Elections

Electoral systems vary from country to country in their voting mechanism and canvassing processes. However, disinformation narratives around elections are essentially the same, and adapt to the particularities of local contexts. During a campaign, false surveys are predominant, as well as the alleged support of public figures and manufactured or manipulated claims made by candidates. Around election day, content is circulating that aims to confuse voters about how, where, and with what documents they can vote. And throughout the way, allegations of fraud are constant, and at every stage new evidence emerges to support claims of manipulation: voting mechanisms, canvassing, and results.

1. Claims exposing election fraud

---

Allegations of election fraud are one of the most widespread and persistent disinformation narratives. They tend to occur in most countries and at every stage of the process: before, during, and after voting. Their mechanism is usually the same: to take one specific element of the electoral system and present it as evidence of an organized manipulation without having any evidence to support that claim, either because the evidence presented is false or because the element in question, even if it is real, does not in itself constitute proof of fraud. What changes from country to country is the element on which the allegation is based, which varies according to the particularities of each local system.

Common Aspects of the Electoral Process or Minor Irregularities Interpreted as Evidence of Fraud

---

Narratives that present small irregularities or mistakes as proof of systematic manipulation. It is also common to see content that exploits people’s lack of knowledge about the voting process to present routine matters as evidence of fraud. 

Some examples are the claims that:

• allege fraud based on errors in voting records or glitches in provisional canvassing systems. These issues are normal during the process, but they are presented as if the preliminary results were final. 
• claim that ballot boxes with torn seals are proof of fraud, when in fact these are not security seals. 
• claim that the ballot boxes come with votes already inside, when in fact they contain the materials needed for voting.

Alleged Theft or Destruction of Ballots and/or Election Records

---

Reports alleging the disappearance, theft, or destruction of election records as part of a scheme to alter the results in favor of or against certain candidates.

To support these false reports, they usually rely on audiovisual material that was taken out of context, either because it belongs to other situations or moments, or because it refers to other types of documents that are not valid for voting.

Questions About Voting Mechanisms

---

Publications that question the reliability of voting systems. These tend to circulate more widely when changes are made to the voting mechanism or when part of the population is unfamiliar with it.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that:

• electronic voting, canvassing or result-transmission systems may have been hacked or manipulated to change the results. 
• electronic voting systems experience malfunctions and usability problems, therefore they are not trustworthy.
• in countries where paper ballots are used, erasable pens or ballpoint pens are provided so that votes can be changed after voting.

Deceased Individuals Listed on Voter Records as Alleged Evidence of Fraud

---

Narratives that claim that deceased individuals appear as active voters, or that someone voted on their behalf.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that:

• voter registration lists are manipulated because they include deceased individuals. However, it is common for people who died after the voter registration deadline to still appear on voter registration lists, given the time that elapses before the election.
• deceased individuals may have voted because they are not listed as “offenders” in the records.
• the names of disappeared detainees were included on the voter registration list for fraudulent purposes, when in fact their inclusion was intended as a tribute.

Alleged Participation of Non-Authorized Migrants in Elections as Evidence of Fraud

---

Narratives that point to the participation of people without the right to vote in elections as evidence of organized manipulation. They generally target migrants, who are falsely accused of voting without meeting the country’s legal requirements. 

Some narratives also claim—falsely—that electoral bodies are issuing credentials or authorization documents to migrants that do not meet the residency requirements to vote.

2. Narratives that discredit electoral authorities

---

Unlike allegations of fraud, which take a specific element of the process and present it as evidence of manipulation, these narratives directly target election officials: they question their legitimacy, impartiality or ability to make decisions. They are usually supported by false claims about the abilities, behavior or trajectory of the electoral body and its members. They often go hand in hand with allegations of fraud and reinforce one another: discrediting officials can make any other accusation of manipulation more credible.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that:

• the electoral body operates beyond the scope of its authorized functions or makes decisions intended to harm a particular political party. 
• authorities hide information about the systems being used for canvassing and distort the way results are presented.

3. Narratives that threaten electoral participation

---

These claims share the same objective: to reduce effective electoral participation. They do this by confusing voters about the documentation required to vote, thus leading them to cast a vote that will later be voided, or by simply discouraging them from going to the polls.

Disinformation Aimed at Invalidating Votes

---

Posts that spread false instructions on how to vote, which, if followed, result in the vote being invalidated without the voter’s knowledge.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that:

• you can vote for more than one candidate for the same position.
• you must announce your vote out loud, which can actually result in the vote being annulled.
• you must cross out the candidate that you do not want to vote for, even though doing so would actually count as a vote for that candidate.

Disinformation about Voting Requirements

---

Posts that spread false information about the requirements needed to cast a vote: what documents are valid, at what times and in what locations. They want voters to be misinformed so they can’t participate.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that: 

• there are some places where anyone in the country can vote, even if they do not have the required documents.
• Election Day has changed its date, the voting period has been extended, or certain days or times are listed as available for voting when in fact they are not.

Disinformation Aimed at Discouraging Participation

---

Claims that want to confuse or scare voters so they do not cast a vote or believe that it is not necessary to do it.

Some examples are the claims that falsely assure that: 

• there are restrictions on entering the polling place, such as bringing a cell phone.
• polling places do not have security forces and can therefore be unsafe.
• there is no need to vote in a runoff election if you already voted in the first round, since that vote would be automatically counted.

4. Narratives that create trends or false results

---

Narratives that seek to create the impression of who is winning before the polls close, with the potential to influence voters’ decisions. It can be spread either before or during election day, and they usually resemble the format of legitimate sources (surveys or media outlets) to give credibility to false content.

Some examples are the claims that:

• publish polls with fabricated voting intentions or attributed to nonexistent polling firms.
• use real polls but take them out of context, by changing the date or the time period to which they refer, to suggest false trends or cast doubt on the reliability of current measurements.
• share false exit polls or exit surveys attributed to real polling firms while voting is still underway.
• spread alleged partial results of overseas voting before polls are closed.
• present data from prediction platforms, such as Polymarket, as if they were representative voting intention polls.

5. Narratives about political parties and/or candidates

---

Political figures are frequent targets of misinformation, but this type of content intensifies during election campaigns. Among the most common are fabricated or manipulated claims or statements, false facts about their background, false diagnoses of illnesses or disabilities, questions about their nationality and/or legal eligibility, and fabricated links to controversial figures, drug trafficking, acts of corruption, or foreign intelligence agencies. Artificial Intelligence is now a key tool to fabricate evidence that makes these accusations more realistic.

False Endorsements and/or Rejections of Candidates

---

Posts that seek to feign support for or opposition to a candidate or party, with the aim of creating a false sense of legitimacy or popular rejection.

They usually involve celebrities, by using different manipulation formats: from edited pictures to fake songs or videos generated with AI. 

Artificial intelligence is also used to generate images of supposed citizens rejecting or condemning a candidate or expressing gratitude for measures implemented during a government administration.

False Announcements of Withdrawal from the Election

---

Posts featuring candidates or party leaders announcing a candidate’s withdrawal in the days leading up to an election, with the aim of discouraging their voters or redirecting their votes toward another political party. Artificial intelligence is often used to create the videos for these ads in order to make them more realistic.