Election Integrity Database
The truth about elections, held to a single standard.
Elections documented, attacked, and defended — with proven falsification kept strictly apart from interference, propaganda, and mere anomaly. Every finding is tiered by the strength of its evidence.
- 62
- elections
- 20
- operations
- 395
- sources
Database last updated August 29, 2026
Research tools
Interrogate the evidence, not just the headlines
Ask precise questions, compare cases, trace documented relationships, inspect change over time, and reuse the underlying data.
Evidence Lab
Build a transparent question and inspect every matching case.
Investigations
Short, curated paths through cases and primary evidence.
Compare
Compare the evidence fingerprints of three elections.
Network
Walk from a case to its findings, sources and related records.
Country Twins
Find countries with comparable voting rules and safeguards.
Time Machine
See when records entered the public database and changed.
Timeline
Documented cases in chronological order.
Statistics
The corpus counted, compared and charted.
Open Data
Bulk exports and a read-only API, CC BY 4.0.
The database at a glance
Documented findings by category
Documented cases over time
2019–2027 · 68 of 82
Five categories, never conflated
The difference between these is the whole point. An attacked election is not the same as a falsified one.
The recorded numbers do not reflect the votes cast.
Process violationsUnequal media access, repression, illegal financing, vote buying, misuse of state resources.
Foreign interferenceCyberattacks, hack-and-leak, covert foreign financing, impersonation of media or institutions by a foreign state or proxy.
Information operationsTroll farms, fake local-media networks, covert political ads, coordinated inauthentic amplification — foreign or domestic.
Statistical anomaliesPatterns in the data worth examining — explicitly not proof of fraud.
A finding sits in exactly one category. Colors and icons carry the same meaning everywhere on the site.
From the case files
What was proven — and what was not
The clearest test of a trustworthy record is whether it can hold both statements at once.
Austria 2016 Presidential Election
What is established
- Process violationsConfirmed
The Constitutional Court annulled the 22 May run-off because postal ballots had been evaluated unlawfully in 14 districts and the electoral authority had released partial results to media before polls closed.
Sources:1 - Process violationsConfirmed
The infringements concerned more than 77,769 postal votes, exceeding the 30,863-vote margin. Under settled case law an election is annulled once an anti-manipulation safeguard is breached in a way that could have influenced the result — no proof of actual manipulation is required.
Sources:1
What is not established
- Result falsificationDebunked
That the election was “rigged” or falsified — not established. The Court found no fraud or manipulation, the challenge itself alleged none, and the re-run returned the same winner.
Sources:1 - Result falsificationDebunked
That the irregularities actually changed who won — not established. Annulment followed from the mere possibility that the violations could have influenced the result, not from a finding that they did.
Sources:1
Method
Why you can trust this
No source, no claim. The same taxonomy and evidence bar applies to every country, party, and government — including Western democracies.
Read the methodologyAcademy
Learn how elections actually work
How votes are counted and verified, why interference is not the same as fraud, and how to check a viral claim yourself.
Enter the AcademyUpdates
Recently added and revised
- ElectionArgentina 2023 General Election
- ElectionBosnia and Herzegovina 2022 General Election
- ElectionBulgaria 2024 October Parliamentary Election
- ElectionBolivia 2019 General Election
- ElectionGuatemala 2023 General Election