Free Elections: Essential Principles

Introduction

If consent of the governed is the most fundamental concept of democracy, its most essential right is that of citizens to choose their representatives in free, fair and regular elections. By themselves, elections are insufficient. Other elements are essential for democracy to function (such as Constitutional Limits, the Rule of Law and Human Rights, among others presented in Democracy Web). Yet, the right to freely elect one's representatives and to determine the political direction of one's government is democracy's foundation. It is the indispensable basis for self-governance.

Around the world, including in the United States, millions of people have braved repression, intimidation, and other obstacles to demand the right to express their will peacefully through the ballot box.

Without free, fair and regular elections, together with plebiscites, there is neither the possibility for citizens to express their will nor the opportunity for citizens to change their leaders, support policies for the country, address wrongs, or expand rights.

Elections establish in concrete form the citizenry's and the individual's political rights. They are the basis for politics practiced by non-violent means. As such, they represent the ongoing free expression of the consent of the governed (see also previous section).

In recent elections, increased youth participation has given hope for US democracy’s future at a time of political conflict and crisis.

Around the world, including in the United States, millions of people have braved repression, intimidation, and other obstacles to demand the right to express their will peacefully through the ballot box. Indeed, the struggle to overcome dictatorship and achieve democracy has been the most enduring political story over the past three centuries. Often, young people have played leading roles in this worldwide epic (as in the Maidan Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2013–14 or in the recent protest movement in Iran). In the United States, young people played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement, including thousands of students, Black and white, who challenged segregation and Black disenfranchisement throughout the South. In doing so, they helped propel passage of the Voting Rights Act, which made the country a full democracy for the first time (see also History). In recent elections, increased youth participation has given hope for U.S. democracy’s future at a time of political conflict and crisis.

Representative Systems

Many countries have chosen parliamentary systems to determine their form of political representation. In parliamentary systems, elections for the legislature also determine the party or coalition of parties that govern the executive branch. The party or coalition of parties who hold a majority of seats in parliament (at least 50 percent plus one) forms the government. Minority coalitions may also form governments but they require agreement by a majority in parliament.

Parliamentary systems may be unicameral or bicameral. Second chambers in bicameral legislatures are often comprised of appointed or indirectly elected officials (such as the House of Lords in the United Kingdom or the Senate or Bundesrat in Germany, respectively). These chambers are generally not involved in determining the government, but do play advisory or approval roles in enacting legislation and budgets.

A majority of countries with democracies have chosen a presidential system, as in the United States, or a mixed presidential-parliamentary system, as in France or Poland. In these systems, separate elections are held for head of state and the legislative branch. While parliamentary systems may reflect more directly the citizens' will, presidential or mixed systems may provide greater checks and balances through a more formal separation of powers. At the same time, presidential systems can create divided government, with the executive and legislature representing different political parties, which makes enacting policies and legislation more difficult (see also the next section, Constitutional Limits).

Electoral Systems

There are two main types of electoral systems: proportional and direct. In strict proportional systems, seats in parliament are apportioned by political party lists according to the percentage of the vote that a party receives nationally or in regions. In direct elections, as in the United Kingdom and United States, outcomes are determined by a majority or plurality vote in electoral districts, which are assigned proportionally by population. These are often referred to as “first past the post.” Both types require that multiple political parties compete freely (see The Multiparty System).

There are many variations on these electoral systems. Countries may use a combination of proportional and direct elections, by which some seats are allocated proportionally according to the national vote, some allocated proportionally by region, and some allocated in direct elections by district or region.

In direct elections, some electoral systems have run-off elections of the top two candidates in a first-round ballot or ranked-choice voting (as in the U.S. in states like Maine and Alaska) in order to require a final outcome decided by a majority vote. Under a ranked-choice system, voters rank their choices among candidates on the ballot (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) when there are more than two candidates for an office. The next preference of voters is counted in rounds as their first-choice candidates are eliminated from the top positions until a candidate achieves a majority.

Each type of representative and electoral system raises complex questions. In parliamentary systems, what is the threshold or minimum percentage of the vote needed for a party to enter parliament? (The range among the Country Studies is from .67 in Netherlands to as high as ten percent in Turkey prior to 2022.) When votes are distributed from parties that do not meet the threshold, should these favor the party with the most votes or by strict proportionality? Should a turnout of less than 50 percent or a plurality vote be considered a valid expression of the people's will?

There are no set answers to these (and other) questions. Democracies have answered them differently according to their political history and culture. But sometimes, these questions have been answered based on a ruling party’s desire to manipulate the election outcome in its favor. In such instances, the election becomes less representative of the people’s will and therefore less democratic. It is for this reason that essential standards, which are described below, must be met.

Essential Standards: Free, Fair and Regular

The essential standards for free, fair and regular elections are set broadly in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): “[T]he will of the people . . . shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” While no specific standards are set, democracies have developed general practices to meet these standards.

In short, no government in a democracy may stay in power indefinitely. It must regularly put itself before the judgement of the people.

Regular or periodic means holding elections on a set schedule known to the public, either on a specified day, a range of dates, or within a particular time frame from when a government loses its majority or otherwise determines to call an election. In short, no government in a democracy may stay in power indefinitely. It must regularly put itself before the judgement of the people.

Both parliamentary systems and presidential or mixed systems require elections to be held within a set time frame, generally from two to six years. Parliamentary systems usually date elections from the time a government is formed. Presidential or semi-presidential systems establish an interim period by a specific day of the week (as in the United States) or a set date.

In both systems, citizens are thus guaranteed the opportunity to change their leaders and support new policies within a reasonable timeframe. The United States, for example, holds national elections every two years for all members of the House of Representatives and for one-third of the Senate, with all Senators serving a six-year term. The office of president is elected every four years on the same day of every other national election. In parliamentary systems, elections may be called earlier than the set period. This is required when a government loses support of a majority in parliament due to defections of individual members or party blocs. The government or its leader faces a vote of no confidence, which, if lost, triggers an election with a minimum set period of several weeks or months for campaigning. When there is a situation of unstable government coalitions, this may result in frequent voting (as in Israel, which held its fifth election within three-and-a-half-years in November 2022). As well, a ruling party or coalition may call early elections when the leadership believes doing so could strengthen its mandate.

Genuine means that elections are free and fair and there is open competition among multiple political parties and candidates. First and foremost, this means electoral laws must offer the same rights, conditions and opportunities for all eligible citizens to vote and for all political parties and candidates to campaign to seek voters’ support.

The principle of political equality inherent in the concept of self-government inspired movements that struggled for expansion of the franchise to more of the citizenry. Today, genuine elections require universal suffrage.

Initially, modern democracy restricted the right to vote for representatives to act for the people by class, race and gender. Yet, the principle of political equality inherent in the concept of self-government inspired movements that struggled for expansion of the franchise to more of the citizenry (see also History). Today, genuine elections require universal suffrage. This means that every adult citizen of qualifying age (usually now 18 years old) has the right to vote without respect to race, gender, ethnicity, religion, physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, property ownership or tax-paying status.

Universal suffrage also requires that there be no burdensome impediments against a citizen’s registering to vote or casting a ballot (such as a poll tax or minimum level of education or literacy). Only legitimate requirements, such as citizenship, residence or a minimum age may qualify the right to vote. (Democracies may also qualify the vote in case of criminal conviction.)

The ideal is maximum participation of all citizens eligible to vote. To achieve this, most countries establish an affirmative right to vote in their constitutions or laws and make voting easier through automatic registration and scheduling elections on a weekend or make the election day a holiday. Some countries, such as Australia and Uruguay, make voting a legal obligation and enforce penalties (usually fines) for non-participation. (Notably, the US Constitution does not have an affirmative right to vote. States are assigned the power to set the rules and regulations for both state and federal elections. Amendments to the Constitution prohibit poll taxes and bar discrimination in the right to vote based on race and sex.)

The principle of universal suffrage is distinct from the principle of one person, one vote. In all systems, this principle establishes that no person’s vote counts more than another’s.

The principle of universal suffrage is distinct from the principle of one person, one vote. In all systems, this principle establishes that no person’s vote counts more than another’s. This generally applies more to systems of direct representation and requires establishment of districts of equal representation by population size. (The US Supreme Court, for example, struck down unequal districting in the United States in 1964 in the case Reynolds v. Sims.) Electoral systems that determine outcomes indirectly (as the Electoral College does for the US presidency) do not meet the one person, one vote principle.

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also requires that a free or genuine election must be conducted by “secret vote or other equivalent free voting procedure.” This means an election process in which no one may observe or unduly influence how a person votes at the time of casting a ballot. If voters’ choices are observable by others, voters may be subject to intimidation, reprisals or bribery by the party in power or by a party seeking power. Individuals may choose to ask someone they know to aid them in marking the ballot and may themselves declare how they intend to vote or how they voted after the fact. Indeed, it is a measure of a free society that people feel free to do so. But ensuring the right to a secret ballot is an essential condition for holding a free election.

It is necessary also to have other regular procedures for ensuring the integrity of the balloting process (for example, to prevent ballot stuffing or ineligible votes from being cast) as well as for the process of counting ballots (to prevent outright fraud or deliberate miscounting of votes). Usually, this is done by maintaining a record of eligible voters (or a voting roll) and having non-partisan and/or bipartisan election officials and workers to oversee balloting and the tabulating of votes.

Other Essential Conditions

There are other essential conditions for free, fair and regular elections.

Elections are held within national or state boundaries (including at or through embassies for citizens living abroad). The outcomes should be determined only by the citizens of a given country without direct involvement by a foreign country or countries. Among the highest fears of the American founders, for example, was foreign interference in US self-government by the great monarchical powers of that age. This is the reason for the Constitution’s emoluments clause (barring foreign gifts to officials) and was one justification made for the Electoral College (to intercede if the people elected a president indebted to a foreign power’s support).

Thus, non-citizens, are generally not allowed to vote in democracies, although some democracies allow long-standing or permanent residents who are not yet citizens to vote in some (usually municipal) elections. Contributions by foreign citizens, corporations, or governments to political parties, candidates, or officials are generally banned.

Foreign assistance to aid the fair administration of elections or to support the participation of citizens in elections is an accepted practice among democracies. Governments and foundations in more established democracies do this to aid new democracies in overcoming dictatorship. Such assistance, however, must be open and transparent. Clandestine support, such as hidden attempts to aid one party or candidate over another or to indirectly influence public opinion, are not accepted practices. Nor is it accepted practice for a candidate or political party to solicit or receive a foreign power’s support for election. (This has happened in recent years with the Russia government aiding candidates and parties in Western democracies such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.)

Another principle is that there must be equal conditions and opportunities for political parties and candidates to compete for voters’ support in elections. For example, parties and candidates must be able to register for elections without unreasonable requirements (such as large registration fees or high signature levels on petitions to get on the ballot). Such conditions include fair or equal access to the media; financing rules that do not favor one party or candidate; and an overall fair electoral process. This means minority rights and political freedoms of expression, association and assembly must be protected so that candidates and parties can convey political messages and platforms to the voters without hindrance (see also Majority Rule, Minority Rights).

Democracy’s Norms

In How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe other obvious, if often informal, norms for a democracy. For one, political parties and candidates must clearly reject violence or intimidation as a means of politics and they must distance themselves from violent groups. When violence is introduced by parties in a democracy as a part of politics, democracy is at high risk.

Another important condition is that the parties must agree to accept the results of freely and fairly held elections. Individuals or parties who lose power or who have failed to gain power through elections must accept defeat and agree to wait until the next election to contest again to lead or participate in the government. When the loser refuses to accept the winner of an election, instability and conflict generally follow. The peaceful transfer of power is thus a key test for any democracy, even established ones. In the United States, that test was barely passed following its 2020 presidential election (see also “A Constant Test” Consent of the Governed).

Controversy in Democracies

Within these broad requirements for free, fair and regular elections, there is much room for debate and controversy. How can the independence of the election process be ensured? Can elected officials from one party be trusted to safeguard the electoral process in multi-party systems? What spending limits should candidates and political parties have? Should there be limits on campaign speech or government-imposed rules for media access?

To prevent controversy in balloting and counting, most democracies establish a non-partisan or independent body that oversees elections and they also allow representatives of political parties involved in elections to observe the counting process. (This is the case in the U.S. in nearly all states and localities.)

In most established democracies, there are also limits on spending during electoral campaigns, equal access to media, and restrictions on hate speech.

The U.S. as Outlier

The United States has fewer restrictions placed on speech or access to media. As well, the Supreme Court struck down a number of equal or fair funding rules. Its decisions in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), respectively, allow individual candidates as well as corporations, unions and individuals acting independently of candidates and political parties to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on election campaigns or to lobby for policies. In both decisions, the Supreme Court considered funding restrictions established in laws passed by Congress to be an unconstitutional government infringement on free speech.

As a result, more wealthy candidates sought election using their own funds and “Super-PACs” (Political Action Committees with unrestricted and undisclosed donations) proliferated to advocate for or against candidates and policies. These two decisions make the United States an outlier among established democracies in setting norms for election spending rules.

Electoral Abuse and Fraud

The most basic condition for free, fair and regular elections is that they be free of electoral abuse and fraud. Even among democracies, one may find many instances of electoral abuse in their history, including ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. Such instances, however, generally resulted in reform movements that brought about rules for conducting free and fair elections, such as impartial administration. Most electoral democracies today have protections against fraud and abuse.

The issue of election integrity, however, can be abused. In the United States, for example, Donald Trump refused to accept the results in the 2020 election on the basis of “election integrity.” He did so, however, based on false claims of electoral fraud and irregularities that were disproven by local and state election officials, state and federal courts, and federal agencies (see also Essential Principles in Consent of the Governed and link in Resources to United States v. Trump).

These claims were the basis in Republican-controlled states for adopting laws restricting voter registration and the manner of voting with the intent to limit participation and skew the election process in favor of one political party. The issue is especially important in the U.S. due to its history of unequal access to the ballot for Black and other minority voters (see also History and Resources).

Dictatorships and Elections

It is a measure of democracy’s success that even dictatorships hold elections in order to claim legitimacy. But elections in dictatorships are not free, fair or genuine . . . They are political spectacles that ensure an existing regime’s continuation in power under a false cloak of legitimacy.

It is a measure of democracy’s success that even dictatorships hold elections in order to claim legitimacy. But elections in dictatorships are not free, fair or genuine and do not reflect the will of the people. Rather, they are political spectacles that ensure an existing regime’s continuation in power under a false cloak of legitimacy. In such countries, political parties and candidates are controlled or strongly influenced by the ruling government and there is no real choice offered to the people. If political parties act independently, they are generally prevented from appearing on the ballot. Or, if they are allowed, they are prevented from competing fairly to actually contest for power. Dictators ensure their victory in elections by compelling citizens to vote for the government-approved party or parties, by setting unfair rules, and by fabricating the election results. Few if any of the essential conditions described above are met in order to consider such elections free, fair or genuine.

Sometimes, although rarely, dictators wrongly assess their own popularity or ability to dominate the election process and may allow a competitive election expecting that they could not lose. Citizens take advantage of such opportunities to make democratic breakthroughs through voter mobilization and citizen oversight. This was the case, for example, in 1989 in Poland (see Country Study in this section) and in 1988-89 in Chile (see Country Study in Freedom of Association). More often, however, dictators respond to expressions of public dissatisfaction by strengthening their control over political parties and the election process or simply by committing fraud, as in Belarus in August 2020 or Azerbaijan (see Country Study in this section).

Can Elections Legitimate Tyranny

Even when elections are conducted freely and fairly, they are not a guarantee of a democratic outcome or the continuation of self-governance.

Modern dictatorships demonstrate how elections, in and of themselves, are insufficient to establish or maintain democracy. While elections are the sine qua non of democracy, self-governance requires other essential principles discussed on this site such as constitutional limits, the protection of human rights and minority rights, a multi-party system, the rule of law and economic freedom. Elections in dictatorships where those elements are not respected or practiced cannot establish consent of the governed (see previous section).

Even when elections are conducted freely and fairly, they are not a guarantee of a democratic outcome or the continuation of self-governance. Where democratic norms, institutions or constitutional systems are weak, elections may easily be used by violent forces or authoritarian political movements to seize control of the government.

The Clearest Example

The clearest example of how elections do not guarantee a democratic outcome occurred in the early 1930s in Weimar Germany during conditions of political and economic instability. Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, rose to power by participating in elections. But he did not actually gain power through them. When the Nazis were unable to form a majority coalition, Hitler gained power by presidential appointment and then established full political control through use of police repression, intimidation and thuggery by paramilitary groups in what amounted to a coup d’etat (see Country Study of Germany).

Can the holding of elections legitimate the overturning of established democratic governance or the imposition of dictatorship? The terrible consequences of the Nazi regime alone make clear the answer must be no. As a rule, authoritarians who try to claim legitimacy through elections manipulate and distort them, with the intent being to prevent any future democratic contest for power. Hitler’s government did exactly that to consolidate Nazi rule and then did away with elections altogether.

A Contradiction in Terms

Democracy is based on concepts of political freedom. Its main foundation ― the holding of free elections — cannot legitimately be used to introduce organized violence, state repression, political intimidation or an “illiberal” system, thereby preventing free and fair elections from being held again.

A more recent, less extreme, example is Hungary, where the Fidesz ruling party gained total dominance in parliament through a large plurality vote in an election in 2010. Fidesz used the supermajority it gained in parliament to change the constitution and electoral and other laws. By these means, Fidesz established unfair conditions in subsequent elections in order to ensure future victories. Viktor Orban, the party’s leader and Hungary’s prime minister since 2010, has declared the establishment of “illiberal democracy” to justify his political party’s dominance over the media, judiciary, education and the economy.

Some political theorists have used Hungary’s example to argue that democracy may be antithetical to liberalism since majorities may decide to impose illiberal rule or its own form of tyranny. But “illiberal democracy” should be considered a contradiction in terms. Democracy is based on concepts of political freedom. Its main foundation ― the holding of free elections — cannot legitimately be used to introduce organized violence, state repression, political intimidation or an “illiberal” system, thereby preventing free and fair elections from being held again. In such instances, elections are no longer the foundational elements of democracy but instead a means for imposing both anti-liberal and anti-democratic systems. Citizens should thus be wary of political parties or political leaders violating the essential conditions for free, fair and regular elections. Such parties and leaders will likely act to prevent them in the future. (For further discussion of the concept of majority tyranny, see Majority Rule, Minority Rights.)