Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I say who wrote them.
Lehoucq and Molina. 2002. Stuffing the ballot box: Fraud, election reform, and democratization in Costa Rica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Why would a government pass laws to eliminate its ability to commit electoral fraud?
Costa Rica over a 50 year period, during which their were four major efforts to reform electoral laws.
The model seems similar to Geddes's "Politician's Dilemma." Electoral reforms have long-term benefits, but electoral fraud has short-term benefits. This creates a prisoner's dilemma. Any party that gets into power by cheating fears it will lose power by eliminating cheating.
So when does electoral reform occur? From pages 11-12:
Upper classes dominate society and use fraud to maintain their dominance. Thus, fraud is most frequent in places with higher social and ethnic stratification. Expect fraud in peripheral areas where poor and minority voters live.
Fraud occurs where competition is most intense, in response to political desires to get in office. And the intensity of competition depends on political and institutional factors in each area.
Since there are not major social cleavages that are politically salient, politics in Costa Rica is all about controlling the executive and doling out pork. Thus, fraud and violence have become characteristic features of elections.
Although there were interests in reforming electoral laws from 1910 to 1914 (when the PR majorly controlled the legislature), it ended up passing only direct elections, not other reforms (previously, presidents were selected by an electoral college, not direct elections). Why? Because one of the PR factions did not want to make the next [presidential] election riskier than it already would be. Passing the direct elections reform is an "efficient" (as opposed to "redistributive") reform--it affects all parties' ability to commit fraud equally. Since direct elections was the only proposed reform that was "efficient," only it passed.
The switch from an electoral college to direct presidential elections reduced the ability of incumbents to influence selection of the next president. Fraud was rarely a major determinant of outcomes, though in 1923 two PR-dominated Provincial Electoral Councils managed to annul a small number of votes, sending two additional PR members to Congress, and giving the PR a narrow majority in Congress. Since no presidential candidate had won an absolute majority, the Congress got to select the next president from among the front-runners--and as a result, the PR candidate won.
In an effort to legitimize his contested rise to the presidency, the winner in 1923 (Jimenez) pressed Congress to pass electoral reforms. He succeeded in passing a secret ballot. Toward the end of his term, he also succeeded in passing a state-printed (Australian) ballot. Both reforms occurred because Jimenez succeeded in manipulating a narrowly divided Congress; he also "went public," using the media to pressure legislators to go along.
All these electoral reforms led parties and machines to seek new ways of influencing elections. Ironically, the electoral laws caused parties to turn to increasingly hard-handed and blatant tactics: intimidation, violence, false identification cards, etc.
Although President Picado was widely suspected of gaining the presidency (1944-8) because of his party's fraud, he soon endorsed a far-reaching Electoral Code (1946). He pushed against the main faction of his party (in Congress) and assembled a coalition to pass the reforms. These reforms probably would not have passed if not for the treat of civil war that hung over the country. Fearing civil war more than a loss of political power, reluctant legislators signed on.
The opposition won the next election, and civil war broke out. Oddly, the 1946 reforms may have actually allowed the opposition to fraudulently win, thus causing the war. At the end of the war, much stronger reforms were passed to protect elections.
Research on similar subjects