Election Fraud in the American Mind

ABSTRACT Objective Disputes over election fraud have become a defining feature of contemporary American politics, yet it remains unclear whether partisans are disagreeing about the same underlying phenomenon. This article examines how Americans understand and interpret the phrase “election fraud” and whether partisan divisions reflect differences in concern about fraud or differences in what the term itself is taken to mean. Methods We use novel survey questions included in our team's module of the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000). An open‐ended question captures respondents’ own top‐of‐mind associations with the phrase “election fraud,” while a closed‐ended item asks respondents to indicate which phenomena they believe political elites are referring to when they invoke that phrase. Results Across both measures, Democrats and Republicans agree that clear illegal acts, such as casting multiple ballots, constitute election fraud. However, partisan differences emerge in the breadth of phenomena associated with the term. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to associate election fraud with a wider range of activities, including media bias, prosecutorial actions, and systemic manipulation. Conclusion Partisan disagreement over election fraud reflects not only differences in levels of concern but also differences in how partisans associate meaning with the phrase itself. These findings have important implications for survey measurement and for interpreting public opinion on election integrity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Science Quarterly
Published
2026-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.70161
Primary Topic
Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Election Fraud in the American Mind

Soren Jordan, Bridgett A. King, Mitchell Brown, Spencer Goidel et al.
Social Science Quarterly
Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
article

Election Fraud in the American Mind

Soren Jordan, Bridgett A. King, Mitchell Brown, Spencer Goidel, Isaac Westfall, Ryan Williamson
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective Disputes over election fraud have become a defining feature of contemporary American politics, yet it remains unclear whether partisans are disagreeing about the same underlying phenomenon. This article examines how Americans understand and interpret the phrase “election fraud” and whether partisan divisions reflect differences in concern about fraud or differences in what the term itself is taken to mean. Methods We use novel survey questions included in our team's module of the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000). An open‐ended question captures respondents’ own top‐of‐mind associations with the phrase “election fraud,” while a closed‐ended item asks respondents to indicate which phenomena they believe political elites are referring to when they invoke that phrase. Results Across both measures, Democrats and Republicans agree that clear illegal acts, such as casting multiple ballots, constitute election fraud. However, partisan differences emerge in the breadth of phenomena associated with the term. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to associate election fraud with a wider range of activities, including media bias, prosecutorial actions, and systemic manipulation. Conclusion Partisan disagreement over election fraud reflects not only differences in levels of concern but also differences in how partisans associate meaning with the phrase itself. These findings have important implications for survey measurement and for interpreting public opinion on election integrity.

Social Science QuarterlyVol. 107(3)
University of Wyoming (US), University of Kentucky (US), Auburn University (US), Texas A&M University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.