IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsaxx/v37y2021i1p65-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smart enough to make a difference? An empirical test of the efficacy of strategic voting in Russia’s authoritarian elections

Author

Listed:
  • Mikhail Turchenko
  • Grigorii V. Golosov

Abstract

This article uses a unique dataset from the September 2019 municipal elections in St. Petersburg in order to examine empirically the efficacy of strategic voting under authoritarianism, as manifest in the effects of the “smart vote campaign” of Alexei Navalny in Russia. The analysis allows for the conclusion that the campaign, while technically similar to the vote advice applications that are now widespread in many democracies, was efficient enough to make a significant difference in the overtly authoritarian context. We demonstrate empirically that Navalny’s call for strategic voting did indeed affect the behavior of the electorate, particularly by improving strategic coordination among opposition-minded voters; that the electoral results of the candidates backed by the “smart vote” campaign tended to be better than the electoral results of other non–United Russia candidates; and that as a result of the “smart vote” campaign, the dominant party’s electoral results deteriorated quite visibly.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikhail Turchenko & Grigorii V. Golosov, 2021. "Smart enough to make a difference? An empirical test of the efficacy of strategic voting in Russia’s authoritarian elections," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 65-79, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsaxx:v:37:y:2021:i:1:p:65-79
    DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2020.1796386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1796386
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1796386?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsaxx:v:37:y:2021:i:1:p:65-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpsa .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.