Somebody out there in academia should really do a study of how various authoritarian states throughout history have continued to organize elections, despite a glaring lack of democracy.  For some, the election has always been an exercise in mockery – leaders such as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Saddam Hussein always seemed to enjoy impossible margins of victory with over 90% of the vote in their favor.  Other countries, which may be described less as authoritarian and more like adjective-laden democracies, practice a much more subtle manipulation of the process – often focused on barring any competition and other measures to skew the level playing field – and end up with more reasonable, yet always predictable, margins of victory.

Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela, for example, may have mastered the art of rigging elections without having to tamper with the vote – simply remove all checks and balances, campaign with the full resources of the state, use the judiciary to arrest opponents, and disqualify any other candidates who pose the biggest threat (such as Leopoldo Lopez).  Other countries, such as Singapore, play up an impressive democracy facade while laying down a brutal and draconian legal assault against even the smallest protest or attempt by the people to participate in the democratic practice, with Dr. Chee Soon Juan being one of the primary victims.