ArticleHeliyon2023
Baseline comparative analysis and review of election forensics: Application to Ghana's 2012 and 2020 presidential elections.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many allegations have been levelled against the electoral process of many countries across the world by most opposition leaders, especially when they lose a presidential election e.g. Ghana in 2012 and 2020. Therefore, the need to apply election forensic techniques to the certified election results data of valid votes count to statistically verify if some suspected or possible anomalies and irregularities exist in the voting pattern. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive review of election forensics techniques and make a comparative analysis of Benford's Second-order test of conformity (using the first two digits) and Hartigans' dip test of unimodality to examine the existence of possible anomalies and irregularities in the 2012 and 2020 presidential elections held in Ghana. The findings of the two tests suggest that the electoral process produced possible anomalous data in the 2012 presidential election results (with an overall 16.67% suspected anomalies), whilst possible non-anomalous data was produced in the 2020 presidential election results (with an overall 0% suspected anomaly) of valid votes count. Therefore, the study recommends that for better statistical data analysis on election anomaly detection, Benford's test of conformity and Hartigans' dip test of unimodality should serve as baseline tests (initial screening tools), highlighting areas that may require further investigation or more rigorous analysis and progressively dig deeper into the application of finite mixture fraud models and machine learning techniques. In spite of the promising results Benford's Law, dip test, machine learning algorithms, and network analysis have produced in detecting irregularities in election data, real-world applications remain challenging, particularly when dealing with complex and evolving forms of fraud. Therefore, there is the need for continuous research and innovation to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of these methods and promote transparency and accountability in democratic societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.