In additional robustness tests discussed in detail in the Online Appendix, we validate our dependent variable with observational **data** on electoral protest (A1), present additional validations of reported fraud (section A2), show a map of polling station locations and densities (A3), discuss the possibility of selection bias in the reporting of fraud events in the EU report (A4), and outline the construction of lagged variables from Afrobarometer round 3.5 (A5). The Online Appendix also presents additional models of protesting to examine interaction effects between observed and perceived fraud (A6 , Table A6.1); control for economic, ethnic, or political grievances (A6 , Table A6.2); show models at the LGA rather than the individual level (A6 , Table A6.3); explore different fraud types (A6 , Table A6.4); and present an extended baseline model that controls for individuals' education level and income (A6 , Table A6.5). Finally, to assess generalizability, we report the effect of perceptions and reported fraud using Afrobarometer surveys for all African countries (A7). Robustness tests confirm our main findings while addressing concerns regarding our inferences. ,196.078 1,195.004 1,194.229 1,194.078 1,194.952 1,193.358 BIC 1,288.847 1,287.773 1,286.998 1,286.847 1,287.721 1,286.127 Note: Standard errors are clustered on local government area. *p < .05. **p < 0.1.