American views about election fraud in 2024
-
1.
California Institute of Technology
Abstract
What are the opinions of American registered voters about election fraud and types of election fraud as we head into the final stages of the 2024 Presidential election? In this paper we use data from an online national survey of 2,211 U.S. registered voters interviewed between June 26 - July 3, 2024. Respondents were asked how common they thought that ten different types of election fraud might be in the U.S. In our analysis, we show that substantial proportions of U.S. registered voters believe that these types of election fraud are common. Our multivariate analysis shows that partisanship correlates strongly with endorsement of types of election fraud, with Republicans consistently more likely to state that types of election fraud are common, even when we control for a wide variety of other factors. We also find that conspiratorial thinking is strongly correlated with belief in the occurrence of types of election fraud, even when we control for partisanship. Our results reported in this paper provide important data regarding how American registered voters perceive the prevalence of types of election fraud, just months before the 2024 Presidential election.
Copyright and License
© 2024 Linegar and Alvarez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding for this project was provided by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Shreya Nag for her assistance.
Contributions
ML: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Data Availability
The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available. This data can be found here: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1IIA0C.
Ethics
The studies involving humans were approved by California Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants' legal guardians/next of kin because the survey was conducted by YouGov, using subjects from their online panel. Researchers received only de-identified data from YouGov.
Supplemental Material
Data Sheet 1.pdf: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1493897/full#supplementary-material
Files
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:e227fcc1f54af99cd20c3bd3121b9d4d
|
3.6 MB | Preview Download |
|
md5:d3e748d5f0b2d7388e0e584f149fbf67
|
32.4 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
- John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation
- Accepted
-
2024-10-25Accepted
- Available
-
2024-11-22Published online
- Publication Status
- Published