compared to the other two groups, but nonetheless have far fewer cases resolved through legal channels compared to free countries. Based on the data in Figure 2.1, it is possible to conclude that partlyfree countries have a greater need to develop efficient EDR mechanisms and to establish and preserve public trust in these institutions. There is a clear pattern of under-utilization of legal channels to deal with challenges to election results in these countries. The case of nondemocratic countries could be really challenging, since weak rule of law and autocratic pressure may make it difficult to develop functioning EDR mechanisms. However, the fact that there are still challenges to election results even in these countries should signal the need for proper EDR mechanisms. Figure 2.1. Findings of the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) dataset Strongly disagree (1: strongly disagree; 5:strongly agree) Parties/candidates challenged the election results Not-free countries Partly-free countries Free countries Frequency 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 Any disputes were resolved through legal channels (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) Not-free countries Partly-free countries Free countries 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 Notes: Data based on expert evaluation of 153 national parliamentary and presidential elections held worldwide in 125 countries between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015. Freedom House indicators were used to classify countries as free, partly free or not free. Sources: Norris, P. et al., ‘Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Version 3.5’, Harvard Dataverse, July 2015, ‹https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/PEI›, accessed 4 November 2015. 11