Online discussions of electoral fraud are becoming an increasingly important aspect of the electoral landscape in many contexts, as cyberspace is one of the few places where concerns about electoral conduct can be aired openly and freely. But it is often difficult to assess what this online activity tells us about actual electoral processes. This article analyzes a surge of tweets about electoral fraud at the time of the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 in order to ascertain whether this online activity reflected: (a) actual offline fraud observed by the social media users, (b) a concerted effort to undermine confidence in electoral administration, or (c) a collective delusion. Data mining and machine learning techniques are deployed in this analysis, which comes out strongly in favor of the collective delusion hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllcottHunt and GentzkowMatthew (2017). “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election,” NBER Working Paper 23089, <http://www.nber.org/papers/w23089>.
2.
AllenNicholas and BirchSarah (2015). Ethics and Integrity in British Politics: How Citizens Judge Their Politicians' Conduct and Why It Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersonChristopher J., BlaisAndré, BowlerShaun, DonovanTodd, and ListhaugOla (2005). Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
AtkesonLonna Rae and SaundersKyle L. (2007). “The Effect of Election Administration on Voter Confidence: A Local Matter?” PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(4): 655–60.
5.
BarberáPablo (2014). “How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S.,” unpublished manuscript.
6.
BarberáPablo (2015). “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data,” Political Analysis, 23: 76–91.
7.
BaronJonathan and HersheyJohn C. (1988). “Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4): 569–579.
8.
BaronR., HoppeS., LinnewehB., and RogersD. (1996). “Social Corroboration and Opinion Extremity,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32: 537–60.
9.
BartholomewRobert E. (2001). Little Green Men, Meowing Nuns and Head-Hunting Panics: A Study of Mass Psychogenic Illness and Social Delusion. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
10.
BeaulieuEmily (2014). Electoral Protest and Democracy in the Developing World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BeaulieuEmily and HydeSusan D. (2009). “In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion: Strategic Manipulation, International Observers and Election Boycotts,” Comparative Political Studies, 42(3): 392–415.
12.
BirchSarah (2010). “Perceptions of Electoral Fairness and Voter Turnout,” Comparative Political Studies, 43(12): 1601–1622.
13.
BirchSarah (2011). Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
BirchSarah and WattBob (2004). “Remote Electronic Voting: Free, Fair and Secret?” Political Quarterly, 75(1): 60–72.
15.
BrigadirIgor, GreeneDerek, and CunninghamPádraig (2015). “Analyzing Discourse Communities with Distributional Semantic Models,” ACM Web Science 2015 <http://websci15.org/>.
16.
ButlerLisa D., KoopmanCheryl, and ZimbardoPhilip G. (1995). “The Psychological Impact of Viewing the Film ‘JFK’: Emotions, Beliefs, and Political Behavioral Intentions,” Political Psychology, 16(2): 237–57.
17.
Cantu (2014). “Partisan Losers' Effects: Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in Mexico,” working paper.
18.
ClarkeAlistair (2014a). “Investing in Electoral Management.” In NorrisPippa, FrankRichard W., and Martínez i ComaFerran (eds.), Advancing Electoral Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 165–88.
FarrellHenry (2012). “The Consequences of the Internet for Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science, 15: 35–52.
26.
FogartyBrian J., CurtisJessica, GouzienPatricia Frances, KimballDavid C., and VorstEric C. (2015). “News Attention to Voter Fraud in the 2008 and 2012 US Elections,” Research and PoliticsMay, doi: 10.1177/2053168015587156.
27.
GigerenzerGerd (2002). Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty. London: Penguin.
28.
HallThad J., MonsonQuin, and PattersonKelly D. (2009). “The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections,” Political Research Quarterly, 62(3): 507–22.
29.
HolbyTom (2104). “#Indyref: A Geographical Comparison of Tweets Related to the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014,” MA thesis, Geographical and GeoInformation Science, George Mason University.
30.
HowardPhilip N. (2010). The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information, Technology and Political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
IkuforPresley (2010). “‘Elections’ or ‘Selections’? Blogging and Twittering the Nigerian 2007 General Elections,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6): 398–414.
32.
JamalAmaney A., KeohaneRobert O., RomneyDavid, and TingleyDustin (2015). “Anti-Americanism and Anti-Interventionism in Arabic Twitter Discourses,” Perspectives on Politics, 13(1): 55–73.
33.
JamesToby S. (2012). Elite Statecraft and Election Administration: Bending the Rules of the Game?. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
34.
KubatM. (2015). “Inter-Class Boundaries: Linear and Polynomial Classifiers.” In An Introduction to Machine Learning. Springer International Publishing, 65–90, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20010-1_4.
35.
KundaZiva (1990). “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480–98.
36.
LeHuyen T., BoyntonG.R., MejovaYelena, ShafiqZubair, and SrinivasanPadmini (2017). “Revisiting the American Voter on Twitter,” CHI 2017, doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025543.
37.
LodgeM. and TaberC. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LohmannSusanne (1994). “The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91,” World Politics, 47(1): 42–101.
39.
McCreadieRichard, KapplerKarolin, KardaraMagdalini, KaltenbrunnerAndreas, MacdonaldCraig, SoldatosJohn and OunisIadh (2015). “SUPER: Towards the Use of Social Sensors for Security Assessments and Proactive Management of Emergencies,” www 2015 Companion, proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference2015, doi: 10.1145/2740908.2741723.
ManningC.D. and SchützeH. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press.
43.
MargettsH., JohnP., HaleS., and YasseriT. (2015). Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
MinhasShahryar, UlfelderJay, and WardMichael D. (2015). “Mining Texts to Efficiently Generate Global Data on Political Regime Types,” Research and Politics, July–September, 1–8.
45.
MulliganKenneth and HabelPhilip (2013). “The Implications of Fictional Media for Political Beliefs,” American Politics Research, 41(1): 122–46.
46.
NorrisPippa, FrankRichard, and Martínez i ComaFerran, eds. (2015). Contentious Elections: From Ballots to Barricades. London and New York: Routledge.
47.
D'OrazioVito, LandisSteven T., PalmerGlenn, and SchrodtPhilip (2014). “Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: Applications of Automated Document Classification Using Support Vector Machines,” Political Analysis, doi:10.1093/pan/mpt030.
48.
PasekJosh, StarkTobias H., KrosnickJon A., and TompsonTrevor (2014). “What Motivates a Conspiracy Theory? Birther Beliefs, Partisanship, Liberal-Conservative Ideology, and Anti-Black Attitudes,” Electoral Studies, pre-print published online at <https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.0090261-3794>.
49.
PedersenSarah, BaxterGraeme, BurnettSimon, GokerAyse, CorneyDavid, and MartinCarlos (2014). “Backchannel Chat: Peaks and Troughs in a Twitter Response to Three Televised Debates During the Scottish Independence Referendum Campaign 2014,” available from OpenAIR@RGU at <http://openair.rgu.ac.uk>.
50.
QuinlanStephen, ShephardMark, and PatersonLindsay (2015). “Online Discussion and the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum: Flaming Keyboards or Forums for Deliberation?” Electoral Studies, 38: 192–205.
51.
RedlawskDavid P. (2002). “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making,” Journal of Politics, 64(4): 1021–1044.
SchedlerAndreas (2013). The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
ShephardMark, QuinlanStephen, Taggand Stephen, and PatersonLindsay (2014). “‘Fading to Grey’: Consideration and Opinion Moderation in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum,” Fourth annual general meeting of the European Political Science Association, Edinburgh, June.
SunsteinCass (2002). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
TierneyStephen (2015). “Reclaiming Politics: Popular Democracy in Britain after the Scottish Referendum,” Political Quarterly, 86(2): 226–33.
58.
TverskyAmos and KahnemanDaniel (1982). “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers.” In KahnemanDaniel, SlovicPaul and TverskyAmos (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–31.
59.
UscinskiJoseph E. and ParentJoseph M. (2014). American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
WattBob (2006). UK Election Law: A Critical Examination. London: Routledge-Cavendish.
61.
WeissS., IndurkhyaN., ZhangT., and DamerauF. (2005). “Using Text for Prediction.” In Text Mining. New York: Springer, 47–84, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-34555-0_3.
62.
Wilks-HeegStuart (2008). Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes of Concern. York: Joseph Rowntree Trust.
63.
WilsonAndrew (2005). Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
YangX., OunisI., and MacdonaldC. (2016). “Monitoring Electoral Violence through Social Media: A Machine Learning Approach,” International Conference on Computational Social Science, Evanston, IL, USA, June24–26, 2016, <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/120312/>.
66.
YardiSarita and BoydDanah (2010). “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5): 316–27.
