Poor election science may cause lasting damage to democracy and undermine public confidence within the electoral process.
This is the primary finding of our study, which was published in July 2024 within the journal Public Opinion Quarterly. It examines the Impact of educational claims about electoral fraud within the 2020 South Korean parliamentary elections.
The ruling Democratic Party won that vote by a bigger margin than expected, leading supporters of the opposition United Future Party to assert that the manipulation of the outcomes of early voting.
But what began as a typical post-election dispute took a turn when a US-based election fraud researcher analyzed the info and concluded that almost 10% of the votes for the Democratic Party were fraudulent. This finding spread quickly through the South Korean media, appearing in greater than 300 news reports, while the scientist conducted prime-time television interviews concerning the alleged fraud.
What was not immediately clear to the general public – although South Korean political scientists and statisticians explained later – was that the evaluation based on a misunderstanding the election data and the South Korean electoral system.
Although the electoral science research was flawed, the damage was done: the erroneous claims of electoral fraud significantly undermined public confidence within the electoral process in South Korea. As a direct result, the National Election Commission was forced to resort to costly hand counting again to avoid any allegations of electoral fraud.
And our study shows that the impact is larger than expected.
In one experiment, we randomly varied the knowledge given to 1,750 eligible South Korean voters several months after the 2020 election. One control group was given no information in any respect about foreign academic research on voter fraud, while others were presented with academic research that suggested either a high or low likelihood of fraud.
Those who were shown studies suggesting a high risk of fraud were 12 percentage points more more likely to imagine that fraud had actually occurred than those that weren’t shown such studies. This represents a 52% increase within the likelihood of somebody believing that fraud had occurred.
We found that respondents who were presented with scientific research suggesting a high risk of fraud were 65% more more likely to vote than those that pushed for an investigation into voter fraud.
These effects were focused on supporters of the losing party within the 2020 elections.
Why it is vital
As political polarization deepens within the highly developed democraciesDisputes over allegations of electoral fraud are commonplace.
And the evaluation of suspected fraud by academic researchers and other experts can have a major impact, as the controversy surrounding American economists John Lott's fraud allegations in reference to the 2020 US presidential election.
Our study highlights how academic research can significantly influence public perceptions of election integrity. The results show that voters' responses are consistent with pre-existing beliefs – supporters of the losing party found allegations of fraud more credible, while supporters of the winning party showed little change.
Crucially, our findings also show how the publication of flawed scientific research on electoral fraud can exacerbate political polarization and undermine democracy itself.
Poor research can result in widespread distrust of electoral processes, undermine faith in democratic institutions and deepen political divisions.
What will not be yet known
Our research was limited to South Korea. As one in all Asia's most stable democracies, the country shares similarities with other advanced democracies. However, a few of our findings will not be applicable to elections in other countries.
Particularly where elections were conducted fairly but polarized, misinformation suggesting fraud may are likely to widen the divide between supporters and opponents of the winning party. Conversely, in countries affected by actual electoral fraud, such information could mobilize opposition against the guilty parties, increase election monitoring, and promote democracy.
And although the media played an important role in spreading the flawed evaluation to the South Korean public, our study didn’t examine the extent to which traditional media contributed to this in comparison with social media. We suspect that flawed research findings may spread more easily through social media because they’re subject to fewer oversight bodies and may be shared indiscriminately by partisans.
What's next
Our findings highlight the danger that arises when flawed research influences public opinion.
In the longer term, we plan to explore strategies to combat the influence of such misleading results on public opinion. Scientists have long tried to balance objectivity and accuracy with communicating results that may influence opinion.
As polarized politics increasingly involves experts based on scientific evidence, the educational community must determine how one can higher inform the general public while stopping flawed research from undermining trust in democratic foundations. Adhering to rigorous standards while clearly communicating the reality shall be critical.
The Research Brief is a summary of interesting scientific papers.
image credit : theconversation.com