ArticleScientific reports2024
On the robustness of democratic electoral processes to computational propaganda.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- On the robustness of democratic electoral processes to computational propaganda.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
There is growing evidence of systematic attempts to influence democratic elections by controlled and digitally organized dissemination of fake news. This raises the question of the intrinsic robustness of democratic electoral processes against external influences. Particularly interesting is to identify the social characteristics of a voter population that renders it more resilient against opinion manipulation. Equally important is to determine which of the existing democratic electoral systems is more robust to external influences. Here we construct a mathematical electoral model to address these two questions. We find that, not unexpectedly, biased electorates with clear-cut elections are overall quite resilient against opinion manipulations, because inverting the election outcome requires to change the opinion of many voters. More interesting are unbiased or weakly biased electorates with close elections. We find that such populations are more resilient against opinion manipulations (i) if they are less polarized and (ii) when voters interact more with each other, regardless of their opinion differences, and that (iii) electoral systems based on proportional representation are generally the most robust. Our model qualitatively captures the volatility of the US House of Representatives elections. We take this as a solid validation of our approach.
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.