ELECTORAL FRAUD

(Redirected from Election fraud)

'Electoral fraud' is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud tend to involve affecting vote counts to bring about a desired election outcome, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both.
Election fraud is probably as old as elections themselves. The first suspicion dates back to 471 BC in the Athenian democracy. Archaeologists found 190 pieces of broken pottery used then as ballots with only 14 different handwritings.
Electoral fraud is illegal in most countries including dictatorships likely to both control the electoral process and excuse any measures that achieve a desired result.
Especially with national elections, successful election fraud can have the effect of a coup d'état or corruption of the democracy. But even if it does not go this far, the 500 million dollar campaigning during the United States general elections, 2006 shows how much might be at stake in some countries.^[1]^[2]
A look at some narrow elections with a margin of less than 0.1% shows that sometimes there would not be much fraud needed to change the outcome.
Extreme examples of election fraud are sham elections that are a common event in dictatorial regimes that still feel the need to establish some element of public legitimacy, some even showing 100% of eligible voters voting on behalf of the régime. Most people only call a regime democratic as long as electoral fraud is rare, isolated, and small, or that electoral fraud by opposing groups roughly cancels the effects.
Electoral fraud is not limited to political polls and can happen in any kind of election where the potential gain is worth the risk for the cheater, as in elections for labor union officials, student councils, sports judging, and the awarding of merit to books, films, music, or television programming.

History

Despite many known instances of electoral fraud, it remains a difficult phenomenon to study and characterize. This follows from its inherent illegality. Harsh penalties aimed at deterring electoral fraud make it likely that any individuals who perpetrate acts of fraud do so with the expectation that it either will not be discovered or will be excused after the fact.
The introduction of secret ballots in the 19th century made electoral fraud more difficult, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation or bribery. Secret balloting appears to have been first implemented in the former Australian colony -- now a state -- of Tasmania on 7 February 1856. The first President of the United States elected using a secret ballot was president Grover Cleveland in 1892.
Reconstruction, an effort to secure the voting rights of former slaves, ultimately failed in the states of the former Confederate States of America as reactionary interests used violence and intimidation against freedmen as well as political legerdemain to disenfranchise African-Americans, including poll taxes and so-called literacy tests, for almost a century after the American Civil War, ensuring the continuing hegemony of élite agrarian interests at the expense of all other interests in the South until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Enabled by the Reichstag Fire Decree on March 23, 1933 Hitler arrested, intimidated or murdered all members of the Communist Party of Germany and some of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. This helped the NSDAP to get the needed two-thirds-majority to pass the Enabling Act giving Hitler dictatorial powers.
Some examples of election fraud in the 20th century include Communists seizing power in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia from nominally democratic governments between 1946 and 1948 with the aid of electoral fraud and maintaining formal power through rigged elections .
Ferdinand Marcos, once fairly elected as President of the Philippines, remained in power and became increasingly dictatorial and kleptocratic as he succeeded in marginalizing dissent and opposition through rigged elections.
Many dictatorships hold show elections in which results predictably show that nearly 100% of all eligible voters vote and that nearly 100% of those eligible voters vote for the prescribed (often only) list of candidates for office or for referendums that favor the Party in power irrespective of economic conditions and the cruelties of the government.
Some notorious examples of electoral fraud in the United States of America include the widespread election manipulation committed by the Daley Machine in 20th century Chicago and Tammany Hall in 19th century New York.
There have been cases of electoral fraud with postal votes in the UK (including at the 2004 European and local government elections in Birmingham)^[3]^[4]^[5] and in the US in 2005.^[6]

List of controversial elections

Techniques

Voter intimidation and coercion

★ Intimidation of voters that prevents them from voting, such as by voter suppression.

★ Disrupting voting in polling stations in areas with unwanted political tendencies for example with bomb threats to polling places^[7] or other sabotage, including ballots, ballot boxes, or voting machines.

★ Using caging lists for voter suppression

★ For example, in 2004, police stationed outside a Cook County, Illinois, polling place were requesting photo ID and telling voters if they had been convicted of a felony that they could not vote. [1]

★ Also in 2004, for example, In Pima, Arizona, voters at multiple polls were confronted by an individual, wearing a black t-shirt with “US Constitution Enforcer” and a military-style belt that gave the appearance he was armed. He asked voters if they were citizens, accompanied by a cameraman who filmed the encounters. [2]

★ Voters often complain about misinformation campaigns via flyers or phone calls encouraging them to vote on a day other than election day or spreading false information regarding their right to vote. In Polk County, Florida, in 2004, for example, voters received a call telling them to vote on November 3 (the election was on November 2). Also in 2004, in Wisconsin and elsewhere voters received flyers that said, “If you already voted in any election this year, you can’t vote in the Presidential Election”, implying that those who had voted in earlier primary elections were ineligible to vote. Also, “If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything you can’t vote in the Presidential Election.” Finally, “If you violate any of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your children will be taken away from you.”^[8]^[9]

★ Another simple, but notorious method of voter intimidation is the shoe polish method, which is often used in company towns. This method entails coating the voting machines lever or button of the opposing candidate(s) with shoe polish. To understand how this works, take the example of an employee of the ''company'' who, against the advice of the party in power, votes for the opposing candidate(s). After they leave the voting booth, a conspirator to the fraud (a precinct captain or other local V.I.P.) will handshake the voter. The conspirator will then subtly check their hand for any shoe polish and will note that the voter has left some shoe polish after the handshake. Soon afterward that unfortunate voter gets fired from his job.

★ Buying or coercing votes from persons who would normally vote for another candidate or would not vote at all, but who are nevertheless eligible to vote.

★ Intimidation of voters that alters their vote. "Four-legged voting," where precinct workers would pull the levers on voting machines instead of the voter.

★ Absentee and other remote voting can be more open to some forms of intimidation and coercion as the voter does not have the protection and privacy of the polling location.

★ In Britain, one historically popular technique has been long known as ''granny farming'', after a contemptuous slang designation for retirement homes. In this, party activists visit retirement homes, purportedly to help the elderly and immobile exercise their voting rights. Residents are asked to fill out 'absentee voter' forms, allowing them a proxy or postal vote. When the forms are signed and gathered, they are then secretly rewritten as applications for proxy votes, naming party activists or their friends and relatives as the proxies. These people, unknown to the voter, then cast the vote for the party of their choice. This trick relies on elderly care home residents typically being absent-minded, or suffering from dementia. A case for this had occurred into the United States, when Kwame Kilpatrick was running for reelection as mayor of Detroit. Kilpatrick supporters had nursing home residents sign absentee ballots which were either already marked or later marked as voting for Kilpatrick.

Physical tampering

★ Ballot stuffing, also called "ghost voting."

★ Booth capturing is a persistent problem in Indian democracy where thugs of one party "capture" a polling booth and stamp their votes, threatening everyone.

★ Theft or destruction of ballot boxes.

★ Destroying election material in order to annul results for individual polling stations or even whole constituencies.

Physical tampering with voting machines

★ Change the software of a voting machine to shift votes between candidates. A demonstration how this can be done on a Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TS was conducted by the Center for Information Technology Policy, at the University of Princeton.^[10]. Another demonstration was shown on Dutch TV by the group "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet".^[11]

★ Altering or replacing the hardware of the voting machine, such as inserting a circuit board using a Man in the middle attack technique to manipulate recorded votes. The board could be placed between keyboard, display and voting storage. In the case of Nedap machines this would allow manipulation without breaking the seals covering the central unit.^[12]. Another place for a man in the middle attack could be between the central unit and the printer, but this would only be useful on machines where the stored votes will not be verified by other means like a display.

★ Altering voting machines to favor one candidate over another, for example by jamming a button or changing the sensitive area of a touchscreen.^[13]

★ Intentional misconfiguration, for example altering the ballot design to misidentify a candidates party.

★ Voting machines might also be subject to Van Eck phreaking on the display or keyboard, compromising the secrecy of the votes.^[14]

★ One voting machine possibly subject to ballot stuffing if the voter is allowed unsupervised access, is the Sequoia Voting Systems ''AVC Edge'' touchscreen. These machines have a yellow button on the bottom (the reverse side of the touch screen) which if pressed after a valid vote will set the machine in "''manual mode''" bringing up a blank ballot allowing an additional vote.^[15]. This is an ''optional'' feature not found on all ''AVC Edge'' touchscreens, and is programmed to alert supervisors with two audible beeps.

★ Abusing the administrative access to the machine by election officials might also allow individuals to vote multiple times.

★ Electronic, and mechanical voting machines can be subject to different types of electoral fraud, as potential fraud could be incorrectly categorized as a technical problem.
A list of other threats to voting systems is kept by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.^[16]
The most comprehensive study on attacking electronic voting machines has been compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.^[17]

Inflation or deflation of voters lists

★ Registering false voters such as the deceased or even fictitious persons.

★ Subverting voter registration rules, such as with "fagot voters." (persons who had land assigned to them prior to an election and removed immediately after an election to meet requirements to vote),^[18] through "colonization" (the process of transporting groups of men from other cities and lodging them in flophouses).^[19]

Social engineering

★ People pretending to help elderly or blind persons with their vote.

★ Election officials misinforming voters of when their vote is recorded and later recording it themselves. This apparently happened during municipality elections in Landerd, Netherlands in 2006 where a candidate was also an election official and got the unusual amount of 181 votes in the polling place where he was working. In the other three polling places together he got 11 votes.^[20] Only circumstantial evidence could be found because the voting machine was a direct-recording electronic voting machine, in a poll by a local newspaper the results were totally different. The case is still under prosecution.^[21]

By voters

★ Impersonating a voter.

★ Voting in multiple precincts, carousel voting. Men who were known to sell their vote and vote in multiple precincts were known as "floaters."^[19] In the USA Fifty-two people have been convicted of federal election fraud for voting in multiple locations since 2002.^[23] In some countries like El Salvador, Namibia or Afghanistan voters get a finger marked with ink to prevent multiple votes. In the Afghanistan elections in 2005 this didn't work well because the ink could be rubbed off.

★ Voter import: In Bulgaria the controversial Movement for Rights and Freedoms is said to combine the former two, by "importing" voters from Turkey at the day of the election, who then vote in every single polling station within a city.

★ Vote selling: This is possible as long as a voter has a way to prove how she voted. Because of this a secret ballot is preferred and postal- or internet voting is just accepted as an exception in most electoral systems. (also see Blocks of Five) In Mexico it is used that the voter takes a picture of his vote with his cellphone camera to validate his payment.

During tabulation in the polling place

★ Bribery, corruption or threatening of election officials.

★ Destroying all ballots if the balance was not as desired.

★ Tampering with tabulation software (applicable only to computer assisted tabulation). This apparently happened in the Mexican general election, 1988.

★ Spoiling votes: for example, by marking more candidates than allowed.

★ Counting electronic ballots of voting machines, usually memory cards, more than once if they contain votes as wanted by the fraudster. The opposite is to let them disappear in case of unwanted votes, this is equivalent to stealing a whole ballot box.^[24]

★ Obstructing vote counting.^[25]

During central tabulation of the results

★ Bribery or corruption of election officials. This apparently happened in the Philippine general election, 2004 and is suspected in the Italian general election, 2006

★ Interfering in the data transmission.

Through legislative means

★ Gerrymandering (drawing voting district lines in such a way as to obtain a favorable result) or including prison inmates in a local population are also often argued to be forms of electoral fraud.

★ Creating additional barriers to vote can also be considered fraud, such as requiring extensive forms of identification.

★ Mandating voter matching standards be too strict (purging voters from the rolls and disenfranchising eligible voters) or too loose (leaving ineligible voters on the rolls and making the system vulnerable to fraud).

★ Creating election deadlines that are unreasonable to certain portions of the electorate, such as requiring active duty military ballots to be delivered before it would be possible for them to be mailed.

★ Disqualification of candidates by arbitrary means. The best example was the 1990 mayoral race in Washington DC when Jesse Jackson considered running for DC mayor, which concerned incumbent mayor Marion Barry who had been polling very low and felt he could not compete with Jackson's popularity. Since Jackson made most his money from speeches, Barry ordered the DC Council to pass a law making it illegal for anyone to run for mayor of Washington DC who makes more than $10,000 a year from honoraria. This became known as the "Jesse Jackson law", as the sole intent of the law was to declare Jackson unsuitable for election. ^[26]

Smear campaign

★ Smear campaigns are illegal in the Philippines and can thus be considered election fraud.

Election fraud in legislature

Election fraud in legislature is different because the number of voters is a lot smaller. Still there can be some examples found:

★ The two-thirds majority Hitler needed to pass the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial power, was only attained by arresting enough members of the opposition.

★ The controversial method of using a paper-clip or bubblegum to jam a representative's voting button in absence.^[27]

★ In 2004 security expert Bruce Schneier published a theoretical paper how election fraud in the papal election could be done.^[28]

Fraud prevention

The best way to protect the electorate from electoral fraud is to have an election process which is completely transparent to all voters, from nomination of candidates through casting of the votes and tabulation. A key feature in insuring the integrity of any part of the electoral process is a strict chain of custody.
To prevent fraud in central tabulation, there has to be a public list of the results from every single polling place. This is the only way for voters to prove that the results they witnessed in their election office are correctly incorporated into the totals.
Various forms of statistics can be indicators for election fraud e.g. exit polls which are very different to the final results. Having reliable exit polls could keep the amount of fraud low to avoid a controversy. Other indicators might be unusual high numbers of invalid ballots, overvoting or undervoting. It has to be kept in mind that most statistics do not reflect the types of election fraud which prevent citizens from voting at all like intimidation or misinformation.

Preventing citizens from voting

The best way to prevent voter suppression is to protect the secrecy of the votes. The targeting of voters using caging lists can be reduced by protecting data privacy of the population. Any voter intimidation should be brought to court.
There should be regulations on the minimum number of polling places, election officials and voting machines per voter in a district. This prevent officials from artificially producing long lines in districts with unwanted political tendencies. Voting machines should be tested before the election starts. Voting on a Sunday or public holiday also would take the timely pressure off the voters.

Prosecution

In countries with strong laws and effective legal systems, lawsuits can be brought against those who have allegedly committed fraud; but determent with legal prosecution would not be enough. Although the penalties for getting caught may be severe, the rewards for succeeding are likely to be worth the risk. The rewards range from benefits in contracting to total control of a country.
In Germany there are currently calls for reform of these laws because lawsuits can be and are usually prolonged by the newly elected Bundestag^[29]

Election observation

In countries with high rates of corruption and in countries new to democracy, international observers, e.g., from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) may be brought in to observe the elections. OSCE has observed over 150 elections and referendums between 1995 and 2006, sending more than 15,000 observers. Recently observed elections have been the Afghanistan presidential elections in October 2004, the 2004 U.S. presidential election and the Belarusian presidential election, 2006.
Besides international observers there might be local observers:

★ Justice Department^[30]

★ Political parties, e.g., the United States Democratic Party's election protection program.^[31]

★ Poll watchers from election integrity groups. Most of them also offer information websites and phone hotlines for voters to report problems. Some of them also help with voter registration. Examples are VoteTrustUSA.org and Verified Voting Foundation.
Critics note that observers cannot spot certain types of election fraud like targeted voter suppression or manipulated software of voting machines.

End-to-end Auditablity

End-to-end (E2E) auditable voting systems provide voters with a receipt to allow them to verify their vote was cast correctly, and an audit mechanism to verify that the results were tabulated correctly and all votes were cast by valid voters. The ballot receipt does not permit voters to prove to others how they voted.

Testing and certification of electronic voting

One method for verifying voting machine accuracy is Parallel Testing, the process of using an independent set of results compared against the original machine results. Parallel testing can be done prior to or during an election. During an election, one form of parallel testing is the VVPAT. This method is only effective if statistically significant numbers of voters verify that their intended vote matches both the electronic and paper votes.
On election day, a statistically significant number of voting machines can be randomly selected from polling locations and used for testing. This can be used to detect potential fraud or malfunction unless a manipulated software would only start to cheat after a certain event like a voter pressing a special key combination (Or a machine might cheat only if someone doesn't perform the combination, which requires more insider access but fewer voters).
Another form of testing is Logic & Accuracy Testing (L&A), pre-election testing of voting machines using test votes to determine if they are functioning correctly.
Another method to insure the integrity of electronic voting machines is independent software verification and certification. Once software is certified, code signing can insure the software certified is identical to that which is used on election day. Some argue certification would be more effective if voting machine software was publicly available or open source.
Certification and testing processes conducted publicly and with oversight from interested parties can promote transparency in the election process. The integrity of those conducting testing can be questioned.
Testing and certification can prevent voting machines from being a black box where voters can not be sure that counting inside is done as intended.

References

1. CAMPAIGN 2006: 11 Days to go 'Orgy' of spending on political ads -- 0 million breaks state record (SF Chronicle, October 27, 2006)
2. Insider Risks in Elections (Bruce Schneier, July 2004)
3. Judge upholds vote-rigging claims (BBC, 4. April 2005)
4. New fears over postal vote fraud (Guardian, 13. April 2005)
5. Labour to halt postal vote fraud but only after election (Times, April 11, 2005)
6. Connors pleads guilty to election fraud (Times Union, November 30. 2006)
7. Did bomb threat stifle vote? (Capital Times)
8. Intimidation and Deceptive Practices
9. Incidents Of Voter Intimidation & Suppression
10. Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
11. Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer a security analysis
12. Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer a security analysis (chapter 7.1)
13. Test run for voting (Miami Herald, 10/31/2006)
14. Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer a security analysis (chapter 6)
15. Button on e-voting machine allows multiple votes
16. Threats to Voting Systems (NIST)
17. The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World
18. American Suffrage from Property to Democracy, , Chilton, Williamson, Princeton U. Press, , ASIN B000FMPMK6
19. The History and Politics of Voting Technology, , Roy G., Saltman, Palgrave Macmillan, , ISBN 1-4039-6392-4

20. Statement of voting machine manufacturer Nedap (German)
21. Raadslid Landerd is stuk minder populair in schaduwverkiezing (dutch)
22. The History and Politics of Voting Technology, , Roy G., Saltman, Palgrave Macmillan, , ISBN 1-4039-6392-4

23. Let The Recounts Begin
24. [http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2006/story?id=2623854&page=1
25. The best defense is a good offense, so VOTE!
26. "Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson" by Kenneth Timmerman
27. Is "Ghost" Voting Acceptable?
28. Bruce Schneier: Hacking the Papal Election, April 15, 2005
29. Reform der Wahlprüfung (German)
30. Justice department dispatches election monitors (cnn.com, 6. November 2006)
31. democrats.org: Voter Protection Resource Center

External links

★ Voter Fraud - an article from the ACE Project

★ Independent Verification: Essential Action to Assure Integrity in the Voting Process, Roy G. Saltman, August 22, 2006

★ Legal provisions to prevent Electoral Fraud - an article from the ACE Project

★ ''Was the 2004 Election Stolen?''by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., June 1, 2006.

★ Article referencing "four-legged voting"

★ Vote Fraud Actors and Motivation

★ Vote Fraud Strategy and Tactics

★ No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election, by Dennis Loo, Ph.D

★ Electronic Voting: Safe or Fraudulent?

This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.

psst.. try this: add to faves

	myHellas.com
	Dancing Moon Travel
	Affordable Adventures Ltd
	LJ Biz

	Hotel Villa St Pierre
	Travelonly - Dave Corless
	Heavenly Paradise Getaways
	Dancing Moon Travel
	Aquaworld Cancun
	Delight Tours & Travel
	Travel Counsellors (Canada) Ltd
	Riad Karmela
	Travelonly - Joann Kaszyca
	Travelonly - Mary Lynn Villeneuve,ACC