[In-Depth Look] Swing Voter and Election Crimes

Professor Kim Do-woo, Department of Police Science, College of Public Talent, Gyeongnam National University

The 20th presidential election of the Republic of Korea is just a few days away. With an extremely close race, the election campaigns among candidates vying for the support of moderate and undecided voters appear more intense than ever. Such excessive competition can potentially lead some supporters to commit election crimes such as spreading false information, slander, and black propaganda against rival leading candidates. Supporting this, among the election crime cases detected by the National Police Agency on the 22nd, ‘spreading false information’ accounted for the largest portion at 77.5% (420 people).

Election crimes refer to various violations committed by candidates, related persons, or voters during the election process, which breach election-related laws and undermine the fairness of elections. These illegal acts are subject to criminal prosecution. Among them, the election crimes prioritized for police crackdowns include ‘bribery’, ‘government officials’ election interference’, ‘spreading false information’, ‘election violence’, and ‘illegal mobilization of groups’.

The causes of election crimes are diverse. Ultimately, since only some candidates win while others lose according to the principle of elections, such crimes occur more frequently when candidates are uncertain of their victory or are at a disadvantage in opinion polls. A bigger problem is that even when most people witness or experience election crimes during the process, they tend to regard them as trivial. This stems from the belief that the impact of election crimes does not directly affect ordinary citizens, thus perceiving the social risk as low.

Moreover, the influence of the swing vote on candidates grows stronger as the election becomes more competitive. Called the swing vote because it represents voters whose minds are swayed, it mainly refers to undecided voters without a preferred party or candidate. Swing voters cast their ballots based on the political situation, key policies, and atmosphere at the time of the election. According to the rational choice theory principle that crime is chosen when its benefits outweigh its costs, candidates desperate to win may be more easily tempted by election crimes in uncertain situations, grasping at straws.

However, the types of election crimes are not limited to merely obstructing rival candidates to win. As seen in past cases, election offenders are often closely linked to corruption crimes. Large sums of illicit money may circulate to secure the massive funds needed during the election process. In particular, inappropriate personnel appointments made by elected officials after the election as a form of reward can also be broadly considered election crimes. The problem is that although election crimes seriously undermine the essence of democracy and have widespread effects before and after elections, they are still regarded as crimes occurring only temporarily during the election process, thus receiving little public attention and continuing in various forms to this day.

To protect the freedom and fairness of elections, institutional measures such as the ‘Public Official Election Act’, the ‘Election Crime Reporting Reward System’, the ‘Special Act on the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds’, and the ‘Prohibition of Government Officials’ Election Interference’ have been established. Nevertheless, many people try to align themselves with campaigns during elections, thinking of the various benefits candidates may receive after winning. The root cause of election crimes lies less in the election process itself and more in the covert transactions and rewards received afterward. Therefore, to fundamentally eradicate election crimes, it is necessary to invalidate the election of unsuitable candidates from the outset and to extend the scope of election crimes to include post-election acts such as parachute appointments that raise suspicions of preferential treatment.

Kim Do-woo, Professor, Department of Police Science, College of Public Talent, Gyeongnam National University