THE HEARING / CURRENT CASE ORIENTATION AND PLAIN TERMS GENERAL GLOSSARY Advantage A resource, rule, position or opportunity that makes it easier for one actor to pursue a goal. It does not guarantee success. Analogy A comparison used to probe an explanation. Identify the relevant similarity and difference; a comparison that does not fit may show where the original claim must stop. Ballots, valid votes and seats Invented example: 100 ballots include 10 invalid ballots, and 45 support List A. That is 45% of all ballots and 50% of 90 valid votes. Neither number is a seat share; seat allocation needs further rules. This does not reconstruct any case result. Baseline The earlier situation or reference you compare with. If a source does not record it, do not invent it; say which part of the comparison you infer. Civil forfeiture complaint A legal request to take and recover assets alleged to be linked to wrongdoing. It records allegations and a legal action, not a criminal conviction or a count of changed votes. Claim-specific limit What a source cannot establish about your own sentence, and how that makes your claim narrower. A true caveat about an unrelated number does not do this job. Coalition or alliance Parties working together. Their membership and leadership can change between elections. Competing account Another possible explanation of the same uncertain link. Both accounts may contribute. A directly recorded rule or event need not be denied; investigate an unresolved why, implementation or wider effect. Complication Evidence your explanation needs to address. It can suggest another explanation, limit what a source shows, or reveal a step you have not explained. It need not disprove everything. Denominator The people, ballots or other items a percentage is out of. In Russia, 80% is out of respondents who said they voted; 94% is out of all respondents. Electoral district An area whose voters choose a representative. A national total can hide how votes are distributed across districts. Electoral list A group of candidates standing together for parliamentary seats. A prominent politician may campaign for a list without being one of its candidates. Electoral threshold The minimum vote share a list normally needs to enter a seat-allocation process. The Serbia file also notes special rules for national-minority lists. Evidence card and original source A card is a short paraphrase in this game, such as MY4. A source ID, such as MY-D, identifies the underlying document, survey or report. Explanatory target The precise event, opportunity or link you are trying to explain, for a named actor and period. A broad country outcome may contain several different targets. Grievance A complaint or reason for dissatisfaction, such as a concern about living costs. Implementation Carrying a decision out. Ordering an election and organizing the actual vote are different steps. Incumbent The person, party, or coalition holding the office or government before the contest being studied. Main case The country you study first and use for your main explanation. You compare it with one other case later. Majority and largest share A majority is more than half of the relevant votes or seats. The largest share, sometimes called a plurality, can be less than half. Malawi concerns valid presidential votes; Malaysia and Serbia also concern parliamentary seats. Misappropriated Money taken or used for a purpose it was not supposed to serve. In MY4 this is an allegation in a legal complaint, not a finding the announcement independently proves. Mobilization Organizing people to act, for example to campaign, protest or vote. A recorded result alone does not tell you how that organizing worked. Observation and inference An observation is what a source records. An inference is the explanation or conclusion you draw from it. Explain the connection instead of treating it as another observed fact. Petition and appeal A petition asks a court for a decision or remedy. An appeal asks a higher court to review a decision. Plurality The largest share among alternatives, which can be below half. An absolute majority is more than half. Check which rule and which unit the case uses. Political actor A person, group or organization taking part in the political story. Courts, parties, candidates and voters can all be actors. Political alternatives Candidates, parties or organized groups offering competing choices for office; not merely different policy ideas. Political option Something a person or group could do, such as enter the ballot, organize a campaign, vote again or challenge a result. It does not mean an answer choice in a menu. Proportional allocation Assigning seats roughly in relation to vote shares, under the system's particular rules. Malaysia's seats in this file were won in separate local district contests. Retrospective account A description written after the events. Ask what the writer observed, what role they had, and which parts are independently checked. Seat One place for an elected representative in a legislature. A majority of 222 seats requires 112 seats. Set aside or annul Cancel the legal effect of a declared result. That does not itself supply a corrected vote count. Source independence Two cards can report different observations from the same document. That is not the same as two independent sources checking a claim. Supporting evidence An observation you use to support a particular step in your explanation. Choose two different observations. Survey respondent A person who answered a survey. Their reported experience is not automatically a record of what other people could do. Ticket and running mate A presidential candidate and the person running alongside them as a team. In Malawi, Chilima ran separately in 2019 and alongside Chakwera in 2020. Turnover A change in who controls the office or government being studied. It does not by itself show that campaigning was equal or reform was complete. Valid votes Votes accepted for a candidate or choice. This total excludes invalid ballots. Check whether a percentage uses valid votes or all ballots cast. RU / Reported backing and restricted routes to challenge Orientation Russia held a presidential election on 15 to 17 March 2024. Vladimir Putin was the sitting president and remained in office. The file includes surveys, attempted candidate entry, opposition organizing and election observation. Your task is to explain a particular action and whose opportunities it affected, while keeping reported support in view. Visible power map holder: National presidency: Vladimir Putin held the office before this contest. challengers: Would-be candidates, opposition organizers and voters; observation bodies sought an independent checking role. routes: Getting onto the ballot, organizing, protesting and monitoring. Reported backing and restricted opportunities can coexist. People and groups Vladimir Putin: Sitting president seeking another term. Boris Nadezhdin: A person who sought to enter the presidential ballot. Navalny and regional organizers: Opposition politicians and networks discussed in the rights report. Levada Center: The organization conducting the surveys. OSCE/ODIHR: International bodies concerned with election observation. Case terms Survey percentages Read the group in the table's Who answered column. A recalled vote, an intended vote and a reported experience are different questions. Candidate registration The process of getting a candidate onto the official ballot. Optional target frames; learner must fill every bracket Ballot entry The ballot-entry opportunity of [name the challenger] in Russia in early 2024 Organizing The organizing opportunity of [name the group] in Russia in [name the period] Reported backing Reported support for Putin among [name the surveyed group] in [name the survey period] Comparison topic index; not preferred answers Ballot entry: RU1 Organizing and protest: RU2, RU5 Reported attitudes: RU4, RU6 Independent observation: RU3 Provided card guidance, not learner analysis RU1 / What the record supports Levada reports a registration refusal alongside limited measured recognition and hypothetical support. Where the claim stops This survey report does not decide whether the registration grounds were legally valid, compare how they were applied to other applicants, or measure an unrestricted campaign. RU2 / What the record supports HRW records reported sentences affecting named opposition organizers before this contest. Where the claim stops The sentences are 2023 background. The report describes restrictions on named organizers; it does not measure how much ability to mount a national challenge was lost before and after them. RU3 / What the record supports The observation bodies state that no invitation was received and no mission could deploy. Where the claim stops The absence of this mission does not measure fabricated votes or sincere support. RU4 / What the record supports The survey records answers from specified respondent groups, including reported fairness and personal pressure. Where the claim stops The survey records reported votes and attitudes from different respondent groups; it is not an official count or an estimate of preferences under open competition. RU5 / What the record supports The rights report records attempts to protest or monitor and the reported detention response. Where the claim stops HRW cites OVD-Info’s detention account. Check whether an original number counts people or detention incidents; those units are not interchangeable. Neither source measures national electoral competitiveness. RU6 / What the record supports The February survey records intended choice among all respondents at that time. Where the claim stops Intended choices were recorded under existing restrictions; this is neither an election forecast nor evidence of preferences under unrestricted competition. MY / Opposition victory despite incumbent advantages Orientation Malaysia elected its 222-member lower house in 2013 and 2018. A governing majority needed 112 seats. The BN coalition won 133 seats in 2013; PH won 113 in 2018. PR and PH were different opposition alliances. Read what changed in leadership, cooperation and campaigning; the seat totals alone do not explain the change. Visible power map holder: BN held national government before May 2018. Government depended on a majority in the 222-seat lower house. challengers: PH challenged BN, with Mahathir as its leading former insider. PR in 2013 and PH in 2018 were different alliances; PAS stayed outside PH. routes: Winning local seats, forming a governing alliance, criticizing authorities and pursuing later reform. MY2 describes legal and registration powers. 2013: BN kept the parliamentary majority; PR was the main opposition alliance. May 2018: PH won 113 seats; its coalition differed from PR and excluded PAS. Warisan’s eight seats were separate. Later in 2018: The reform episode in MY6 followed the election; it cannot cause the earlier victory. People and groups BN / Barisan Nasional: The governing coalition before the 2018 change. PH / Pakatan Harapan: The alliance that won 113 seats in 2018. PR: The different main opposition alliance in 2013. PAS: An opposition party outside PH in 2018. Mahathir and Najib: Mahathir was the former prime minister chosen to lead PH; Najib led the government BN was defending. 1MDB: A Malaysian state investment fund at the center of the allegations described in MY4. Case terms Votes and seats In these elections each local district chose a representative. A national vote majority did not automatically deliver a majority of seats. DOJ / MY-D The U.S. Department of Justice issued the underlying announcement. MY4 is the game card; MY-D is that original source. Late-2018 follow-up MY6 happened after the May election. It can help explain what victory enabled, but cannot cause that earlier victory. Simple-majority voting in these districts Here the candidate with the most votes in a local district wins (plurality), even below half. A majority of parliamentary seats means more than half of all seats. Keep these units separate. Optional target frames; learner must fill every bracket Leadership option The leadership option offered by [name the alliance] in Malaysia’s May 2018 election Campaigning or criticism The campaigning or criticism available to [name the actor] in Malaysia before May 2018 Governing through seats The route from local seats to a governing majority for [name the alliance] in Malaysia in [name the election year] Comparison topic index; not preferred answers Leadership and alliances: MY3, MY5 State powers and criticism: MY2 Votes into seats: MY1 Campaign concerns and allegations: MY4 Later reform: MY6 Provided card guidance, not learner analysis MY1 / What the record supports The recorded vote and seat pattern shows that a national vote majority did not automatically supply a parliamentary majority. Where the claim stops These figures show conversion of recorded votes into seats. They do not by themselves explain the spatial distribution of votes or establish biased district boundaries. MY2 / What the record supports The observer account describes legal and registration powers affecting critics and parties before the election. Where the claim stops Reported restrictions before the election do not measure how many votes they changed or the incumbent’s sincere support. MY3 / What the record supports The election narrative records Mahathir’s realignment and earlier governing experience. Where the claim stops This election narrative describes leadership and cooperation. It does not independently isolate why voters changed their choices. MY4 / What the record supports The documents record campaign concerns and pre-election legal allegations, not measured voter motives. Where the claim stops The DOJ announcement records allegations and legal action, not a conviction or a measure of voter knowledge. The election narrative does not isolate the allegations’ electoral effect. MY5 / What the record supports The narrative and results record changed cooperation, PAS outside PH and PH’s own seat majority. Where the claim stops Distinct alliance observations can share the same IPU narrative. They are not independent checks of a causal effect. MY6 / What the record supports The dated reform episode records opportunities and constraints after the May turnover. Where the claim stops As support, this concerns later reform opportunities and constraints. As a complication, it can limit a claim about what electoral turnover achieved. It cannot cause the May victory. MW / A reopened contest, then a different winner Orientation Mutharika was declared the winner of Malawi's May 2019 presidential election. Two separate challengers asked the courts to review it. A court ordered a fresh vote and the central requirement survived appeal. Institutions then organized the June 2020 election. Chakwera won that vote with Chilima as his running mate. Explain the opportunity to vote again separately from the choice of winner. Visible power map holder: Peter Mutharika was declared the 2019 presidential winner; that election was later set aside. challengers: Chakwera and Chilima challenged the declaration. Courts ordered a fresh contest; Parliament and election administrators helped carry it out. routes: Obtaining another vote, implementing it, and winning it are separate steps. A joint ticket changed the later ballot; it did not itself reopen the contest. May 2019: Mutharika was declared the winner; Chakwera and Chilima challenged the result. February-May 2020: Courts set aside the election, ordered a fresh contest and upheld the central requirement on appeal. June 2020: Institutions implemented the vote, with a changed ticket and participation. Explaining the winner requires a separate argument. People and groups Peter Mutharika: Sitting president declared the 2019 winner. Lazarus Chakwera: A 2019 challenger and winner of the fresh 2020 vote. Saulos Chilima: A separate 2019 candidate and Chakwera's running mate in 2020. MEC: Malawi Electoral Commission, which administered the elections and wrote the reports. Courts and Parliament: Courts decided the legal challenge; Parliament set a fresh polling date. MBC TV: Malawi Broadcasting Corporation television, the public broadcaster monitored in MW1. DPP / MCP: Democratic Progressive Party (Mutharika) / Malawi Congress Party (Chakwera), the parties named in the campaign evidence. Case terms Majority in this case More than half of valid presidential votes. Having the largest share under 50% is a different rule. Two official 2020 publications The commission's later report and its polling-station results give slightly different exact totals. Both give the same shares at one decimal. The full source record keeps both; the reason for the difference is not established. Two questions Why was another contest held? Why did it have a different winner? Evidence can address one step without explaining the other. Optional target frames; learner must fill every bracket Reopening the contest Whether [name the actor] could obtain another presidential contest in Malawi in [name the period] Implementing the fresh vote How [name the institutions] implemented Malawi’s fresh presidential contest in [name the period] A changed ticket The governing choice offered by [name the ticket] in Malawi’s June 2020 vote Comparison topic index; not preferred answers Court challenge and implementation: MW2, MW3, MW5 Television visibility: MW1 Joint ticket: MW4 Reported results and simultaneous changes: MW6 Provided card guidance, not learner analysis MW1 / What the record supports Observers recorded government television favoring the governing party in monitored 2019 airtime. Where the claim stops The figures measure monitored 2019 airtime, not audience size, beliefs or votes; the preliminary report predates final tabulation and court petitions. MW2 / What the record supports The records describe separate challengers bringing legal challenges to the declared result. Where the claim stops These accounts do not reconstruct an irregularity-free count; court details here rely on MEC and scholarly analysis, not directly inspected judgments. MW3 / What the record supports The reports describe the fresh-election order, appeal outcome and majority interpretation. Where the claim stops An invalidation finding, a fresh-election remedy and interpretation of the majority requirement are distinct legal steps. MEC is the retrospective administrator and was an appellant. The linked MW-D legal analysis describes the sequence; original judgments were not directly inspected. This summary does not establish personal responsibility for wrongdoing. MW4 / What the record supports The source describes the joint Chakwera-Chilima ticket offered in the fresh election. Where the claim stops The joint ticket does not track individual 2019 voters into 2020. Chakwera’s reported 2020 share was both above half and the largest share, so the threshold alone would not select a different winner from that count. Any strategic effect on alliances needs separate evidence. MW5 / What the record supports The administrator’s retrospective account describes institutions carrying out the fresh contest. Where the claim stops The administrator’s retrospective report describes implementation. It does not independently establish why institutions complied or the effect of each safeguard. The document-level numerical discrepancy below remains unresolved. MW6 / What the record supports Reported shares differ across two contests, while the winner and several other conditions changed. Where the claim stops These are reported shares in different contests, not tracked preferences of the same voters. The invalidated declaration, turnout, ticket and applied winning rule prevent isolating one cause. RS / Active alternatives in an uneven contest Orientation Serbia's national parliamentary election took place on 17 December 2023. The SNS-led list won 129 of 250 seats, its own majority. Serbia Against Violence won 65 seats. President Vucic campaigned prominently but was not a parliamentary candidate. The historical file ends on 6 February 2024; it does not establish what happened after that window. Visible power map holder: This election chose parliament, not the president. The SNS-led governing list sought parliamentary seats; President Vucic campaigned for it but was not a candidate. challengers: Opposition parties and lists, including Serbia Against Violence, could organize and contest seats. The commission and courts handled challenges. routes: Campaigning, reaching voters, winning seats and seeking remedies. Real alternatives could remain active under unequal conditions. People and groups SNS-led list: The governing electoral list carrying President Vucic's name. Serbia Against Violence: The main opposition alliance in the displayed results. President Vucic: A campaigning president, not a candidate for a parliamentary seat in this contest. ODIHR: The OSCE election-observation office reporting the campaign and results. CINS: The Serbian investigative-journalism organization behind the call-center report. REC: Republic Electoral Commission, the election administrator whose results ODIHR reproduces. Case terms Ordinary news and campaign slots Regular news coverage and designated campaign broadcasts are different forms of television access. The card asks you to keep those observations separate. All ballots cast The displayed vote shares include invalid ballots in their total. Seats are allocated under a different set of rules. Historical window A result or failed challenge within these dates cannot establish that turnover was impossible forever. Dissolve parliament End that parliament’s term so an election can choose a new one. A government’s stated rationale is not independent proof of its democratic effects. Optional target frames; learner must fill every bracket Reaching voters The opportunity for [name the actor] to reach voters through Serbia’s selected news broadcasts in late 2023 Challenging the result The remedy available to [name the actor] in Serbia between December 2023 and February 2024 Converting votes to seats The conversion of votes into parliamentary seats for [name the list] in Serbia’s December 2023 election Comparison topic index; not preferred answers Opposition organization: RS2 News visibility and pressure: RS3, RS4 Challenges and remedies: RS5 Ballots into seats: RS6 Calling the early election: RS1 Provided card guidance, not learner analysis RS1 / What the record supports The government statement records its stated reason for seeking an early election. Where the claim stops A government’s stated rationale does not verify its democratic claims or establish equal campaign conditions. RS2 / What the record supports ODIHR describes active political alternatives and Vucic campaigning without being a parliamentary candidate. Where the claim stops Continued opposition activity does not establish equal conditions. The same observers described systemic incumbent advantages and pressure. RS3 / What the record supports Monitors recorded the distribution and tone of selected broadcast content. Where the claim stops Monitoring covered selected broadcasts and measured content, not equal reach, individual exposure or persuasion. Ordinary news, campaign slots and critical outlets are different observations. RS4 / What the record supports CINS documents recruitment conditions and payments in a particular operation. Where the claim stops This documents one operation, not a criminal conviction or a national estimate of votes changed. RS5 / What the record supports The report describes post-election challenges, limited repeat voting and pending national-annulment requests within the window. Where the claim stops A pending remedy, a rejected challenge and an unavailable remedy are different. This record ends when parliament met; it does not show that future turnover was impossible. RS6 / What the record supports Published rules and reported results describe ballot-to-seat conversion; they do not reconstruct every rule’s exact contribution. Where the claim stops Ballot-to-seat conversion does not itself establish unfair campaigning or unequal enforcement. The displayed totals do not reconstruct each rule’s contribution to the exact seat count.