Electoral fraud

1.1 Electorate manipulation

Electoral fraud or vote rigging is illegal interference

with the process of an election. Acts of fraud aect vote
counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. What
constitutes electoral fraud under law varies from country
to country.

Most electoral fraud takes place during or immediately

after election campaigns, by interfering with the voting
process or the counting of votes. However, it can also
occur far in advance, by altering the composition of the
electorate. In many cases this is not illegal and thus techMany kinds of election fraud are outlawed in electoral nically not electoral fraud,[3]although it is a violation of the
legislation, but others are in violation of general laws, principles of democracy.
such as those banning assault, harassment or libel. Although technically the term 'electoral fraud' covers only
those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used 1.1.1 Manipulation of demography
to describe acts which are legal but nevertheless considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral In many cases it is possible for authorities to articially
laws, or in violation of the principles of democracy.[1] control the composition of an electorate in order to proShow elections, in which only one candidate can win, are duce a foregone result. A famous example is Kuwait in
sometimes considered to be electoral fraud, although they the 1980s. One way of doing this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for
may comply with the law.
example by temporarily assigning them land or lodging
In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have them in ophouses.[4][5] Many countries prevent this with
the eect of a coup d'tat or corruption of democracy. In rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an eleca narrow election a small amount of fraud may be enough torate for a minimum period (for example, six months)
to change the result. Even if the outcome is not aected, in order to be eligible to vote there. However, such laws
fraud can still have a damaging eect if not punished, as can themselves be used for demographic manipulation as
it can reduce voters condence in democracy. Even the they tend to disenfranchise those with no xed address,
perception of fraud can be damaging as it makes people such as the homeless, travellers, Roma, students (studyless inclined to accept election results. Fraudulent elec- ing full-time away from home) and some casual workers.
tions can lead to the breakdown of democracy and the
Another strategy is to permanently move people into an
establishment or ratication of a dictatorship.
electorate, usually through public housing. If people eliFraud in elections is not limited to those for public of- gible for public housing are likely to vote for a particular
ce (and also shades even into castings of votes where party, then they can either be concentrated into one eleconly an honorary role is at stake) so long as a cheater per- torate, thus making their votes count for less, or moved
ceives a potential gain as worth the risk. Thus elections into marginal electorates, where they may tip the balance
for a corporations directors, labor union ocials, student towards their preferred party. One notable example of
councils, etc. are subject to similar fraud, as are sports this occurred in the City of Westminster under Shirley
judging, and the awarding of merit to works of art and Porter.[6] In this case the electoral fraud relied on gaming
literature.
the United Kingdom's rst past the post electoral system,
as in such a system it does not matter how much a party
wins or loses by. The fraudsters calculated which wards
they had no hope of winning, which they were almost
1 Specic methods
sure of winning and which wards were marginal. By manipulating Westminster Councils public housing stock,
Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic the fraudsters were able to move voters more likely to
process, but most commonly it occurs during election vote for their electoral rivals from marginal wards to the
campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting. wards that they were going to lose anyway. In the ensuing
The two main types of electoral fraud are (1) prevent- elections the Labour opposition could only win their safe
ing eligible voters from casting their vote freely (or from seats, with the small Conservative leads in the marginal
voting at all), and (2) altering the results. A list of threats wards being enough for that party to win these wards,
to voting systems, or electoral fraud methods, is kept by and therefore maintain their majority position and control of the council. In her defense, Porter raised the histhe National Institute of Standards and Technology.[2]
1

1 SPECIFIC METHODS

tory of the provision of public housing in London and

Herbert Morrison's supposed boast to "...build the Conservatives out of London by building new public housing
in marginal Conservative seats.

be eectively disenfranchised if polling places are not

provided within reasonable proximity (rural communities
are especially vulnerable to this) or situated in areas perceived by some voters as unsafe.

Immigration law may also be used to manipulate electoral demography. An example of this happened in
Malaysia when immigrants from neighboring Philippines
and Indonesia were given citizenship, together with voting rights, in order for a political party to dominate the
state of Sabah in a controversial process referred to as
Project IC.[7]

A particular example of this strategy is the Canadian

federal election of 1917, where the Union government
passed the Military Voters Act and the Wartime Elections
Act. The Military Voters Act permitted any active military personnel to vote by party only and allow that party to
decide in which electoral district to place that vote. It also
enfranchised women who were directly related or married
to an active soldier. These groups were widely assumed to
be disproportionately in favor of the Union government,
as that party was campaigning in favor of conscription.
The Wartime Elections Act, conversely, disenfranchised
particular ethnic groups assumed to be disproportionately
in favor of the opposition Liberal Party.

A method of manipulating primary contests and other

elections of party leaders is related to this. People who
support one party may temporarily join another party in
order to help elect a weak candidate for that partys leadership, in the hope that they will be defeated by the leader
of the party that they secretly support.
1.1.2

Disenfranchisement

In 2012, 10 American states passed laws requiring photo

ID at the ballot box, citing protection against electoral
fraud. However, a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School concluded
that minorities, the poor and the elderly are less likely to
have photo ID, and that such groups were more likely to
live long distances from ID-issuing oces.[8] Additionally, partisan politics has been exposed as a major factor
in the introduction of voter ID legislation, as such legislation would disenfranchise many people who vote for
Democratic Party nominees, beneting the Republican
Party in elections.

The composition of an electorate may also be altered by

disenfranchising some types of people, rendering them
unable to vote. In some cases, this may be done at a
legislative level, for example by passing a law banning
prison inmates (or even former prison inmates), recent
immigrants or members of a particular ethnic or religious
group from voting, or by instituting a literacy or other
test which members of some groups are more likely to
fail. Since this is done by lawmakers, it cannot be election fraud, but may subvert the purposes of democracy.
This is especially so if members of the disenfranchised 1.2 Intimidation
group were particularly likely to vote a certain way.
Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a
In some cases voters may be invalidly disenfranchised,
voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular
which is true electoral fraud. For example a legitimate
way, or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can
voter may be 'accidentally' removed from the electoral
be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter
roll, making it dicult or impossible for the person to
does not have the protection and privacy of the polling
vote. Corrupt election ocials may misuse voting reglocation. Intimidation can take a range of forms.
ulations such as a literacy test or requirement for proof
of identity or address in such a way as to make it di Violence or the threat of violence: In its simcult or impossible for their targets to cast a vote. If such
plest form, voters from a particular demographic or
practices discriminate against a religious or ethnic group,
known to support a particular party or candidate are
they may so distort the political process that the political
directly threatened by supporters of another party or
order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the postcandidate or by those hired by them. In other cases,
Reconstruction or Jim Crow era until the Voting Rights
supporters of a particular party make it known that
Act of 1965.
if a particular village or neighborhood is found to
Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make
it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote. For
example, requiring people to vote within their electorate
may disenfranchise serving military personnel, prison inmates, students, hospital patients or anyone else who cannot return to their homes. Polling can be set for inconvenient days such as midweek or on Holy Days (example:
Sabbath or other holy days of a religious group whose
teachings determine that voting is a prohibited on such
a day) in order to make voting dicult for those studying or working away from home. Communities may also

have voted the 'wrong' way, reprisals will be made

against that community. Another method is to make
a general threat of violence, for example a bomb
threat which has the eect of closing a particular
polling place, thus making it dicult for people in
that area to vote.[9] One notable example of outright
violence was the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack,
where followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deliberately contaminated salad bars in The Dalles, Oregon, in an attempt to weaken political opposition
during county elections.

1.4

Misinformation

Attacks on polling places: Polling places in an

area known to support a particular party or candidate may be targeted for vandalism, destruction or
threats, thus making it dicult or impossible for
people in that area to vote.

oer or giving of other rewards is referred to as electoral

treating.[15] Vote buying may also be done indirectly, for
example by paying clergymen to tell their parishioners
to vote for a particular party or candidate. Vote buying
is generally avoided by not providing a receipt for the
counted vote, even if its technically possible to do so.

Legal threats: In this case voters will be made

to believe, accurately or otherwise, that they are
not legally entitled to vote, or that they are legally
obliged to vote a particular way. Voters who are not
condent about their entitlement to vote may also be
intimidated by real or implied authority gures who
suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be imprisoned, deported or otherwise
punished.[10][11] For example in 2004, in Wisconsin
and elsewhere voters allegedly received yers that
said, If you already voted in any election this year,
you cant 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 cant 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.[12][13] Another method, allegedly used in
Cook County, Illinois in 2004, is to falsely tell particular people that they are not eligible to vote.[11]

Electoral treating remains legal in some jurisdictions,

such as in the Seneca Nation of Indians.[16]

1.4 Misinformation
People may distribute false or misleading information in
order to aect the outcome of an election.[1] For example,
in the Chilean Presidential election of 1970 the Central
Intelligence Agency used black propagandamaterials
purporting to be from various political partiesto sow
discord between members of a coalition between socialists and communists.[17]
Another way in which misinformation can be used is to
give voters incorrect information about the time or place
of polling, thus causing them to miss their chance to
vote. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin alleged that
Americans for Prosperity engaged in this when a ier
printed in August 2011 gave an incorrect return date
for absentee ballots - Americans for Prosperity alleged
it was a misprint.[18][19][20] As part of the 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal, Elections
Canada traced fraudulent phone calls telling voters that
their polling stations had been moved to a telecommunications company which worked for the Conservative
Party.[21] More recently in 2014, Americans for Prosperity were again accused of distributing voter misinformation, by mailing out incorrect or misleading information
to hundreds of thousands of mailers which included the
wrong deadline for voter registration and other inaccurate
information.[22] Americans for Prosperity Deputy Director Donald Bryson claimed the mailings were a mistake
and that they had not paid enough attention to detail.[23]

Economic threats: In company towns in which one

company employs most of the working population,
the company may threaten workers with disciplinary
action if they do not vote the way their employer dictates. One method of doing this is the 'shoe polish
method'. This method entails coating the voting machine's lever or button of the opposing candidate(s)
with shoe polish. This method works when an employee of a company that orders him to vote a certain
way votes contrary to those orders. After the voter
exits the voting booth, a conspirator to the fraud
(a precinct captain or other local person in collusion with the employees management) handshakes
the voter. The conspirator, then, subtly checks the
voters hands for any shoe polish or notes. If the 1.5 Misleading or confusing ballot papers
conspirator nds shoe polish or notes in the voters
hands, then that unfortunate voter gets red or faces Ballot papers may be used to discourage votes for a particular party or candidate, using design or other features
other unpleasant consequences.
which confuse voters into voting for a dierent candidate. For example, in the 2000 U.S. presidential election,
Floridas buttery ballot paper was criticized as confusing
1.3 Vote buying
some voters into giving their vote to the wrong candidate.
The most famous episodes of vote buying came in Ironically, however, the ballot was designed by a Demo18th century England, when two or more rich aristo- crat, the party most harmed by this design.[24] Poor or
crats spent whatever money it took to win. The notori- misleading design is not usually illegal and therefore not
ous Spendthrift election came in Northamptonshire in technically election fraud, but can subvert the principles
1768, when three earls spent over 100,000 each to win of democracy.
a seat.[14]
A similar approach has been used in Sweden, where a
Voters may be given money or other rewards for voting in system with separate ballots for each party is used. Bala particular way, or not voting. In some jurisdictions, the lots from Sweden Democrats have there been mixed with

1 SPECIFIC METHODS

ballots from the bigger Swedish Social Democratic Party,

which used a very similar font for the party name written
on the top of the ballot.
Another method of confusing people into voting for a different candidate than they intended is to run candidates
or create political parties with similar names or symbols
as an existing candidate or party. The aim is that enough
voters will be misled into voting for the false candidate or
party to inuence the results.[25] Such tactics may be particularly eective when a large proportion of voters have
limited literacy in the language used on the ballot paper.
Again, such tactics are usually not illegal but often work
against the principles of democracy.
Another way of possible electoral confusion, is multiple
variations of voting by dierent electoral systems. This
is unwittingly cause ballot papers to be invalid, if the
wrong system is employed such as putting a rst-pastthe-post cross in a numbered single transferable vote ballot paper. For example in Scotland, there are four different voting systems employed. They are single transferable vote for local elections, additional member system for Scottish parliamentary elections, rst-past-thepost for national elections & party list system in European
elections.

1.6

Ballot stung

A specialized ballot box used to assist ballot stung, featured in

Frank Leslies Illustrated Newspaper in 1856.

of this practice in which people literally did stu more

than one ballot in a ballot box at the same time.
Detecting ballot-stung depends a great deal on how
good the record-keeping is. Most election systems match
the number of persons showing up to vote with the number of ballots cast, and/or preparing the forms so that
they are dicult to fake. A common method still used
in small village elections throughout the USA uses two
ballot boxes and a single sheet of paper for a ballot. After marking the ballot, the sheet is folded in half, then
torn with each part dropped in the corresponding ballot
box. The number of marked ballots in one box will equal
the number of ballot sheet headers in the other ballot box,
thus preventing ballot stung. In short, successful ballotstung usually requires the misconduct of genuine registered voters and/or elections personnel.
Ballot-stung can be accomplished in a number of ways.
Often, a ballot-stuer casts votes on the behalf of people
who did not show up to the polls (known as telegraphing);
sometimes, votes are even cast by those who are long dead
or ctitious characters in TV shows, books, and movies
(known as padding). Both practices are also referred to
as personation. In earlier societies with little paperwork,
dead people were kept alive on paper for the purpose of
ballot-stung. The family of the deceased often helped
along, either to assist their party or for money.
Ballot stung is possible with one version of the Sequoia
touchscreen voting machine. It has a yellow button on the
back side which when pressed allows repeated vote stuing. By design, pressing the button triggers the emanation
of two audible beeps.[26]

Transparent ballot box used in Russia to prevent election ocials

from pre-stung box with fake ballots.

1.7 Misrecording of votes

Ballot stung is when one person submits multiple Many elections feature multiple opportunities for unballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person scrupulous ocials or 'helpers to record an electors vote
is permitted. The name originates from the earliest days dierently from their intentions. Voters who require as-

1.10

Tampering with electronic voting machines

sistance to cast their votes are particularly vulnerable to

having their votes stolen in this way. For example, a blind
person or one who cannot read the language of the ballot paper may be told that they have voted for one party
when in fact they have been led to vote for another. This
is similar to the misuse of proxy votes; however in this
case the voter will be under the impression that they have
voted with the assistance of the other person, rather than
having the other person voting on their behalf.

1.10 Tampering with electronic voting machines

All voting systems face threats of some form of electoral
fraud. The types of threats that aect voting machines
can vary from other forms of voting systems, some threats
may be prevented and others introduced.Threat Analyses & Papers. National Institute of Standards and Technology. October 7, 2005. Retrieved 5 March 2011.

Where votes are recorded through electronic or mechan- Some forms of electoral fraud specic to electronic votical means, the voting machinery may be altered so that a ing machines are listed below. Recent research at Arvote intended for one candidate is recorded for another. gonne National Laboratories demonstrates that if a malicious actor is able to gain physical access to a voting
machine, it can be a simple process to manipulate certain
electronic voting machines, such as the Diebold Accuvote
1.8 Misuse of proxy votes
TS, by inserting inexpensive, readily available electronic
components inside the machine.[27][28]
Proxy voting is particularly vulnerable to election fraud,
due to the amount of trust placed in the person who casts
Tampering with the software of a voting machine to
the vote. In several countries there have been allegations
add malicious code altering vote totals or favor any
of retirement home residents being asked to ll out 'abcandidate.
sentee voter' forms. When the forms are signed and gathered, they are then secretly rewritten as applications for
Multiple groups have demonstrated this
proxy votes, naming party activists or their friends and
possibility.[29][30][31]
relatives as the proxies. These people, unknown to the
Private companies manufacture these mavoter, then cast the vote for the party of their choice. This
chines. Many companies will not allow public
trick relies on elderly care home residents typically beaccess or review of the machines source code,
ing absent-minded, or suering from dementia. In the
claiming
fear of exposing trade secrets.[32]
United Kingdom, this is known as 'granny farming' and
has been restricted in recent years by a change in the law
Tampering with the hardware of the voting machine
which prevents a single voter acting as a proxy for more
to alter vote totals or favor any candidate.[30]
than two non-family members therefore requiring more
people to be involved in any fraud.
Some of these machines require a smartcard
to activate the machine and vote. However,
a fraudulent smart card could attempt to gain
access to vote multiple times.[33]
1.9 Destruction or invalidation of ballots
One of the simplest methods of electoral fraud is to simply destroy ballots for the 'wrong' candidate or party. This
is unusual in functioning democracies, as it is dicult to
do without attracting attention. However in a very close
election it might be possible to destroy a very small number of ballot papers without detection, thereby changing
the overall result. Blatant destruction of ballot papers can
render an election invalid and force it to be re-run. If a
party can improve its vote on the re-run election, it can
benet from such destruction as long as it is not linked to
it.
A more subtle, and easily achieved, method is to make it
appear that the voter has spoiled his or her ballot, thus
rendering it invalid. Typically this would be done by
adding another mark to the paper, making it appear that
the voter has voted for more candidates than they were
entitled to. It would be dicult to do this to a large number of papers without detection, but in a close election
may prove decisive.

Abusing the administrative access to the machine by

election ocials might also allow individuals to vote
multiple times.
Election results that are sent directly over the internet from a county count center to the state count center can be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack,
where they are diverted to an intermediate web site
where the man in the middle ips the votes in favor of a certain candidate and then immediately forwards them on to the state count center. All votes
sent over the internet violate chain of custody and
hence should be avoided by driving or ying memory
cards in locked metal containers from county count
centers to the state count center. For purposes of
getting quick preliminary statewide results on election night, encrypted votes can be sent over the internet, but nal ocial results should be tabulated the
next day only after the actual memory cards arrive
in secure metal containers and are counted.[34]

PREVENTION

Vote fraud in legislature

reputation, but the In and Out scandal of 2008 and the

Robocall scandal of 2011 has tarnished Canadas elecVote fraud can also take place in legislatures. Some of the toral integrity.
forms used in national elections can also be used in par- An advantage of cultivating positive mores as a prevenliaments, particularly intimidation and vote-buying. Be- tion strategy is that it is eective across all electoral syscause of the much smaller number of voters, however, tems and devices. A disadvantage is that it makes other
election fraud in legislatures is qualitatively dierent in prevention and detection eorts more dicult to implemany ways. Fewer people are needed to 'swing' the elec- ment because members of society generally have more
tion, and therefore specic people can be targeted in ways trust and less of a sense for fraudulent methods.
impractical on a larger scale. For example, Adolf Hitler
achieved his dictatorial powers due to the Enabling Act
of 1933, and achieved the necessary two-thirds majority 3.2 Secret ballot
to pass the Act by arresting members of the opposition.
Later, the Reichstag was packed with Nazi party mem- Main article: Secret ballot
bers who voted for the Acts renewal.
In many legislatures, voting is public, in contrast to the
secret ballot used in most modern public elections. This
may make their elections more vulnerable to some forms
of fraud, since a politician can be pressured by others
who will know how he or she has voted. However, it may
also protect against bribery and blackmail since the public
and media will be aware if a politician votes in an unexpected way. Since voters and parties are entitled to pressure politicians to vote a particular way, the line between
legitimate and fraudulent pressure is not always clear.

The secret ballot, in which only the voter knows how individuals have voted, is a crucial part of ensuring free and
fair elections through preventing voter intimidation or retribution. Although it was sometimes practiced in ancient
Greece and was a part of the French Constitution of 1795,
it only became common in the nineteenth century. Secret balloting appears to have been rst implemented in
the former British colonynow an Australian stateof
Tasmania on 7 February 1856. By the turn of the century the practice had spread to most Western democraAs in public elections, proxy votes are particularly prone cies. Before this, it was common for candidates to intimto fraud. In some systems, parties may vote on behalf of idate or bribe voters, as they would always know who had
any member who is not present in parliament. This pro- voted which way.
tects those people from missing out on voting if they are
prevented from attending parliament, but also allows their
party to prevent them from voting against its wishes. In 3.3 Transparency
some legislatures, proxy voting is not allowed, but politicians may rig voting buttons or otherwise illegally cast Most methods of preventing electoral fraud involve mak'ghost votes while absent.[35]
ing the election process completely transparent to all voters, from nomination of candidates through casting of the
votes and tabulation.[37] A key feature in ensuring the integrity of any part of the electoral process is a strict chain
3 Prevention
of custody.
The two main strategies for the prevention of electoral
fraud in society are: 1) deterrence through consistent and
eective prosecution; 2) Cultivation of mores that discourage corruption. The two main fraud prevention tactics, ironically, can be summarized as secrecy and openness. The secret ballot prevents many kinds of intimidation and vote selling, while transparency at all other levels
of the electoral process prevents and detects most interference.

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 oce are correctly incorporated into the totals.

End-to-end 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. However, the ballot receipt does not permit voters to prove to others how they voted, since this would
3.1 Mores
open the door towards forced voting and blackmail. EndThe patterns of conventional behavior in a society or to-end systems include Punchscan and Scantegrity, the
mores are an eective means for preventing electoral latter being an add-on to optical scan systems instead of
fraud and corruption in general. A good example is a replacement.
Sweden, where the culture has a strong tendency toward In many cases, election observers are used to help prepositive values, resulting in a low incidence of politi- vent fraud and assure voters that the election is fair. Incal corruption.[36] Until recently Canada had a similar ternational observers (bilateral and multilateral) may be

3.5

Prosecution

invited to observe the elections (examples include election observation by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), European Union election
observation missions, observation missions of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), as well as international observation organized by NGOs, such as CISEMO, European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO), etc.). Some countries also invite
foreign observers (i.e. bi-lateral observation, as opposed
to multi-lateral observation by international observers).

7
titatively assess the amount of votes stued. Also, these
distributions sometimes exhibit spikes at round-number
turnout percentage values.[38][39][40] High numbers of invalid ballots, overvoting or undervoting are other potential indicators.

3.5 Prosecution
In countries with strong laws and eective legal systems,
lawsuits can be brought against those who have allegedly
committed fraud; but the deterrent of 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
benets in contracting to total control of a country.

In addition, national legislatures of countries often permit domestic observation. Domestic election observers
can be either partisan (i.e. representing interests of one
or a group of election contestants) or non-partisan (usually done by civil society groups). Legislations of dierent countries permit various forms and extents of international and domestic election observation.
In Germany there are currently calls for reform of these
Election observation is also prescribed by various in- laws because lawsuits can be and are usually prolonged by
ternational legal instruments. For example, paragraph the newly elected Bundestag.
8 of the 1990 Copenhagen Document states that The
[OSCE] participating States consider that the presence
of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the
electoral process for States in which elections are taking
place. They therefore invite observers from any other
CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to
the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavor to
facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not
to interfere in the electoral proceedings.

In the United States one such case was in Pennsylvania

where Bill Stinson won an election based on fraudulent
absentee ballots. The courts ruled that his opponent be
seated in the state Senate as a result.[41]
In the Philippines, former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo was arrested in 2011 following the ling of criminal charges against her for electoral sabotage, in connection with the Philippine general election, 2007. She
was accused of conspiring with election ocials to ensure the victory of her partys senatorial slate in the
province of Maguindanao, through the tampering of election returns.[42]

Critics note that observers cannot spot certain types of

election fraud like targeted voter suppression or manipulated software of voting machines.
3.6

3.4

Statistical indicators

Various forms of statistics can be indicators for election

fraud e.g. exit polls which diverge from the nal results.
Well-conducted exit polls serve as a deterrent to electoral
fraud. However, exit polls are still notoriously imprecise. For instance, in the Czech Republic, some voters
are afraid or ashamed to admit that they voted for the
Communist Party (exit polls in 2002 gave the Communist
party 2-3 percentage points less than the actual result).
When elections are marred by ballot-box stung (e.g.,
the Armenian presidential elections of 1996 and 1998),
the aected polling stations will show abnormally high
voter turnouts with results favoring a single candidate. By
graphing the number of votes against turnout percentage
(i.e., aggregating polling stations results within a given
turnout range), the divergence from bell-curve distribution gives an indication of the extent of the fraud. Stuing votes in favor of a single candidate aects votes vs.
turnout distributions for that candidate and other candidates dierently; this dierence could be used to quan-

Voting machine integrity

Further information: Certication of voting machines

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 eective if statistically
signicant numbers of voters verify that their intended
vote matches both the electronic and paper votes.
On election day, a statistically signicant 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 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.

NOTABLE LEGISLATION

Another method to insure the integrity of electronic voting machines is independent software verication and
certication.[37] Once software is certied, code signing
can insure the software certied is identical to that which
is used on election day. Some argue certication would
be more eective if voting machine software was publicly
available or open source.

New York gubernatorial election, 1792

Certication 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.

Romanian general election, 1946

Testing and certication can prevent voting machines

from being a black box where voters can not be sure that
counting inside is done as intended.[37]
One method that people have argued would help prevent
these machines from being tampered with would be for
the companies that produce the machines to share the
source code, which displays and captures the ballots, with
computer scientists. This would allow external sources to
make sure that the machines are working correctly.[32]

Notable legislation

4.1

Help America Vote Act

Main article: Help America Vote Act

The Help America Vote Act (Pub.L. 107252), or
HAVA, is a United States federal law enacted on October
29, 2002.[43] It was drafted (at least in part) in reaction to
the controversy surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential
election, the goals of HAVA are:[44] to replace punchcard
and lever-based voting systems; create the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections; and establish minimum election administration standards.

Bleeding Kansas election, March 30, 1855

United States presidential election, 1876
New York State Senate election 1891 in Dutchess
County

Bulgarian plebiscite on monarchy, 1946

United States presidential election, 1960
Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly Election, 1951-Legislature elected by this election ratied Indian rule in Kashmir, providing India with legitimacy, but no pro-Pakistan parties contested the
polls, and pro-India candidates were elected unopposed.
Greek legislative election, 1961
Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election,
1987-The insurgecy in the Indian state of Jammu
and Kashmir has been linked to the allegations that
the election was rigged in favour of the National
Conference Party of Farooq Abdullah.
Mexican general election, 1988[47]
Serbian parliamentary election, 1992
Serbian presidential election, 1992
Serbian parliamentary election, 1993
Serbian presidential election, SeptemberOctober
1997
Serbian presidential election, December 1997
Serbian parliamentary election, 1997
Chadian presidential election, 1996

4.2

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Main article: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Chadian parliamentary election, 1997

Peruvian national election, 2000 [48] and [49]
Russian presidential election, 1996[50]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88352, 78 Stat.

241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[45] that outlawed major forms
of discrimination against African Americans and women,
including racial segregation and unequal application of
voter registration requirements.

4.3

List of controversial and electorialy

dubious elections

Argentine presidential election, 1937[46]

Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2000

2000 United States election, controversy in Florida
2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal
Georgian legislative election, 2003, Fraud allegations
2004 United States election voting controversies
Romanian legislative election, 2004

9
Philippine presidential election, 1986 (see also
People Power Revolution)
Philippine general election, 2004 (see also Hello
Garci scandal)
Ukrainian presidential election, 2004

Postal voting
Show election
Smear campaign
Electoral integrity

United Kingdom general election, 2001 [51]

United Kingdom general election, 2005 [51]
[52][53] [54] [55] [56]

6.1 General

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

Lehoucq, Fabrice. Electoral fraud: Causes, types,

and consequences. Annual review of political science (2003) 6#1 pp 233256.

Egyptian presidential election, 2005

Ethiopian general election, 2005
Belarusian presidential election, 2006
Mexican general election 2006 controversies
Italian general election, 2006

Schaer, Frederic Charles. The hidden costs of

clean election reform (Cornell University Press,
2008)

6.2 Australia

Morocco elections, 2006

McGrath, Amy. The Forging of Votes, Tower House

Publications, Kensington, NSW (1994)

Nigerian general election, 2007

Kenyan presidential election, 2007

McGrath, Amy. Frauding of Elections, Tower

House Publications and H.S. Chapman Society,
Brighton-le Sands, NSW (2003)

Russian legislative election, 2007

Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008
Tower Hamlets mayoral election, 2015 [57][58][59][60]
United
Kingdom
general
2015[61][62][63][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]

6 Further reading

election,

McGrath, Amy. (The Frauding of Votes, Tower

House Publications, Kensington, NSW 1996)
Perry, Peter John. Political Corruption in Australia:
A Very Wicked Place? (Ashgate Pub Limited, 2001)

[70][71][72][73][74][74][75][73][75][75][76][73][73][76][77][75][77][73][78][79][79][57][60][58][59][60][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

6.3 Canada

See also
Administrative resource
American Center for Voting Rights

Atkinson, Michael M., and Gerald Bierling. Politicians, the public and political ethics: Worlds apart.
Canadian Journal of Political Science (2005) 38#4
pp 1003.

Branch stacking
Caging list
Cooping
Electoral integrity
Florida Central Voter File (purging controversy)
Gerrymandering
List of controversial elections
List of UK Parliamentary election petitions
Political corruption

6.4 France
Ebhardt, Christian. In Search of a Political Ofce: Railway Directors and Electoral Corruption in
Britain and France, 1820-1870. Journal of Modern
European History (2013) 11#1 pp 7287.

6.5 Germany
Anderson, Margaret Lavinia. Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany (2000)[90]

10

Ziblatt, Daniel. Shaping Democratic Practice

and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of
Nineteenth-Century Germany. American Political
Science Review (2009) 103#1 pp 121.

REFERENCES

Meyersson, Erik. Capital Fraud in Turkey? Evidence from Citizen Initiatives (2014)[95]

6.9 United States

6.6

Great Britain

Gash, Norman. Politics in the Age of Peel: A Study

in the Technique of Parliamentary Representation
1830-1850 (1953)
O'Gorman, Frank. Voters, Patrons and Parties: The
Unreformed Electoral System of Hanoverian England, 1734-1832 (Oxford, 1989).

Argersinger, Peter H. New perspectives on election

fraud in the Gilded Age. Political Science Quarterly
(1985) 100#4 pp 669687[96]
Campbell, Tracy. Deliver the Vote: A History of
Election Fraud, An American Political Tradition,
1742-2004 (Basic Books, 2005)

Harling, Philip. Rethinking Old Corruption, Past

& Present (1995) No. 147 pp. 127158[91]

Fackler, Tim, and Tse-min Lin. Political corruption and presidential elections, 1929-1992. Journal
of Politics 57 (1995): 971-993.[97]

Namier, Lewis Bernstein. The structure of politics

at the accession of George III (London: Macmillan,
1957)

Mayeld, Loomis.
Voting Fraud in Early
Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh, Journal of Interdisciplinary History (1993) 29#1 59-84[98]

O'Leary, Cornelius. The elimination of corrupt

practices in British elections, 1868-1911 (Clarendon
Press, 1962)

Morris Jr., Roy. Fraud of the Century: Rutherford

B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of
1876 (2007)[99]

6.7

Latin America

Hartlyn, Jonathan, and Arturo Valenzuela, Democracy in Latin America since 1930, in Leslie Bethell,
ed. Latin America: Politics and Society since 1930
(1998), 3-66.
Molina, Ivn and Fabrice Lehoucq. Political Competition and Electoral Fraud: A Latin American
Case Study, Journal of Interdisciplinary History
(1999) 30#2 pp 199234[92]
Posada-Carb, Eduardo. Electoral Juggling: A
Comparative History of the Corruption of Surage
in Latin America, 1830-1930. Journal of Latin
American Studies (2000): 611-644.
Ricci, Paolo. "Beheading, Rule Manipulation and
Fraud: The Approval of Election Results in Brazil,
18941930. Journal of Latin American Studies
(2012) 44#3 pp 495-521.
Silva, Marcos Fernandes da. The political economy
of corruption in Brazil. Revista de Administrao de
Empresas (1999) 39#3 pp 2641.

6.8

Turkey

Summers, Mark Wahlgren. Party Games: Getting,

Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics
(2003)[100]
Summers, Mark Wahlgren. The Era of Good Stealings (1993), covers corruption 1868-1877
Sydnor, Charles. Gentlemen Freeholders: Political
Practices in Washingtons Virginia (1952), 18th century

7 References
[1] Myagkov, Mikhail G.; Peter C. Ordeshook; Dimitri
Shakin (2009-05-31). The forensics of election fraud:
Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN
978-0-521-76470-4.Alvarez, Michael; Hall, Thad; Hyde,
Susan (2008). Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring
Electoral Manipulation.
[2]
[3] Archived November 11, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
[4] Williamson, Chilton (1968). American Surage from
Property to Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U.
Press. ASIN B000FMPMK6.

Meyersson, Erik. Is Something Rotten In Ankaras

Mayoral Election? A Very Preliminary Statistical
Analysis (2014)[93]

[5] Saltman, Roy G. (January 2006). The History and Politics of Voting Technology. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN
1-4039-6392-4.

Meyersson, Erik. Trouble in Turkeys Elections

(2014)[94]

[6] Magill v. Porter Magill v. Weeks, H=House of Lords Judgments, 13 December 2001. Accessed 2012-02-16.

11

[7] Sadiq, Kamal (2005). When States Prefer Non-Citizens

Over Citizens: Conict Over Illegal Immigration into
Malaysia (PDF). International Studies Quarterly 49:
101122. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2005.00336.x. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
[8] IDs will hit US voter turnout - study. Reuters. 201207-19.
[9] Did bomb threat stie vote? (Capital Times)". Madison.com. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
[10] Sullivan, Joseph F. (1993-11-13). Florios Defeat Revives Memories of G.O.P. Activities in 1981. New York
Times. Retrieved 2008-10-07.
[11]

[26] VoteTrustUSA - Sequoia: Button On E-voting Machine

Allows Multiple Votes. votetrustusa.org.
[27] Jaikumar Vijayan (2011-09-28). Argonne researchers
'hack' Diebold e-voting system. Computerworld. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
[28] Layton, J. How can someone tamper with an electronic
voting machine. Retrieved 2011-02-27.
[29] Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting
Machine (PDF). Jhalderm.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[30]
[31]

[12]

[32] Bonsor and Strickland, Kevin and Jonathan. How EVoting Works. Retrieved 2011-02-27.

[13] Incidents Of Voter Intimidation & Suppression.

Web.archive.org. 2006-11-08. Retrieved 2012-05-03.

[33] Kohno, T. Analysis of Electronic Voting System (PDF).

Retrieved 2011-02-27.

[14] A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering

in the Old Days ... - Joseph Grego. Books.google.com.
Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[34] ""Man in the Middle Attacks to Subvert the Vote. Electiondefensealliance.org. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[15] Parliamentary Electorates And Elections Act 1912 Section 149, New South Wales Consolidated Acts.
Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
[16] Herbeck, Dan (November 15, 2011). Resentments
abound in Seneca power struggle. The Bualo News. Retrieved November 16, 2011.
[17] Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973),
United States Senate Church Committee, 1975
[18] Catanese, David (August 2, 2011). Americans for Prosperity: Wrong date a 'printing mistake'". Politico. Retrieved March 24, 2015.
[19] Vaughn, Alexa (2011-11-02).
Conservative group
launches ad campaign on Solyndra loan. The Los Angeles Times.
[20] Catanese, David (August 1, 2011). AFP Wisconsin ballots have late return date. Politico. Retrieved March 24,
2015.
[21] Fraudulent election calls traced to Racknine Inc., an Edmonton rm with Tory links | News | National Post.
News.nationalpost.com. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
[22] Roth, Zachary (2014-09-29). Koch group investigated
for faulty mailers. MSNBC. MSNBC. Retrieved 201505-29.
[23] Ramsey, David (Sep 30, 2014). Americans for Prosperity sends out hundreds of thousands of mailers with
fake voter registration information in North Carolina.
Arkansas Times. Retrieved 2014-11-16.
[24] Lacayo, Richard. Florida recount: In the eye of the
storm. CNN.
[25] Hicks, Jonathon (July 24, 2004). Seeing Double on Ballot: Similar Names Sow Confusion. The New York Times
(The New York Times Company). Retrieved 18 December 2008.

[35] Is Ghost Voting Acceptable?". Writ.lp.ndlaw.com.

2004-04-08. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
[36] Corruption Perceptions Index. Transparency International. Transparency International. 2011. Retrieved 1
December 2011.
[37] Lundin, Leigh (2008-08-17). Dangerous Ideas. Voting
Fiasco, Part 279.236(a). Criminal Brief. Retrieved 201010-07.
[38] podmoskovnik: C
". Podmoskovnik.livejournal.com. Retrieved
2015-05-29.
[39] 27 2009 . (2009-10-27). "
2007
2009 . : ". Trvscience.ru. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[40] Walter R. Mebane, Jr.; Kirill Kalinin. Comparative Election Fraud Detection (PDF). Personal.umich.edu. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[41] Decourcy, Michael (1994-02-19). Vote-Fraud Ruling
Shifts Pennsylvania Senate - NYTimes.com. The New
York Times (Pennsylvania). Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[42] Jeannette I. Andrade (2011-11-18). Electoral sabotage
case led vs Arroyo, Ampatuan, Bedol. Philippine Daily
Inquirer.
[43] United States Department of Justice Civil Rights DivisionVoting Section Home Page,Help America Vote Act
of 2002
[44] 107th U.S. Congress (October 29, 2002). Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-252)". U.S. Government
Printing Oce. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
[45] Wright, Susan (2005), The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscrimination Legislation, The Rosen Publishing Group, ISBN 1-4042-0455-5

12

[46] 2015: Cronista (in spanish)".

REFERENCES

[47] 1988: The fall of the system (in spanish)".

[70] DAILY MAIL COMMENT: No excuses for general

election voting asco. Dailymail.co.uk. 2015-05-07.
Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[48] Perus corruption runs deep (Chicago Tribune - 18 April

2001)". Freelori.org. 2001-04-18. Retrieved 2015-0613.

[71] Ukips David Hodgson Left O Darlington General

Election Ballot Papers And Demands Answers. Hungtonpost.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[49] TALKING POINT | Peru: Does the election have any

credibility?". News.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-06-13.
[50] Rewriting Russian History: Did Boris Yeltsin Steal the
1996 Presidential Election?".

[72] Election day glitches see Ukip candidate David Hodgson missed o ballot papers. Westerndailypress.co.uk.
2015-05-07. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[51]

[73] Hackney residents lose vote despite registering before

deadline. BBC.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[52] Andrew Sparrow. Voting open to 'childishly simple'

fraud, says watchdog. the Guardian.

[74] News, comment and reviews from the Hackney Citizen.

Hackneycitizen.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[53] British Voting System Open to Fraud. javno.com.

[75] Emma Bartholomew. Polling scandal aects thousands

- despite Hackney Council denying problems last week.
Hackneygazette.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[54] BBC NEWS - UK - England - West Midlands - Judge

upholds vote-rigging claims. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 201505-29.
[55] Login. timesonline.co.uk.
[56] BBC NEWS - UK - Voting scandal mars UK election.
Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[76] Hackney vote: Chaos as glitch denies people the chance

to vote. The Evening Standard.
[77] DAILY MAIL COMMENT: No excuses for general
election voting asco - Daily Mail Online. Mail Online.

[57] Rajeev Syal. Met considers criminal inquiry into Tower

Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman. the Guardian.

[78] The bullying behind the SNPs smiles. Telegraph.co.uk.

11 April 2015.

[58] Tower Hamlets count resumed amid accusations of intimidation. London24.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[79] G Laird. The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow

Uni. glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk.

[59] Rahman faces fresh election intimidation claims. Lgcplus.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[80] ThinkScotland - Thinking, talking and acting for Scotland. thinkscotland.org.

[60] Poll intimidation claims investigated by Electoral Commission. Telegraph.co.uk. 27 May 2014.

[81] David Clegg (18 February 2015). SNP accused of using

'intimidation' tactics after urging supporters to post pictures of Labour activists on internet. dailyrecord.

[61] General Election 2015: Briereld postal voters worries.

BB.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[62] Election 2015: Lancashire politicians warn of postal vote
fraud. BBC.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[63] Rowena Mason. Labour likens Ukip to BNP as South
Thanet election ght gets bitter. the Guardian.
[64] Police Intimidation on the #CroydonSouth Election
Campaign #VoteBigger - Trade Onion by Jonathan Bigger. Trade Onion by Jonathan Bigger.
[65] Plaid Queensway.
Plaid Wrecsam.
plaid.blogspot.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

Wrecsam-

[66] Plaid Cymru - Political Parties - General Election 2015.

Express.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[67] Daily Echo - Southampton news, sport & leisure for
Hampshire plus jobs & homes. Dailyecho.co.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[82] The Scottish Nasty Party and how its growing intimidation and intolerance of dissent reeks of fascism - Daily
Mail Online. Mail Online.
[83] Senior Labour gures complained of 'intimidation' in
East Kilbride Labour. Herald Scotland.
[84] Election live - 1 May - BBC News. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved
2015-05-29.
[85] Kevin McKenna. Welcome to Scotland, the SNPs police
state. the Guardian.
[86] SNP accused of using 'intimidation' tactics after urging
supporters to post pictures of Labour activists on internet Daily Record : ukpolitics. Reddit.com. Retrieved 201505-29.
[87] Eddie Izzard and Jim Murphy abused by Scottish nationalists at Labour general election event. Telegraph.co.uk.
4 May 2015. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[68] General election 2015: Ukip supporters 'intimidate voters outside South Thanet polling stations,' Labour claims.
The Independent. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[88] Nationalist thugs in Scotland will boost Scottish Labours

vote " Labour Uncut. labour-uncut.co.uk.

[69] Press Association 2014. Galloway opens poll legal challenge. Dorset Echo. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

[89] Claims of racism and spiritual intimidation in Pendle.

Markpack.org.uk. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

13

[90] Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany: Margaret Lavinia Anderson:
9780691048543. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[91] Philip Harling (May 1995). Rethinking Old Corruption"". Past & Present (Oxford University Press) 147:
127158.
[92] Political Competition and Electoral Fraud: A Latin
American Case Study (PDF). Libres.uncg.edu. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[93] Is Something Rotten In Ankaras Mayoral Election?
A Very Preliminary Statistical Analysis. Erikmeyersson.com. 2014-04-01. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[94] Trouble in Turkeys Elections. Erikmeyersson.com.
2014-04-06. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[95] Capital Fraud in Turkey? Evidence from Citizen Initiatives. Erikmeyersson.com. 2014-04-11. Retrieved
2015-05-29.
[96] Peter H. Argersinger (1986). New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age. Political Science Quarterly
(The Academy of Political Science) 100: 669687.
[97] Political Corruption and Presidential Elections, 1929
1992 (PDF). Repositories2.lib.utexas.edu. Retrieved
2015-05-29.
[98] Loomis Mayeld (1993).
Voting Fraud in Early
Twentieth-Century Pittsburgh. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History (The MIT Press) 24: 5984.
[99] Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel
Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876 eBook: Roy Morris Jr.. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
[100] Mark Wahlgren Summers (Author). Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics: Mark Wahlgren Summers: 9780807855379. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2015-05-29.

External links
Voter Fraud - an article from the ACE Project
Independent Verication: 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

14

9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1

Text

Electoral fraud Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud?oldid=686366747 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Scipius, Roadrunner,

Shii, Edward, Nealmcb, Infrogmation, DopeshJustin, Pnm, Dcljr, Docu, GCarty, Dcoetzee, Przepla, Morwen, Jerzy, Denelson83, Astronautics~enwiki, Goethean, TMLutas, Hcheney, Mattaschen, Fennec, Average Earthman, Everyking, Avala, PulpSpy, Stevietheman,
159753, Beland, Mzajac, Tomruen, Morgan695, Trilobite, Mtnerd, Mennonot, Bender235, NeilTarrant, Jnestorius, Pedant, MBisanz,
Ascorbic, Art LaPella, Devil Master, Idleguy, Pearle, A2Kar, Brainheart, Tra, Duman~enwiki, Hipocrite, Andrewpmk, Musicandcomedy, Wikidea, Gblaz, Max rspct, Lemmie~enwiki, SteinbDJ, Nicklott, Woohookitty, Robert K S, Kgrr, Tabletop, Plrk, Deltabeignet,
Zzedar, Electionworld, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi, NatusRoma, Amire80, Fish and karate, SchuminWeb, Ground Zero, Jayann, Correon, Bgwhite, RobotE, Sceptre, RussBot, Hauskalainen, Noypi380, Chensiyuan, Rsrikanth05, Welsh, Rjensen, Barberio, MartinRudat, Kgwo1972,
Lele, Petri Krohn, Knoepe, Mais oui!, Kungfuadam, Yvwv, A13ean, SmackBot, McGeddon, WilyD, Alksub, Quidam65, Anwar saadat,
JRSP, Chris the speller, ZyMOS, RoysonBobson, Tamfang, Addshore, Buddy-Rey, EVula, Yulia Romero, Akriasas, Derek R Bullamore,
Jan.Kamenicek, Howard the Duck, Crd721, Will Beback, Deepred6502, Aviper2k7, ArglebargleIV, Harryboyles, Vgy7ujm, Neil Hunt,
Davydog, Casg, Keith-264, Levineps, Renebeto, Joseph Solis in Australia, PippaN, Green caterpillar, Keithh, Cydebot, Two hundred percent, Dudeman5685, Hebrides, Sulpicius, Christian75, DumbBOT, Casliber, CieloEstrellado, Anyo Niminus, PureLogic, EdJohnston, The
Legendary Ranger, Spastas, Paul from Michigan, Farosdaughter, Ben w, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Falconleaf, InternationalIDEA,
Turgidson, Midnightdreary, SteveSims, Magioladitis, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Jmorrison230582, Manderiko, Bobby D. DS., Objectivesea,
Indon, Animum, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, Kawaputra, Ours18, Efgn, Bobby H. Heey, JMyrleFuller, Davidwiz, Kraxler, Jny2cornell, Electiontechnology, Ganoidyn, Anne97432, Hilltoppers, KTo288, J.delanoy, Cajun67, Euku, USN1977, Maurice Carbonaro, Laurusnobilis,
J.A.McCoy, Apostle12, Cannibalicious!, Taintain, Wisepiglet, Low Sea, Flatterworld, Student7, Railwayfan2005, Gingerbreadmen, Sam
Blacketer, UnicornTapestry, TreasuryTag, HughD, Helenalex, Liamoliver, THC Loadee, Enviroboy, Aec is away, MitchKliev, Monty845,
Cindamuse, Doc James, Bluedenim, Elicious13, StAnselm, Winchelsea, UnderstandingApples, Sahar Tomer, Flyer22, BjrnEF, Lightmouse, Mk32, Swace, Anchor Link Bot, Mohummy, Ainlina, Daryush Mehrjuba, EoGuy, Wickifrank, Hadrianheugh, Richrakh, Mild Bill
Hiccup, LizardJr8, John J. Bulten, Wildspell, Nymf, Bonewah, Aprock, Thingg, Nebula2357, Carola56, J1.grammar natz, DumZiBoT,
Choraw, Anticipation of a New Lovers Arrival, The, Addbot, DOI bot, Queenmomcat, SpellingBot, Favonian, Tassedethe, DinoBot2,
Bwrs, Lightbot, OC Ripper, James Tusk George, Parent55, Legobot, Yobot, Legobot II, A Stop at Willoughby, AnomieBOT, Kingpin13,
Abercrombiegrl113, TIGTAG, Citation bot, GB fan, Quebec99, LilHelpa, Sionus, Jackbrgs, DixieKaren, TobiasMar, , Whitember,
FrescoBot, Pinethicket, Birchman2, Jschnur, Tahir mq, Didactik, Lotje, Pbrower2a, RjwilmsiBot, Rami radwan, Dewritech, Nquinn91,
H3llBot, KarikaSlayer, Philoso4King, Chepe Limon, Electionwatchdog, ClueBot NG, This lousy T-shirt, Hans Eo, Bucoli, Hazhk, AlKolwicz, Widr, Lelmets, MerlIwBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Wbm1058, J991, 4thaugust1932, Threethinker, Johanna1990, Sparkie82, Youreallycan, KeesKnoest, BattyBot, Mollskman, Cyberbot II, GoShow, Myxomatosis57, Khazar2, K7L, Lugia2453, ComfyKem, Sriharsh1234,
Sephichan125, PresidentialVote, Zmavius, Jodosma, Old Naval Rooftops, YiFeiBot, Ginsuloft, Saturn872, Monkbot, Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq, Ballotact1872, Turkeytrotbro192, Newt1986 and Anonymous: 224

9.2

Images

File:Ballotstuffing.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Ballotstuffing.jpg License:

Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.
Original artist: The original uploader was Electiontechnology at English Wikipedia

Public domain

File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0

Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:Voting-box-6806.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Voting-box-6806.jpg License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: PereslavlFoto

9.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0