Holding regular elections is an essential feature of democratic practices. The case for postponing elections is often made during emergency situations, however. Despite the critical nature of the issue for democracy, peace, and security, there has been sparse academic literature on election postponement. This article provides a new typology of reasons why elections might be delayed to disentangle the causal factors and normative rationale. It distinguishes the humanitarian case for temporary postponements during natural disasters. It then argues that substantive concepts of democracy and electoral integrity, rather than existing international/national laws and standards, should be used to inform decisions about postponement by relevant stakeholders, be it an electoral management body (EMB), government, parliament, or the judiciary. The possible effects of natural disasters on electoral integrity are traced through a comparative analysis of past cases. The article holds that variations in context and the ability of actors to strategically adapt to situations will make the effects contingent. Nonetheless, holding elections during natural disasters will often lead to severely compromised opportunities for deliberation, contestation, participation, and election management quality. There is therefore a strong, democratic case for time-limited postponement. However, the postponement will break institutional certainty, which could pose threats of democratic breakdown-especially in presidential systems. The best available safeguards for electoral integrity during natural disasters include the introduction or expansion of low-tech solutions such as early voting, strengthened risk management, but also transparency and inclusivity in decision making. Overall, there are important lessons for the broader scholarship and practice of democracy during emergency situations.

This article makes the case for employing the statecraft approach (associated with the late Jim Bulpitt) to assess political leadership in Britain. Rather than 'importing' methodologies from the US, as some scholars have done, statecraft is preferred in the UK context for two main reasons. First, statecraft is concerned with the motives and behaviour of leadership cliques, and as a result, it is more appropriate for the collective leadership style that is a characteristic of parliamentary systems such as that in Britain. Second, statecraft goes some way towards incorporating a sense of structural context into our evaluation of leadership performance. This need to take into account the broader institutional constraints facing chief executives is something that an increasing number of academics in this area have been calling for. The utility of the approach is illustrated through a case study of the Blair administration.

Concerns have been raised that insufficient funding has been affecting the delivery of elections in many countries. This paper presents a case study of England and Wales from 2010–2016. It demonstrates that many local authorities saw major real terms cuts and were increasingly over-budget. Those subject to cuts were less likely to undertake public engagement activities. State efforts to encourage voter participation may therefore be a casualty of austerity

Electoral malpractices are commonly thought to occur in polling stations. This chapter makes the normative case for electoral management bodies (EMBs) around the world routinely using poll worker surveys. These surveys provide concrete sources of information about the extent and nature of any problems in the electoral process. Accusations by partisan actors can therefore be readily tested and challenged. Poll worker surveys can therefore increase the transparency of EMBs and the electoral process. They also increase opportunities for evidence based policy making in electoral management. Their usefulness is demonstrated through the first-ever non-US poll worker survey which was undertaken in Britain at the 2015 general election. This survey (n = 1,321) contradicted the existing literature on electoral administration in Britain in a number of ways.

Achieving the ideals of electoral democracy depends on well-run elections. Persistent problems of electoral integrity in transitional and established democracies have prompted a burgeoning literature seeking to explain the determinants of electoral integrity around the world. However, the study of the organisations responsible for managing the electoral process has been limited to isolated national case studies. This article opens up an interdisciplinary and international research agenda on the global study of the organisational determinants of electoral integrity. It defines the concept of electoral management and provides a framework to understand how electoral management body (EMB) institutional design, EMB performance and electoral integrity are related. Findings from new data derived from cross-national surveys of EMBs are described, providing new insights into how elections are managed worldwide.

No abstract

No abstract

This article provides a critical examination of the contribution that statecraft theory, which has been subject to recent revision and development, makes to the literature on institutional change. It articulates an emergent neo-statecraft approach that offers an agent-led form of historical institutionalism. This overcomes the common criticism that historical institutionalists underplay the creative role of actors. The article also argues that the approach brings back into focus the imperatives of electoral politics as a source of institutional change and provides a macro theory of change which is also commonly missing from historical institutionalist work. It can therefore identify previously unnoticed sources of stability and change, especially in states with strong executives and top-down political cultures.