surge in "dark money," super PACs, and donor influence, which undermines transparency and creates significant imbalances between candidates with varying financial resources.

The voting process scored moderately high at 68, suggesting that access and security were relatively well maintained. Many states offered early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and extensive voter assistance. However, disparities in ID laws, polling place availability, and voter roll accuracy continue to generate concerns - particularly in historically marginalized communities.

One of the strongest areas was the vote count, which received a high score near 80. Election officials across the country implemented rigorous tabulation procedures, including bipartisan oversight, post-election audits, and transparent reporting. Despite extensive efforts to undermine confidence in the outcome, no credible evidence of vote manipulation or fraud was found, and numerous courts upheld the integrity of the process.

The results dimension, scored at approximately 65, reflects a tension between procedural soundness and public perception. While official results were delivered in a timely and orderly manner, widespread false narratives about fraud - especially after the 2020 election - seriously eroded public trust. This disconnect between procedural integrity and public belief remains a critical vulnerability in the U.S. democratic system.

Lastly, electoral authorities received a middling score of around 60. Although federal institutions such as the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provide guidance and support, the fact that most election officials are elected or appointed through partisan processes raises concerns about their independence. In several states, Secretaries of State played dual roles as both candidates and overseers, raising ethical questions about impartiality. This combination of formal structures and political entanglements results in what the Electoral Integrity Project classifies as “mixed independence” - a condition where electoral authorities possess some degree of institutional autonomy, but remain subject to significant influence from partisan actors. Such arrangements fall short of full independence and can undermine public confidence in the neutrality of electoral administration, especially in closely contested or polarized environments.

In summation, while the United States demonstrates resilience in core administrative processes - especially in the voting and counting stages - its overall electoral integrity is weakened by systemic issues in campaign finance, media polarization, district manipulation, and public trust. These areas collectively bring the U.S. average PEI score to approximately 60 out of 100, significantly lower than most other long-standing democracies and liberal regimes. These weaknesses illustrate how procedural democracy can coexist with substantial democratic deficits—an important point for understanding how elections alone may not be sufficient to curb political extremism.

Comparative Case Studies in Electoral Integrity

By contrast, Germany scores significantly higher, with an average PEI rating of around 81, placing it among the top-performing democracies in the world. Germany’s success is attributed to its robust legal framework, independent electoral authorities, transparent campaign financing, and strong media regulation. These factors collectively foster high levels of public confidence in the electoral process and contribute to the de-popularization  of extremism.

Another instructive comparison is Tunisia, one of the few relatively successful post-Arab Spring democracies. Tunisia's PEI score is approximately 68, considerably higher than many countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. Following the 2011 revolution, Tunisia implemented significant electoral reforms, including the establishment of an independent electoral commission (ISIE) and the adoption of a new electoral law in 2014. Although challenges remain - particularly the lack of media pluralism and the lack of robust financial regulation - Tunisia has managed to hold multiple credible elections. These elections have allowed for the peaceful transfer  of power and have helped contain extremist political movements by providing legitimate democratic outlets for political participation.

Comparing these two cases to the United States reveals critical gaps in the American electoral framework. Despite its longstanding democratic traditions, the U.S. trails both Germany and Tunisia in overall electoral integrity. The decentralized nature of the American electoral system creates significant inconsistencies between states in how elections are administered. While Germany has implemented strong safeguards to ensure electoral equality and independence from partisan influence, and Tunisia has made notable progress despite limited resources, both countries have taken concrete steps toward improving transparency and trust in their electoral processes. By contrast, the U.S. remains vulnerable to political manipulation through practices like gerrymandering and the pervasive influence of loosely regulated campaign financing. Although Tunisia also faces challenges with campaign finance - such as weak oversight and unequal access to resources - its issues stem more from institutional limitations than from entrenched lobbying networks or large-scale private donations, which are major factors in the American context.

In contrast, Egypt and Turkey provide examples of countries where electoral processes have failed to quell political extremism. Both countries consistently score poorly in the PEI index, typically in the 40s or lower, due to the suppression of opposition parties, constrained media environments, and the use of elections primarily as instruments of regime legitimation rather than democratic choice. In these contexts, the absence of genuine electoral competition has fueled political polarization and, in some cases, pushed dissenting voices toward more extreme or violent forms of expression.

These comparisons suggest that equal and free elections, when implemented with institutional safeguards and public legitimacy, can be powerful tools for containing political extremism. In both Germany and Tunisia, high or improving levels of electoral integrity have contributed to the stabilization of political systems and the channeling of dissent through democratic institutions. Conversely, when elections are manipulated, unfair, or distrusted - as in Egypt, Turkey, and to a lesser extent the United States - they may fail to serve as effective outlets for political grievances, increasing the risk of extremism.

To strengthen electoral integrity and democratic resilience, the United States could benefit from adopting elements of the German and Tunisian models. These include the establishment of independent redistricting commissions to prevent partisan gerrymandering, the enforcement of stricter campaign finance laws to reduce undue influence, and the creation of uniform federal standards for voting accessibility and security. Additionally, improved media regulation and public education about election processes could help rebuild trust in the system. Ultimately, as this comparative analysis shows, free and equal  elections are not only democratic ideals - they are essential mechanisms for mitigating political extremism, provided they are supported by the institutional conditions that make them credible in the eyes of the public.