variables: 900208

This table contains all the variables of all the datasets we have at Our World In Data. Note that this includes only the information about the variables like name and default display settings, not the data itself.

Data license: CC-BY

This data as json

id name unit description createdAt updatedAt code coverage timespan datasetId sourceId shortUnit display columnOrder originalMetadata grapherConfigAdmin shortName catalogPath dimensions schemaVersion processingLevel processingLog titlePublic titleVariant attributionShort attribution descriptionShort descriptionFromProducer descriptionKey descriptionProcessing licenses license grapherConfigETL type sort dataChecksum metadataChecksum
900208 Free and fair elections (best estimate) (re-estimate)     2024-04-23 09:13:01 2024-07-25 23:14:02     1789-2023 6481     
{
    "numDecimalPlaces": 0
}
 0     electfreefair_row__estimate_best grapher/democracy/2024-03-07/vdem/vdem_multi_without_regions#electfreefair_row__estimate_best 
{
    "filters": [
        {
            "name": "estimate",
            "value": "best"
        }
    ],
    "originalName": "Free and fair elections (best estimate) (re-estimate)",
    "originalShortName": "electfreefair_row"
}
 2     Free and fair elections (best estimate)     Best estimate of whether national elections were free and fair or not. Question: Taking all aspects of the pre-election period, election day, and the post-election process into account, would you consider this national election to be free and fair? Clarification: The only thing that should not be considered in coding this is the extent of suffrage (by law). Thus, a free and fair election may occur even if the law excludes significant groups (an issue measured separately). Responses: 0: No, not at all. The elections were fundamentally flawed and the official results had little if anything to do with the 'will of the people' (i.e., who became president; or who won the legislative majority). 1: Not really. While the elections allowed for some competition, the irregularities in the end affected the outcome of the election (i.e., who became president; or who won the legislative majority). 2: Ambiguous. There was substantial competition and freedom of participation but there were also significant irregularities. It is hard to determine whether the irregularities affected the outcome or not (as defined above). 3: Yes, somewhat. There were deficiencies and some degree of fraud and irregularities but these did not in the end affect the outcome (as defined above). 4: Yes. There was some amount of human error and logistical restrictions but these were largely unintentional and without significant consequences. Scale: Ordinal, converted to interval by the measurement model. 
[]
 We employ Lührmann et al.'s criteria and use a threshold of 2 to classify the original indicator (`v2elfrfair_osp*`) into two categories: 0 ("No") and 1 ("Yes"). While RoW covers the years since 1900, we use V-Dem's historical data from 1789 to 1899 to expand the classification's coverage back in time. We expand the years covered by V-Dem further: To expand the time coverage of today's countries and include more of the period when they were still non-sovereign territories, we identified the historical entity they were a part of and used that regime's data whenever available For example, V-Dem only provides regime data since Bangladesh's independence in 1971. There is, however, regime data for Pakistan and the colony of India, both of which the current territory of Bangladesh was a part. We, therefore, use the regime data of Pakistan for Bangladesh from 1947 to 1970, and the regime data of India from 1789 to 1946. We did so for all countries with a past or current population of more than one million.       int 
[]
 5b3b3cc030b9e17593db68ca7d898c0f 494de8955b530963a9ecf2628e9f43e8

Links from other tables