This chapter re-evaluates the idea of the “electoral fallacy” – idea that academics and policy makers mistake elections for democracy, and in so doing exaggerate the importance of the polls. We agree that there has long been a tendency to place unrealistic expectations on the electoral process, but reject the argument that elections are unimportant when they don’t lead to political change. The great weakness of some critiques of elections that have emerged over the last twenty years – the fallacy of the fallacy – is that they have underestimated the impact of elections by misleadingly narrowing this down to the question of whether the polls result in a transfer of power. Elections have multiple, sometimes contrary effects. By creating space for politicians and voters to make reciprocal claims to patrimonial virtue they may encourage people to think of themselves primarily as members of more local communities, demanding a very personal and local accountability. But the rhetoric of campaigns and elaborate technology of elections may also encourage voters to think and behave as national citizens. In this way, electoral processes perpetuate existing forms of power at the same time as they highlight problems with, and impose constraints on, that power. Consequently, elections matter – even when they don’t change the government.