Advertisement

Vote Buying Detection via Independent Component Analysis

  • Antonio NemeEmail author
  • Omar Neme
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9897)

Abstract

Electoral fraud can be committed along several stages. Different tools have been applied to detect the existence of such undesired actions. One particular undesired activity is that of vote-buying. It can be thought of as an economical influence of a candidate over voters that in other circumstances could have decided to vote for a different candidate, or not to vote at all. Instead, under this influence, some citizens cast their votes for the suspicious candidate. We propose in this contribution that intelligent data analysis tools can be of help in the identification of this undesired behavior. We think of the results obtained in the affected ballots as a mixture of two signals. The first signal is the number of votes for the suspicious candidate, which includes his/her actual supporters and the voters affected by an economic influence. The second mixed signal is the number of citizens that did not vote, which is affected also by the bribes or economic incentives. These assumptions allows us to apply an instance of blind source separation, independent component analysis, in order to reconstruct the original signals, namely, the actual number of voters the candidate may have had and the actual number of no voters. As a case of study we applied the proposed methodology to the case of presidential elections in Mexico in 2012, obtained by analyzing public data. Our results are consistent with the findings of inconsistencies through other electoral forensic means.

Keywords

Independent Component Analysis Independent Component Analysis Blind Source Separation Reconstructed Signal Mixed Signal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ball, P.: Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Galam, S.: Application of statistical physics to politics. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 274, 132–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costa Filho, R.N., Almeida, M.P., Moreira, J.E., Andrade Jr., J.S.: Brazilian elections: voting for a424 scaling democracy. Phys. A 322, 698–700 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fortunato, S.: Physics peeks into the ballot box. Phys. Today 65(10), 74–76 (2012). doi: 10.1063/PT.3.1761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvarez, R.M., Hall, T., Hyde, S.: Election Fraud. Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vicente, P., Wantchekon, L.: Clientelism and vote buying: lessons fromfield experiments in African elections. Oxford Rev. Economicpolicy 25(2), 292–305 (2009). doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grp018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Taibo, P.I. II, Poniatowska, E., Diaz-Polanco, H., Mejia-Madrid, F., Vasconcelos, H., Martinez, S., Miguel, P., Ramirez-Cuevas, J., Suarez del Real, J.A.: Fraude 2012. In: Para Leer en Libertad AC (ed.) Movimiento de Regeneracion Nacional (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ribando Seelke, C.: Mexico 2012 Elections. Congressional Research Service 2012, 7-7500 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diekmann, A., Jann, B.: Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection: Facts and Legends (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deckert, J., Myagkov, M., Ordeshook, P.: Benfords law and the detection of election fraud. Polit. 427 Anal. 19, 245–268 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klimek, P., Yegorovb, Y., Hanela, R., Thurner, S.: Statistical detection of systematic election 430 irregularities. In: PNAS 2012, pp. 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vergara, R.: Elección Comprada: el Escándalo Peña Nieto-Soriana. Revista Proceso. 7 de Julio de 2012. http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=313518. Retrieved on 9 July 2012
  14. 14.
    Hernández, J.: Astillero, diario La Jornada. Consulted on 8 July 2012. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/06/11/opinion/004o1pol
  15. 15.
    Hyvärinen, A., Karhunen, J., Oja, E.: Independent Component Analysis. Wiley, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hyvärinen A. Independent component analysis: recent advances. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hyvarinen, A.: Fast and robust fixed-point algorithms for independent component analysis. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 10(3), 626–634 (1999). doi: 10.1109/72.761722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone, J.: Independent Analysis Component: A Tutorial Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choi, S., Cichocki, A., Park, H., Lee, S.Y.: Blind source separation. Neural Inf. Process. Lett. Rev. 6(1), 1–57 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin, I., Pomares, J., Alvarez, R.M.: Using machine learning algorithms to detect election fraud. Alvarez, R.M. (Ed.) Computational Social Science: Discovery and Prediction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nichter, S.: Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102(1), 19–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Comon, P., Jutten, C.: Handbook of Blind Source Separation. Independent Component Analysis and Applications. Academic Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BiomedicineUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Instituto Politécnico NacionalEscuela Superior de EconomiaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations