Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
How can elections be unfair if no one stole my vote?
Elections can be deeply unfair even when each box is counted correctly. The advantage can be made months or years earlier: by controlling the most viewed media, using public money and official campaign events, pressing employees and donors, making it difficult to run or selectively applying the law.
The voter then formally chooses, but does not choose between competitors who had approximately equal opportunity to present the program, organize supporters and protect themselves from punishment. A fair count cannot subsequently equal such a game. However, not every irregularity is proof that the entire outcome was staged; it is necessary to determine how widespread, planned, repeated and capable of changing the behavior of voters or opponents of the government.
A single irregularity does not prove that it determined the result. It is necessary to show how widespread it was, whether it was planned, and whom it harmed.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
cross-country or cross-case comparison
Schedler, A. (2013), The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism, Oxford University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schedler shows that electoral injustice doesn’t just start with counting votes: the government can limit the media, opposition, resources, candidacy and competition rules much earlier. The choice can be seriously unfair and without stealing a concrete vote at the polling station.
cross-country or cross-case comparison
Levitsky, S. i Way, L. A. (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Levitsky and Way describe a “nervous terrain” in which the opposition is formally allowed to compete, but the government systematically uses the state, media and other resources to have a huge advantage before the vote.
explanation of how the system works
Greene, K. F. (2007), Why Dominant Parties Lose, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Greene on Mexico shows how the dominant party builds a long-term advantage by controlling state resources and organization. The opposition can therefore enter the elections, and yet compete against the system that has made it difficult for it to become an equal rival for years.
cross-country or cross-case comparison
Howard, M. M. i Roessler, P. G. (2006), „Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes“, American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 365–381.
- Contribution to this answer
- "Howard and Roessler show that elections under authoritarianism involve different combinations of coercion and manipulation, but also that the opposition coalition can open up space for an unexpectedly liberalizing outcome.
Serbia case study
Petrović, V. (2026), „Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia“, Democratization.
Petrović, V. (2026), “Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia”, Democratization.
- Contribution to this answer
- Petrović shows how political pressure and dependence on work or public resources can change the behavior of voters and activists even before the election day. Injustice can therefore arise through everyday addiction, and not just through fraud when counting.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →