The Economist explains

Why elections are bad for you

They trigger overspending, currency manipulation and politicised court rulings

By A.P.

DEMOCRACY is under the microscope. Among other things it is accused of being unable to deliver long-term reforms in areas such as pensions and welfare benefits, where the interests of current voters are pitted against those of future voters. If the need to keep voters sweet is distorting decision-making, it stands to reason that this flaw should show up most during an election year. Various strands of research do indeed suggest that political, economic and judicial processes are affected by the prospect of polling day. What is the impact of elections on policymaking?

In America, presidential disaster-declarations allow presidents unilaterally to authorise the release of special federal funds to help states cope with natural disasters. A 2011 analysis by Andrew Reeves of Washington University in St Louis, which examined nearly 1,000 presidential declarations between 1981 and 2004, shows that such declarations are twice as likely in states that are closely contested in electoral terms as in those that are not. Such assistance brings rewards—as much as an extra 1% of the vote to the president or his nominee in the affected state.

Handing out money is appealing in an election year; making difficult economic decisions, less so. A 2013 analysis of Latin American countries reveals that in election years international reserves fall much more sharply than in normal years, as the authorities seek to stabilise exchange rates before voters go to the polls. Currency depreciations occur once the election has taken place. Such effects are not observable in OECD countries, however, where international reserves do not wobble in line with electoral cycles. The researchers reckon that central banks in developed countries have greater autonomy and are able to resist the executive’s demands to manipulate the currency. That is grist to the argument that democracy functions better with more institutional constraints on politicians’ behaviour.

But checks and balances cannot solve every problem. Electoral cycles can have effects even on the most independent-minded institution of all—the judiciary. A 2013 study of 293,868 cases from 1950-2007 from the United States Courts of Appeals, whose members are presidential appointees, shows that judges’ behaviour changes dramatically as votes approach: instances of partisan voting and dissent both double in the quarters leading up to a presidential election. The researchers rule out the possibility that changes in the judges’ cases could account for these shifts: their explanation is that judges are being primed by the environment around them to behave in a more partisan way. Changes in behaviour are concentrated in states that matter more to the outcome of the election and where campaign advertising is heaviest. They are also influenced by the tightness of the race, being particularly marked ahead of close elections and non-existent in landslide elections. The inescapable conclusion: democracy would work much better without elections.

Dig deeper:
Why American elections cost so much (Feb 2014)
What's gone wrong with democracy (March 2014)
Assertive new voters will improve Indian democracy (April 2014)

Discover more

Gaza could face a famine by May. What does that mean?

Some parts of the strip are already experiencing “catastrophic hunger”

What is the Islamic State Khorasan Province?

The group that claimed responsibility for the Crocus City Hall attack is a growing threat to Russia—and the West


Will Texas succeed in enforcing its own immigration law?

The state’s latest challenge to the federal government’s powers, SB4, is in limbo