Research‎ > ‎

PEI: Datasets

The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI_4.5)datasets

The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity expert survey utilizes a rolling design measuring the quality of elections one month after the close of the polls. 

The most recent release of the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset (PEI 4.5) gathers the views from 2,417 experts and covers 153 countries holding 213 elections during the four year period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2016. This represents 87% of all 175 independent nation states holding national parliamentary and presidential elections around the world (excluding micro-states with a population below 100,000).

In March 2016, the project also released The Year in Elections, 2015, as annual report, describing the full results of release 4.0 and providing a more details about key findings.

You can download the PEI datasets (Stata, SPSS, Excel and csv formats) at the level of experts, elections and countries, as well as the codebook, from:  https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/PEI 

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/PEI

Subsequent data release: Another release of the PEI dataset will be made available for download in March 2017. This will cover presidential and parliamentary national elections occurring from 1 Jan to 31 December 2016.  

Citation: Colleagues are welcome to use the data and the suggested citation is: Pippa Norris, Ferran Martínez i Coma, Alessandro Nai, and Max Groemping. 2016. The Expert Survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, PEI_4.0www.electoralintegrityproject.com. http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/PEI 

Please contact us with any technical issues in accessing the files. 

Acknowledgments: The survey has been developed by Pippa Norris in conjunction with Andrew Reynolds (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and Jorgen Elklit (Aarhus University). It is managed by the research team at the University of Sydney and Harvard Universities.

Measuring dimensions of the electoral cycle in the PEI survey

Period

Sections

Questions

Direction

Pre-election

1. Electoral laws

1-1  Electoral laws were unfair to smaller parties

1-2. Electoral laws favored the governing party or parties (N)

1-3  Election laws restricted citizens’ rights

N

N

N

2. Electoral procedures

2-1. Elections were well managed

2-2. Information about voting procedures was widely available

2-3. Election officials were fair

2-4. Elections were conducted in accordance with the law

P

P

P

P

3. Boundaries

3-1. Boundaries discriminated against some parties

3-2. Boundaries favored incumbents

3-3. Boundaries were impartial

N

N

P

4. Voter registration

4-1. Some citizens were not listed in the register

4-2. The electoral register was inaccurate

4-3. Some ineligible electors were registered

N

N

N

5. Party registration  

5-1. Some opposition candidates were prevented from running

5-2 Women had equal opportunities to run for office

5-3. Ethnic and national minorities had equal opportunities to run for office

5-4. Only top party leaders selected candidates

5-5. Some parties/candidates were restricted from holding campaign rallies

N

P

P

N

N

Campaign

6. Campaign media

6-1. Newspapers provided balanced election news

6-2. TV news favored the governing party

6-3. Parties/candidates had fair access to political broadcasts and advertising

6-4. Journalists provided fair coverage of the elections

6-5 Social media were used to expose electoral fraud

P

N

P

P

P

7. Campaign finance

7-1 Parties/candidates had equitable access to public subsidies

7-2. Parties/candidates had equitable access to political donations

7-3 Parties/candidates publish transparent financial accounts

7.4 Rich people buy elections

7-5. Some states resources were improperly used for campaigning

P

P

P

N

N

Election day

8. Voting process

8-1. Some voters were threatened with violence at the polls

8-2 Some fraudulent votes were cast

8-3 The process of voting was easy

8-4 Voters were offered a genuine choice at the ballot box

8-5 Postal ballots were available

8-6 Special voting facilities were available for the disabled

8-7 National citizens living abroad could vote

8-8 Some form of internet voting was available

N

N

P

P

P

P

P

P

Post-election

9. Vote count

9-1. Ballot boxes were secure

9-2 The results were announced without undue delay

9-3 Votes were counted fairly

9-4 International election monitors were restricted

9-5 Domestic election monitors were restricted

P

P

P

N

N

10.Post-election

10-1 Parties/candidates challenged the results

10-2 The election led to peaceful protests

10-3 The election triggered violent protests

10-4 Any disputes were resolved through legal channels

N

N

N

P

11. Electoral authorities  

11-1. The election authorities were impartial

11-2. The authorities distributed information to citizens

11-3  The authorities allowed public scrutiny of their performance

11-4  The election authorities performed well

P

P

P

P

Note; Direction of the original items P=positive, N=negative

Source: www.electoralintegrityproject.com.