The second of four panels of the “America Votes 2024” series featured critical reflections on the reliability of forecasting models, declining trust in American elections, and reforms to combat polarization. Moderated by Michael Tomz, the William Bennett Munro Professor in Political Science and Chair of Stanford’s Department of Political Science, the panel featured Stanford scholars Brandice Canes-Wrone, Justin Grimmer, and Larry Diamond, each drawing on their research to address the complexities shaping the 2024 election. The “America Votes 2024” series is co-organized by CDDRL, the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, and the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences.

In a recent CDDRL seminar series talk, UVA Associate Professor of Politics Anne Meng shared her research on global patterns of presidential election concessions. Her study underscores the crucial yet often overlooked role of election concessions in democracies.

Meng emphasized the vitality of concessions in facilitating peaceful transfers of power, an essential element for the functioning of democracy. When losing candidates concede defeat, they validate the election results and contribute to a smooth transition of power. Despite their significance, systematic data on post-election concessions worldwide has been limited. Meng’s research seeks to fill this gap by presenting a comprehensive dataset tracking presidential election concessions from 1980 to 2020 across 107 countries.

Encompassing both democratic and autocratic regimes, the dataset includes 638 election observations, wherein concessions are categorized into three distinct groups:

1. Strong concessions (losing candidates explicitly admit defeat)
2. Weak concessions (vague statements regarding defeat)
3. No concession (candidates either refuse to concede or make no statement at all).

Meng’s analysis unveiled significant patterns in concession behavior across different political systems. In established democracies, losing candidates typically concede, while “no concession” outcomes are more prevalent in autocratic regimes. When incumbents lose, they are more likely to concede than opposition candidates who lose, a finding that may run contrary to perceptions of incumbents. However, incumbents are less likely to lose elections in the first place.

Meng's study underscores the connection between election integrity and the likelihood of concessions. When the fairness of an election is in doubt, opposition candidates may justifiably withhold concessions to avoid legitimizing an unfair process. Furthermore, the study found that strong concessions correlate with fewer post-election protests and acts of violence, suggesting a potential link between concessions and the stability of power transitions. Meng cautioned, however, that the causal relationship remains unclear, indicating the need for further research to ascertain whether concessions directly reduce unrest or if other factors, such as election integrity, are at play.

Meng identified several factors influencing whether a losing candidate concedes. Candidate characteristics significantly impact concession behavior; for instance, incumbents and successors tend to concede more often. In contrast, factors like gender and ideology do not significantly affect the likelihood of conceding. Additionally, the specifics of the election play a role: concessions are more likely when the victory margin falls between 5% and 10%. Overall, losing candidates in democracies are generally more willing to concede than those in autocratic systems. Notably, Meng's research suggests that past concessions do not guarantee future ones, revealing challenges in establishing consistent democratic norms.

In her conclusion, Meng emphasized that while election concessions generally reflect the health of democracy, their absence can mirror legitimate concerns about unfair elections. This complexity calls for a reevaluation of how we understand concessions, emphasizing the need to consider underlying narratives of election quality and integrity.

The first of four panels of the “America Votes 2024: Stanford Scholars on the Election’s Most Critical Questions” series examined the changing political and global landscape shaping the upcoming U.S. presidential and congressional elections. The panelists shed light on the challenges of election administration, shifts in campaign strategies due to polarization, and the global context animating the election. Moderated by Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), the panel featured Stanford scholars Shanto Iyengar, Beatriz Magaloni, and Nathaniel Persily. The “America Votes 2024” series is co-organized by CDDRL, the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, and the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences.

Evolving Election Administration and Oversight

The 2024 election will differ significantly from previous cycles, said Nathaniel Persily, the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at FSI. That is due to changes in the legal landscape, a shift in the social media environment, and ongoing threats to election officials.

Persily noted that many election officials have resigned due to rising threats. Changes like the Electoral Count Reform Act have impacted the certification process, and the decline of the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) has affected voter registration accuracy. Persily raised concerns about how social media platforms have restricted access to election monitoring tools, like CrowdTangle, further complicating election oversight.

While new Artificial Intelligence tools are playing a growing role in content moderation on social media, they have limited reach, especially on popular platforms like TikTok. Persily pointed out that misinformation is a continuing concern, with conspiracy theories around mail-in ballots, poll watcher interference, and vote-counting delays potentially undermining public trust. However, he expressed some optimism, indicating that early voting could help election officials proactively address issues before Election Day and that the use of paper ballots in most states will add a layer of security.

In a weekly research seminar, CDDRL's Einstein-Moos Postdoctoral Fellow Julieta Casas explored the varied paths of civil service reform in the Americas during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Her research emphasized the significant impact of patronage systems, particularly the practices surrounding employee dismissals, on the success or failure of these reform efforts.

Patronage systems were frameworks in which government jobs and resources were allocated based on loyalty to political leaders rather than solely merit or qualifications. Although many countries in the Americas operated under such systems during this historical period, the mode of bureaucratic management differed greatly across contexts. The United States and Argentina had similar patronage systems after independence but diverged after the rise of mass politics. That divergence helps us understand why the United States successfully moved to a merit-based civil service system while Argentina encountered significant difficulties in making similar changes.

Casas argued that the practices related to employee dismissals were pivotal in influencing the momentum of reform movements. In the United States, public servants were often dismissed following elections, leading to a significant number of fired employees and job seekers who self-selected out of applying to jobs in the public administration due to the uncertainty of tenure. This created widespread dissatisfaction among civil servants, which political entrepreneurs leveraged to push for civil service reform as a way to improve government efficiency.

In contrast, Argentina's patronage system provided considerable job security to public employees, even during political transitions. As a result, Argentine civil servants experienced fewer grievances and were less motivated to push for systemic change. Rather than advocating for a comprehensive overhaul of the bureaucracy, they primarily focused on labor rights, seeking improvements in wages and working conditions. The absence of a constituency autonomous to the state in favor of reform hindered civil service reform efforts in Argentina, making it challenging to garner the necessary political support.

In building this case, Casas employed diverse methods, utilizing original archival evidence from both the United States and Argentina. She analyzed a variety of archival sources, including civil service reform bills, bureaucratic censuses, government documents, reports from public employee associations, and contemporary accounts, to trace the evolution of bureaucratic and political dynamics, with particular attention to employee turnover before and after the rise of mass politics. Additionally, her quantitative analysis of firing rates and employment trends within the civil service offered a comprehensive understanding of how different patronage systems evolved.

Casas’ research underscored how firing practices within patronage systems significantly shaped divergent trajectories of bureaucratic development across the Americas. The frequent dismissals in the United States created an environment that propelled reform movements forward, while the stable employment conditions in Argentina dampened the drive for professionalization. Her findings provided valuable insights into the complexities of bureaucratic reform, highlighting the critical role of personnel management in determining the success or failure of efforts to professionalize government institutions.

Yesterday, the National Academy of Public Administration — an independent nonprofit organization established in 1967 to assist government leaders in building more effective, efficient, accountable, and transparent organizations — announced that Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, was among the leaders selected for the 2024 Class of Academy Fellows. This prestigious honor places Dr. Fukuyama among an elite group of leaders in the field of public administration who collectively provide expert insights on governance and policy challenges.

In a press release, Terry Gerton, President and CEO of the Academy, shared, “The 2024 class of Academy Fellows reflects a wide range of professional experience, including dedicated civil servants and accomplished academics. These 42 leaders will be an enormous asset to the Academy in the years ahead, and we look forward to working with all of them to help create a bright future for our country.”

The 2024 Class of Academy Fellows consists of 42 distinguished individuals, including public administrators, scholars, business leaders, and former government officials. The rigorous selection process involves nominations by current Fellows, followed by a comprehensive review of each nominee’s professional achievements and contributions to public administration. Dr. Fukuyama and his fellow inductees will be officially welcomed during the Academy’s annual Fall Meeting, which will be held November 13-15, 2024, in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Fukuyama is a political scientist internationally known for his influential work on the development of political order and the concept of liberal democracy. His selection as a Fellow reflects not only his scholarly achievements but also his ongoing efforts to address some of the most pressing governance challenges facing democracies around the world.

In a statement to the Academy, he shared, “I am very interested in civil service reform, and the question dealt with by the Academy concerning agility in government. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this is an issue that needs to be addressed; it is particularly critical given the changing technological environment within which the government works.”

One of Dr. Fukuyama’s current projects is a working group to protect and reform the U.S. civil service, formed in response to plans elaborated in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 to strip civil service protections from all federal workers and replace them with political loyalists in a future administration. “I believe that the revival of Schedule F proposed in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 constitutes a severe threat to the future of a merit-based public service and needs to be engaged directly by the Academy and other bodies concerned with good governance.”