View source for Electoral fraud

{{short description|Illegal interference with the process of an election}}
{{use dmy dates |date=October 2024}}
{{Political corruption sidebar}}
'''Electoral fraud''', sometimes referred to as '''election manipulation''', '''election scam''', '''voter fraud''', or '''vote rigging''', involves illegal interference with the process of an [[election]], either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Myth of Voter Fraud|publisher=Brennan Center for Justice|url=https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud|access-date=2020-11-07|language=en|archive-date=2019-09-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190927160321/https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud|url-status=live}}</ref> It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with [[voter suppression]]. What exactly constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country, though the goal is often [[election subversion]].

Electoral legislation outlaws many kinds of election fraud,<ref name="jones-taxo">{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Douglas |date=2005-10-07 |title=Threats to Voting Systems |url=http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/nist2005.shtml |access-date=2020-06-25 |publisher=University of Iowa |archive-date=2020-09-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930002622/http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/nist2005.shtml |url-status=live}}
* also at {{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Douglas |date=2005-10-07 |title=An Expanded Threat Taxonomy |pages=178–179 |url=https://www.nist.gov/document-13971 |access-date=2020-06-23 |publisher=National Institute of Standards and Technology |archive-date=2021-01-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180645/https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/vote/threatworksummary.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> but other practices violate general laws, 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 to describe [[Election subversion|acts which are legal]], but considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of an election or in violation of the principles of [[democracy]].<ref name="Myagkov">{{Cite book |publisher =Cambridge University Press |isbn =978-0-521-76470-4 |last=Myagkov|first=Mikhail G.|author2=Peter C. Ordeshook |author3=Dimitri Shakin |title=The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine |date=2009}}</ref><ref name="Alvarez">{{Cite book |first1=Michael |last1=Alvarez |first2=Thad |last2=Hall |first3=Susan |last3=Hyde |year=2008 |title=Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation|publisher=Brookings Institution Press |isbn=978-0-81-570138-5 }}</ref> [[Sham election]]s, featuring only one candidate, are sometimes classified as electoral fraud,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bartlett |first1=Kate |title=Tanzanian opposition decries 'sham' elections, alleges hundreds of deaths |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/11/03/nx-s1-5594858/tanzanian-opposition-decries-sham-elections-alleges-hundreds-of-deaths |access-date=6 November 2025 |publisher=[[NPR]] |date=3 November 2025 |language=en}}</ref> although they may comply with the law and are presented more as referendums/plebiscites.

In national elections, successful electoral fraud on a sufficient scale can have the effect of a [[coup d'état]],{{citation needed|date=November 2020}} [[protest]]<ref>{{cite book |first=Dawn |last=Brancati |year=2016 |title=Democracy Protests: Origins, Features, and Significance |location=New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1107137738}} {{page needed|date=February 2024}}</ref> or [[corruption]] of democracy. In a [[List of narrow elections|narrow election]], a small amount of fraud may suffice to change the result. Even if the outcome is not affected, the revelation of fraud can reduce voters' confidence in democracy.

==Law==
Because U.S. states have primary responsibility for conducting elections, including federal elections, many forms of electoral fraud are prosecuted as state crimes. State election offenses include voter impersonation, double voting, ballot stuffing, tampering with voting machines, and fraudulent registration. Penalties vary widely by state and can include fines, imprisonment, loss of voting rights, and disqualification from holding public office.

The U.S. federal government prosecutes electoral crimes including voter intimidation, conspiracy to commit election fraud, bribery, interference with the right to vote, and fraud related to absentee ballots in federal elections.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nicholson |first=Christie |date=April 23, 2024 |title=What Is Electoral and Voter Fraud? |url=https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/what-is-electoral-and-voter-fraud-.html |access-date=September 26, 2024 |website=Findlaw}}</ref>

In France, someone guilty may be fined and/or imprisoned for not more than one year, or two years if the person is a public official.<ref name="legifrance.gouv.fr">{{cite web | website=legifrance.gouv.fr | title=Article L113 - Code électoral | url=https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032964814 | access-date=2023-02-07}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=May 2024}}

== Electorate manipulation ==
{{Elections}}

Electoral fraud can occur in advance of voting if the composition of the electorate is altered. The legality of this type of manipulation varies across jurisdictions. Deliberate manipulation of election outcomes is widely considered a violation of the principles of democracy.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 31, 2005|title=NVRI Files Amicus Brief in Federal Court Regarding Felon Disenfranchisement|website=[[National Voting Rights Institute]]|url-status=unfit |url=http://www.nvri.org/about/new_york_state_policies.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071111172709/http://www.nvri.org/about/new_york_state_policies.shtml|archive-date=November 11, 2007}}</ref>

=== Artificial migration or party membership ===
In many cases, it is possible for authorities to artificially control the composition of an electorate in order to produce a foregone result. One way of doing this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example by temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in [[flophouse]]s.<ref>{{cite book |last=Williamson |first=Chilton |title=American Suffrage from Property to Democracy |publisher=Princeton U. Press |year=1968 |location=Princeton, NJ |asin=B000FMPMK6}}</ref><ref name="Saltman">{{cite book |last=Saltman |first=Roy G. |title=The History and Politics of Voting Technology |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |date=January 2006 |url=http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=1403963924 |isbn=1-4039-6392-4 |access-date=2006-07-04 |archive-date=2009-12-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091214075234/http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=1403963924 |url-status=live }}</ref> Many countries prevent this with rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an electoral district for a minimum period (for example, six months) in order to be eligible to vote there. However, such laws can also be used for demographic manipulation as they tend to [[disenfranchise]] those with no fixed address, such as the homeless, travelers, [[Romani people|Roma]], students (studying full-time away from home), and some casual workers.

Another strategy is to permanently move people into an electoral district, usually through [[public housing]]. If people eligible for public housing are likely to vote for a particular party, then they can either be concentrated into one area, thus making their votes count for less, or moved into [[marginal seat]]s, where they may tip the balance towards their preferred party. One example of this was the 1986–1990 [[Homes for votes scandal]] in the [[City of Westminster]] in England under [[Shirley Porter]].<ref>{{cite web |publisher=House of Lords |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011213/magill-2.htm |title=Judgments - Magill v. Porter Magill v. Weeks |date=13 December 2001 |access-date=3 October 2022 }}</ref>

Immigration law may also be used to manipulate electoral demography. For instance, [[Malaysia]] gave citizenship to immigrants from the neighboring [[Philippines]] and [[Indonesia]], together with suffrage, in order for a political party to "dominate" the state of [[Sabah]]; this controversial process was known as [[Project IC]].<ref name=Sadiq>{{cite journal |last=Sadiq |first=Kamal |year=2005 |title=When States Prefer Non-Citizens Over Citizens: Conflict Over Illegal Immigration into Malaysia |journal=International Studies Quarterly |volume=49 |pages=101–22 |url=http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/ISQ2005FinalCopy.pdf |access-date=2008-04-23 |doi=10.1111/j.0020-8833.2005.00336.x |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080614044317/http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/ISQ2005FinalCopy.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-14}}</ref> In the United States, there have been allegations of an attempt to alter electoral demography via immigration as part of a far-right [[Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States|Great Replacement Theory conspiracy]]."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ray |first=Siladitya |title=Elon Musk Fans Conspiracy That Biden Wants To 'Legalize' Undocumented Migrants For Their Vote |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/02/21/elon-musk-fans-conspiracy-that-biden-wants-to-legalize-undocumented-migrants-for-their-vote/ |access-date=2024-07-18 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>

A method of manipulating [[Partisan primary|primary contests]] and other elections of party leaders are related to this. People who support one party may temporarily join another party (or vote in a crossover way, when permitted) in order to elect a weak candidate for that party's leadership. The goal ultimately is to defeat the weak candidate in the general election by the leader of the party that the voter truly supports. There were claims that this method was being utilised in the [[2015 Labour Party leadership election (UK)|UK Labour Party leadership election in 2015]], where Conservative-leaning [[Toby Young]] encouraged [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] to join [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] and vote for [[Jeremy Corbyn]] in order to "consign Labour to electoral oblivion".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html|title=Why Tories should join Labour and back Jeremy Corbyn|first=Toby|last=Young|date=17 June 2015|work=The Daily Telegraph|access-date=5 April 2018|archive-date=24 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180424083122/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=rc>{{cite web |work=spectator.co.uk |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-response-to-toriesforcorbyn-shows-they-really-have-lost-the-plot/ |title=Labour's response to #ToriesForCorbyn shows they really have lost the plot |first=Michael |last=O'Connell-Davidson  |date=24 June 2015|access-date=15 January 2021|archive-date=28 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828230208/https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/labours-response-to-toriesforcorbyn-shows-they-really-have-lost-the-plot/|url-status=live}}</ref> Shortly after, #ToriesForCorbyn [[Trending topics|trended]] on [[Twitter]].<ref name=rc />

=== Disenfranchisement ===
{{See also|Voter caging}}
The composition of an electorate may also be altered by [[disenfranchising]] some classes of people, rendering them unable to vote. In some cases, states had passed provisions that raised general barriers to voter registration, such as [[poll tax]]es, literacy and comprehension tests, and record-keeping requirements, which in practice were applied against minority populations to discriminatory effect. From the turn of the century into the late 1960s, most African Americans in the southern states comprising the [[Southern United States|former Confederacy]] were disenfranchised by such measures. Corrupt election officials may misuse voting regulations such as a [[literacy test]] or requirement for proof of identity or address in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for their targets to cast a vote. If such practices discriminate against a religious or ethnic group, they may so distort the political process that the political order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-[[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] or [[Jim Crow laws|Jim Crow]] era until the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. [[Felony disenfranchisement in the United States|Felons have been disenfranchised]] in many states as a strategy to prevent African Americans from voting.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/ex-felons-voting-rights-florida.html|title=Will Florida's Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?|last=Bazelon|first=Emily|date=2018-09-26|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-12-04|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=2020-01-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200104060802/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/ex-felons-voting-rights-florida.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 of religious groups: for example on [[Shabbat|the Sabbath]] or other [[Liturgical year|holy days]] of a religious group whose teachings determine that voting is prohibited on such a day. Communities may also be effectively disenfranchised if polling places are situated in areas perceived by voters as unsafe, or are not provided within reasonable proximity (rural communities are especially vulnerable to this).{{example needed|date=April 2017}}

In some cases, voters may be invalidly disenfranchised, which is true electoral fraud. For example, a legitimate voter may be "accidentally" removed from the [[electoral roll]], making it difficult or impossible for the person to vote.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In the Canadian federal election of 1917, during the [[World War I|Great War]], the Canadian government, led by the Union Party, 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 allowed that party to decide in which electoral district to place that vote. It also enfranchised those women who were directly related or married to an active soldier. These groups were believed 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 favour of the opposition Liberal Party.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.elections.ca/res/his/WEB_EC%2091135%20History%20of%20the%20Vote_Third%20edition_EN.pdf |title=A History of the Vote in Canada |publisher=Chief Electoral Officer of Canada |year=2021 |isbn=978-0-660-37056-9 |edition=3rd |location=Canada |pages=81–82 |chapter=Chapter 2: Uneven Progress, 1867-1919 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250428212645/https://www.elections.ca/res/his/WEB_EC%2091135%20History%20of%20the%20Vote_Third%20edition_EN.pdf |archive-date=2025-04-28}}</ref><!-- how? -->

=== Division of opposition support ===
Stanford University professor [[Beatriz Magaloni]] described a model governing the behaviour of autocratic regimes. She proposed that ruling parties can maintain political control under a democratic system without actively manipulating votes or coercing the electorate. Under the right conditions, the democratic system is maneuvered into an equilibrium in which divided opposition parties act as unwitting accomplices to single-party rule. This permits the ruling regime to abstain from illegal electoral fraud.<ref>{{cite web |last=Magaloni |first=Beatriz |title=Autocratic Elections, Voters, and the Game of Fraud |url=http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/ruleoflaw/papers/Magaloni.pdf |publisher=Yale Macmillan Center |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-date=22 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222144822/http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/ruleoflaw/papers/Magaloni.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

Preferential voting systems such as [[score voting]] and [[single transferable vote]], and in some cases, [[instant-runoff voting]], can reduce the impact of systemic electoral manipulation and [[Two-party system|political duopoly]].<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_24bJHyBV6sC&q=Gaming%20the%20Vote%3A%20Why%20elections%20Aren't%20Fair&pg=PA170 |title=Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (And What We Can Do About It) |publisher=Macmillan |author=Poundstone, William |year=2009 |page=170 |isbn=978-0-8090-4892-2 |access-date=2020-10-24 |archive-date=2021-01-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180652/https://books.google.com/books?id=_24bJHyBV6sC&q=Gaming+the+Vote%3A+Why+elections+Aren%27t+Fair&pg=PA170 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703864204576321171406816538 |title=Latest Issue on the Ballot: How to Hold a Vote |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=May 14, 2011 |access-date=June 29, 2012 |author=Bialik, Carl |archive-date=July 23, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723083018/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703864204576321171406816538 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Intimidation ===
'''Voter intimidation''' involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all.<ref name=":15">{{Cite news |last=Davis |first=Wynne |date=November 4, 2022 |title=What is voter intimidation and how concerned should you be? |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/11/04/1133988262/voter-intimidation-midterm-election-2022 |work=NPR |quote=}}</ref> [[Absentee voting|Absentee]] and other [[Postal voting|remote voting]] can be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have the protection and privacy of the polling location. Intimidation can take a range of forms including verbal, physical, or coercion. This was so common that in 1887, a Kansas Supreme Court in ''New Perspectives on Election Fraud in The Gilded Age'' said "[...] physical retaliation constituted only a slight disturbance and would not vitiate an election."

==== Violence or threats of violence ====
In its simplest form, voters from a particular demographic or known to support a particular party or candidate are directly threatened by supporters of another party or candidate or by those hired by them. In other cases, supporters of a particular party make it known that if a particular village or neighborhood is found to 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 effect of closing a particular polling place, thus making it difficult for people in that area to vote.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=106590&ntpid=12 |title=Did bomb threat stifle vote? (Capital Times) |publisher=Madison.com |access-date=2012-05-03 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090304173104/http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=106590&ntpid=12 |archive-date=March 4, 2009 }}</ref> 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. Historically, this tactic included [[Lynching in the United States]] to terrorize potential African American voters in some areas.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Polling places in an area known to support a particular party or candidate may be targeted for vandalism, destruction or threats, thus making it difficult or impossible for people in that area to vote.{{Citation needed|date=September 2024}}

==== 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 confident about their entitlement to vote may also be intimidated by real or implied authority figures who suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be imprisoned, deported or otherwise punished.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D91638F932A25752C1A965958260 |title=Florio's Defeat Revives Memories of G.O.P. Activities in 1981 |date=1993-11-13 |access-date=2008-10-07 |last=Sullivan |first=Joseph F. |newspaper=The New York Times |archive-date=2009-03-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090307042105/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D91638F932A25752C1A965958260 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="autogenerated2" /> 

For example, in 2004, in Wisconsin and elsewhere voters allegedly 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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ep365.org/site/c.fnKGIMNtEoG/b.2052599/k.6FF4/Intimidation_and_Deceptive_Practices.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080121190107/http://www.ep365.org/site/c.fnKGIMNtEoG/b.2052599/k.6FF4/Intimidation_and_Deceptive_Practices.htm |url-status=dead|archive-date=2008-01-21 |title=Intimidation and Deceptive Practices EP365 |access-date=2018-04-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/republicanincidents.html |title=Incidents Of Voter Intimidation & Suppression |date=2006-11-08 |access-date=2012-05-03 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070404073205/http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/republicanincidents.html |archive-date=April 4, 2007 }}</ref>

==== Coercion ====
Employers can coerce the voters' decision, through strategies such as explicit or implicit threats of job loss.<ref name="z564">{{cite journal | last1=Frye | first1=Timothy | last2=Reuter | first2=Ora John | last3=Szakonyi | first3=David | title=Hitting Them With Carrots: Voter Intimidation and Vote Buying in Russia | journal=British Journal of Political Science | volume=49 | issue=3 | date=2019 | issn=0007-1234 | doi=10.1017/S0007123416000752 | pages=857–881}}</ref>

=== Disinformation ===
People may distribute false or misleading information in order to affect the outcome of an election.<ref name="Myagkov" /> For example, in the [[1970 Chilean presidential election|Chilean presidential election of 1970]], the U.S. government's [[Central Intelligence Agency]] used "black propaganda"—materials purporting to be from various political parties—to sow discord between members of a coalition between socialists and communists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp |title=Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963–1973) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090911173014/http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp |archive-date=2009-09-11 |publisher=[[United States Senate]] |work=[[Church Committee]] |year=1975 }}</ref>

Another method, allegedly used in [[Cook County, Illinois]], in 2004, is to falsely tell particular people that they are not eligible to vote<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite web |url=http://www.ep365.org/site/c.fnKGIMNtEoG/b.2052599/k.6FF4/Intimidation_and_Deceptive_Practices.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061026234525/http://www.ep365.org/site/c.fnKGIMNtEoG/b.2052599/k.6FF4/Intimidation_and_Deceptive_Practices.htm |archive-date=October 26, 2006 |title=Intimidation and Deceptive Practices |work=Election Protection 365 |access-date=17 October 2024 }}</ref> In 1981 in New Jersey, the [[Republican National Committee]] created the [[Ballot Security Task Force]] to discourage voting among Latino and African-American citizens of New Jersey. The task force identified voters from an old registration list and challenged their credentials. It also paid off-duty police officers to patrol polling sites in Newark and Trenton, and posted signs saying that falsifying a ballot is a crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/11/nyregion/florio-s-defeat-revives-memories-of-gop-activities-in-1981.html|title=Florio's Defeat Revives Memories of G.O.P. Activities in 1981|date=November 13, 1993|last=Sullivan|first=Joseph F.|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=November 1, 2020|archive-date=October 6, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201006221017/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/11/nyregion/florio-s-defeat-revives-memories-of-gop-activities-in-1981.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Another use of [[disinformation]] is to give voters incorrect information about the time or place of polling, thus causing them to miss their chance to vote. 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 that worked with the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/racknine-inc-fraudulent-election-calls-traced |title=Fraudulent election calls traced to Racknine Inc., an Edmonton firm with Tory links |work=National Post |access-date=2012-05-03 |date=2012-02-23 |archive-date=2020-03-26 |archive-url=http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20200326163708/https://nationalpost.com/category/news/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Similarly in the United States, right-wing [[Political campaign staff|political operatives]] [[Jacob Wohl]] and [[Jack Burkman]] were indicted on several counts of bribery and election fraud in October 2020 regarding a voter disinformation scheme they undertook in the months prior to the [[2020 United States presidential election]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-michigan-ohio-cleveland-california-9fd2a1c998ff26412fd53c83cb3efc09/ |title=2 conservatives accused in hoax robocall scheme plead guilty |work=Associated Press |date=2022-10-24 |archive-date=2022-10-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221029032524/https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-michigan-ohio-cleveland-california-9fd2a1c998ff26412fd53c83cb3efc09 |url-status=live }}</ref> The pair hired a firm to make nearly 85,000 [[robocall]]s that targeted minority neighborhoods in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Michigan, and Illinois. Like [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] constituencies in general that year, minorities voted overwhelmingly by [[absentee ballot]], many judging it a safer option during the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] than in-person voting.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/13/mail-in-voting-became-much-more-common-in-2020-primaries-as-covid-19-spread/ |title=Mail-in voting became much more common in 2020 primaries as COVID-19 spread |work=Pew Research Center study published |date=2022-10-24 |archive-date=2022-10-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221031202447/https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/13/mail-in-voting-became-much-more-common-in-2020-primaries-as-covid-19-spread/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Baselessly, the call warned potential voters if they submitted their votes by mail that authorities could use their [[Personal data|personal information]] against them, including threats of police arrest for outstanding warrants and forced debt collection by creditors.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/wohl-election-robocalls-cleveland-court-b2209703.html |title=Conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl pleads guilty to felony over 2020 election robocalls |work=The Independent (US Edition) |date=2022-10-25 |archive-date=2022-10-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221025144929/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/wohl-election-robocalls-cleveland-court-b2209703.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On October 24, 2022, [[Jacob Wohl|Wohl]] and [[Jack Burkman|Burkman]] pleaded guilty in [[Cuyahoga County|Cuyahoga County, Ohio]] [[Ohio Courts of Common Pleas|Common Pleas Court]] to one count each of felony telecommunications fraud.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2913.05|title=Section 2913.05 - Ohio Revised Code &#124; Ohio Laws}}</ref> Commenting on the tactic of using disinformation to suppress voter turnout, [[Cuyahoga County]] Prosecutor Michael C. O'Malley said the two men had "infringed upon the right to vote", and that "by pleading guilty, they were held accountable for their un-American actions."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/politics/jacob-wohl-jack-burkman-robocall-guilty |title=Conservative activists plead guilty in 2020 election robocall fraud |work=CNN |date=2022-10-25 |archive-date=2022-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221102215623/https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/politics/jacob-wohl-jack-burkman-robocall-guilty |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== False claims of fraud ====
[[File:20240524_Trump_groundwork_for_election_denial.svg|thumb|To sow election doubt, Donald Trump escalated use of "rigged election" and "election interference" statements in advance of the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections.<ref name="NYTimes_20240524">{{cite news |last1=Yourish |first1=Karen |last2=Smart |first2=Charlie |date=May 24, 2024 |title=Trump's Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies in 2024 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/24/us/politics/trump-election-results-doubt.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240524231457/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/24/us/politics/trump-election-results-doubt.html |archive-date=May 24, 2024 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>]]
False claims of electoral fraud can be used as a basis for attempting to overturn an election. During and after the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 presidential election]], incumbent President [[Donald Trump]] made numerous [[Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election|allegations]] of electoral fraud by supporters of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] candidate [[Joe Biden]]. The Trump campaign lost numerous legal challenges to the results.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Trump's lawyer alleges voter fraud in 'big cities', says loss in Pennsylvania 'statistically impossible'|work=Hindustan Times|date=19 November 2020|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/us-presidential-election/trump-s-lawyer-alleges-voter-fraud-in-big-cities-says-loss-in-pennsylvania-statistically-impossible/story-gVvKtEvne61KxN7Dd7ZM9L.html|access-date=2020-11-19|language=en|archive-date=2020-11-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201119181223/https://www.hindustantimes.com/us-presidential-election/trump-s-lawyer-alleges-voter-fraud-in-big-cities-says-loss-in-pennsylvania-statistically-impossible/story-gVvKtEvne61KxN7Dd7ZM9L.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Trump claims without evidence that mail voting leads to cheating: A guide to facts on absentee ballots|url=https://news.yahoo.com/trump-claims-mail-voting-lead-230736725.html|access-date=2021-06-16|website=Yahoo News |date=22 June 2020 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Conradis|first=Brandon|date=2020-12-01|title=Barr says DOJ hasn't uncovered widespread voter fraud in 2020 election|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election|access-date=2020-12-01|website=The Hill|language=en|archive-date=2020-12-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201193802/https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=US election security officials reject Trump's fraud claims|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54926084|access-date=2020-11-14|work=BBC News|date=13 November 2020|language=en|archive-date=2020-11-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201113215631/https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54926084|url-status=live}}</ref> [[President of Brazil]] [[Jair Bolsonaro]] also made numerous claims of electoral fraud without evidence during and after the [[2022 Brazilian presidential election]].<ref name="t008">{{cite web | last1=Savarese | first1=Mauricio | agency=Associated Press | title=Brazilian voters bombarded with misinformation days before vote | website=PBS News | date=2022-10-25 | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/brazilian-voters-bombarded-with-misinformation-days-before-vote | access-date=2024-09-07}}</ref>

=== Dead people voting ===
Dead people voting refers to instances where ballots are fraudulently cast in the name of deceased individuals. While concerns about this type of electoral fraud often arise, studies suggest that such cases are extremely rare. In many democratic systems, safeguards exist to prevent this, such as regularly updating voter rolls and requiring identification at polling stations. However, in some cases, fraudulent actors may exploit outdated records or use the identification of deceased individuals to attempt illegal voting.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Ikhsanudin |first=Arief |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Ada 'Warga Meninggal' Nyoblos di Pilkada 2020, Ternyata KTP Dipakai Orang Lain |trans-title=There Was a 'Deceased Resident' Voting in the 2020 Regional Elections, Turns Out Their ID Card Was Used by Someone Else |url=https://news.detik.com/pemilu/d-7430737/ada-warga-meninggal-nyoblos-di-pilkada-2020-ternyata-ktp-dipakai-orang-lain |access-date=April 26, 2025 |work=detikNews}}</ref>

In Indonesia, dead people voting occurred during the [[2020 Indonesian local elections|2020 local elections]]<ref name=":0" /> and the [[2024 Indonesian general election|2024 general election]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mellaz |first=August |date=March 12, 2024 |title=KPU Periksa Orang Meninggal Ikut Nyoblos di TPS Kalimantan Barat |trans-title=KPU Investigates Deceased Voter Casting Ballot at Polling Station in West Kalimantan |url=https://www.tempo.co/politik/kpu-periksa-orang-meninggal-ikut-nyoblos-di-tps-kalimantan-barat-78564 |access-date=April 26, 2025 |work=Tempo.co}}</ref> There have been similar incidents reported in smaller regional elections.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Agustina |first=Dewi |date=16 April 2019 |title='15 Orang yang Sudah Meninggal Dapat Formulir C6, Kita yang Masih Hidup Belum Dikasih' |trans-title='15 People Who Have Passed Away Receive C6 Forms, While We Who Are Still Alive Haven't Gotten Them' |url=https://www.tribunnews.com/regional/2019/04/16/15-orang-yang-sudah-meninggal-dapat-formulir-c6-kita-yang-masih-hidup-belum-dikasih |access-date=26 April 2025 |work=TribunNews.com}}</ref>

=== Voting in multiple countries ===
Elections which allow [[non-citizen suffrage]] or [[multiple citizenship]] can violate the [[One man, one vote|one person, one vote]] principle if one person votes in multiple countries.<ref name="x226">{{cite journal | last1=Umpierrez de Reguero | first1=Sebastián | last2=Finn | first2=Victoria | title=Migrants' intention to vote in two countries, one country, or neither | journal=Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties | volume=34 | issue=3 | date=2 July 2024 | issn=1745-7289 | doi=10.1080/17457289.2023.2189727 | pages=466–489| hdl=1814/75483 | url= https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/75483/Migrants%E2%80%99_Intention_to_Vote_Art_2023.pdf }}</ref> The [[European Union]] has implemented safeguards against one person voting in more than one country through [[electoral roll]] information exchange.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Council Directive - 93/109/EC - Article 13 |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1993/109/oj/eng |access-date=2025-10-13 |website=EUR-Lex |language=en}}</ref>

== Vote buying{{anchor|Vote buying}}<!--[[Electoral bribery]] redirects here--> ==
{{Main|Vote buying}}Vote buying occurs when a political party or candidate seeks to buy the vote of a voter in an upcoming election. Vote buying can take various forms such as a monetary exchange, as well as an exchange for necessary goods or services.<ref name="rienner.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.rienner.com/title/Elections_for_Sale_The_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Vote_Buying|title=Lynne Rienner Publishers – Elections for Sale The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying|website=rienner.com|access-date=2018-04-22|archive-date=2021-01-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115181555/https://www.rienner.com/title/Elections_for_Sale_The_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Vote_Buying|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Voting process and results ==
A list of threats to voting systems, or electoral fraud methods considered as sabotage are kept by the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]].<ref>{{cite web |access-date=17 October 2024 |title=Threat Analyses & Papers |work=[[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] |url=http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021021000/http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers.htm |archive-date=October 21, 2006}}</ref>

=== Misleading or confusing ballot papers ===
Ballot papers may be used to discourage votes for a particular party or candidate, using the design or other features which confuse voters into voting for a different candidate. For example, in the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 U.S. presidential election]], Florida's [[butterfly ballot]] paper was criticized as poorly designed, leading some voters to vote for the wrong candidate. While the ballot itself was designed by a Democrat, it was the Democratic candidate, [[Al Gore]], who was most harmed by voter errors because of this design.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/recount.tm/index.html |publisher=CNN |first=Richard |last=Lacayo |title=Florida recount: In the eye of the storm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110622085605/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/recount.tm/index.html |archive-date=2011-06-22 }}</ref> Poor or misleading design is usually not illegal and therefore not technically election fraud, but it can nevertheless subvert the principles of democracy.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

[[Sweden]] has a system with separate ballots used for each party, to reduce confusion among candidates. However, ballots from small parties such as [[Pirate Party (Sweden)|Piratpartiet]], [[Junilistan]] and [[Feministiskt initiativ]] have been omitted or placed on a separate table in the election to the EU parliament in 2009.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.sr.se/sormland/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=2894807 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090615232203/http://www.sr.se/sormland/nyheter/artikel.asp?artikel=2894807 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2009-06-15 |title=Sidolagda valsedlar inget lagbrott |website=sr.se}}</ref> Ballots from [[Sweden Democrats]] have been mixed with ballots from the larger [[Swedish Social Democratic Party]], which used a very similar font for the party name written on the top of the ballot.{{Citation needed|date=June 2018}}

Another method of confusing people into voting for a different candidate from the one intended is to run candidates or create political parties with similar names or symbols to an existing candidate or party. The goal is to mislead voters into voting for the false candidate or party.<ref>{{cite news|first=Jonathon|last=Hicks|title=Seeing Double on Ballot: Similar Names Sow Confusion|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E7D9173DF937A15754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/B/Board%20of%20Elections|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=July 24, 2004|access-date=18 December 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090304222653/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E7D9173DF937A15754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FOrganizations%2FB%2FBoard%20of%20Elections|archive-date=2009-03-04|url-status=dead}}</ref> Such tactics may be particularly effective when many voters have limited literacy in the language used on the ballot. Again, such tactics are usually not illegal but they often work against the principles of democracy.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Another possible source of electoral confusion is multiple variations of voting by different [[electoral system]]s. This may cause ballots to be counted as invalid if the wrong system is used. For instance, if a voter puts a [[first-past-the-post]] cross in a numbered [[single transferable vote]] ballot paper, it is invalidated. For example, in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, up to three different voting systems and types of ballots may be used, based on the jurisdictional level of the election. [[Local government in Scotland|Local elections]] are determined by [[single transferable vote]]s; [[Scottish Parliament general election|Scottish parliamentary elections]] by the [[additional member system]]; and UK Parliamentary elections by [[first-past-the-post]].{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Ballot stuffing ===
[[File:Виборчі урни в Україні.jpg|thumb|Transparent ballot box used in Ukraine to prevent election officials from pre-stuffing the box with fake ballots]]
[[File:Ballotstuffing.jpg|thumb|A specialised ballot box used to assist ballot stuffing, featured in [[Frank Leslie's Weekly|''Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper'']] in 1856]]
'''Ballot stuffing''', or "ballot-box stuffing", is the illegal practice of one person submitting multiple [[ballot]]s during a [[vote]] in which only one ballot per person is permitted.
* In the [[Electoral district of Cook#1883 election|1883 election for the district of Cook]], in [[Queensland, Australia]], arrests were made in connection with accusations of ballot stuffing, and the election committee subsequently changed the result of the election<ref>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article19794467 |title=Political |newspaper=[[The Queenslander]] |date=3 November 1883 |access-date=13 January 2015 |page=721 |publisher=National Library of Australia}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article77188984 |title=Herberton |newspaper=[[The Northern Miner (Queensland)|The Northern Miner]] |location=Charters Towers, Qld. |date=6 November 1883 |access-date=13 January 2015 |page=2 |publisher=National Library of Australia}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article52077907 |title=Colonial Telegrams [From Our Own Corresponden.] Queensland|newspaper=[[The Morning Bulletin]] |location=Rockhampton, Qld. |date=18 December 1883 |access-date=13 January 2015 |page=3 |publisher=National Library of Australia}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article77190416 |title=Telegraphic Intelligence |newspaper=[[The Northern Miner (Queensland)|The Northern Miner]] |location=Charters Towers, Qld. |date=5 March 1884 |access-date=14 January 2015 |page=2 |publisher=National Library of Australia}}</ref>
* A 2006 version of the [[Sequoia Voting Systems|Sequoia]] touchscreen [[voting machine]] had a yellow service "back" button on the back that could allow repeated voting under specific circumstances<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hoffman |first1=Ian |title=Button on e-voting machine allows multiple votes |url=https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2006/11/01/button-on-e-voting-machine-allows-multiple-votes/ |access-date=17 May 2021 |work=East Bay Times |date=1 November 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Hickins |first1=Michael |title=A little yellow button on the back of Sequoia voting machines provides a manual override that lets a single person vote multiple times. |url=http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3641671 |access-date=17 May 2021 |work=InternetNews.com |date=3 November 2006}}</ref>
*During the [[2014 Afghan presidential election]], Afghanistan's [[National Directorate of Security]] (NDS) recorded Ziaul Haq Amarkhel, the secretary of Afghanistan's [[Independent Election Commission (Afghanistan)|Independent Election Commission]], telling local officials to "take sheep to the mountains, stuff them, and bring them back", in an apparent reference to ballot stuffing<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Steve Coll|last=Coll|first=Steve|title=Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan|publisher=[[Penguin Group]]|year=2019|isbn=9780143132509|pages=649–650}}</ref> 
* During the [[2018 Russian presidential election]], there were multiple instances, some caught on camera, throughout Russia of voters and polling staff alike stuffing multiple votes in the ballot box<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bodner |first1=Matthew |title=Analysis {{!}} Videos online show blatant ballot-stuffing in Russia |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/19/videos-online-show-blatant-ballot-stuffing-in-russia/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 19, 2018 |access-date=July 6, 2020 |archive-date=July 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200713010647/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/19/videos-online-show-blatant-ballot-stuffing-in-russia/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* [[Major League Baseball]]'s [[Major League Baseball All-Star Game|All-Star Game]] has had problems with ballot stuffing on occasion, such as in [[1957 Major League Baseball All-Star Game#Cincinnati voting controversy|1957]],<ref name="Cyber-stuffing remains threat" /> [[1999 Major League Baseball All-Star Game|1999]]<ref name="Cyber-stuffing remains threat">{{cite news|last=Rovell|first=Darren|url=https://www.espn.com/mlb/s/2001/0624/1218244.html|title=Cyber-stuffing remains threat to All-Star voting|website=[[ESPN.com]]|publisher=[[ESPN]]|date=June 26, 2001|access-date=May 7, 2021}}</ref> and [[2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game#Fan balloting|2015]]<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb-news/4647665-mlb-cancels-65-million-all-star-ballots-royals-omar-infane-fraud-fake-votes| title = MLB says it has canceled as many as 65 million All-Star ballots {{!}} MLB {{!}} Sporting News| work = Sporting News| date = 18 June 2015| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151025004153/http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb-news/4647665-mlb-cancels-65-million-all-star-ballots-royals-omar-infane-fraud-fake-votes| archive-date = 2015-10-25}}</ref>
* Ballot stuffing was reported during the [[2024 Georgian parliamentary election]].<ref name="a258">{{cite web | title=IRI Releases Final Report on Georgia's Parliamentary Elections | website=International Republican Institute | date=23 December 2024 | url=https://www.iri.org/news/iri-releases-final-report-on-georgias-parliamentary-elections/ | access-date=19 January 2025}}</ref>

=== Misrecording of votes ===
Votes may be misrecorded at source, on a ballot paper or voting machine, or later in misrecording totals. The [[2019 Malawian general election#Aftermath|2019 Malawian general election]] was nullified by the Constitutional Court in 2020 because many results were changed by use of correction fluid, as well as duplicate, unverified and unsigned results forms.<ref>{{cite web |title=Malawi anxiously awaits verdict on alleged presidential election fraud |date=3 February 2020 |url=http://www.rfi.fr/en/wires/20200203-malawi-anxiously-awaits-verdict-alleged-presidential-election-fraud |publisher=Radio France Internationale |access-date=3 February 2020 |archive-date=3 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200203201434/http://www.rfi.fr/en/wires/20200203-malawi-anxiously-awaits-verdict-alleged-presidential-election-fraud |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Malawi top court annuls presidential election results |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/malawi-top-court-annuls-presidential-election-results-200203060112731.html |publisher=Al Jazeera |access-date=3 February 2020 |archive-date=4 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200204122939/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/malawi-top-court-annuls-presidential-election-results-200203060112731.html |url-status=live }}</ref> California allows correction fluid and tape, so changes can be made after the ballot leaves the voter.<ref name="fluid">{{Cite web |date=2020-10-01 |title=2 CCR 20983(c)(6) |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/september/20226rb.pdf |access-date=2020-10-05 |publisher=California Secretary of State |archive-date=2020-10-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201009002428/https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/september/20226rb.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

Where votes are recorded through electronic or mechanical means, the voting machinery may be altered so that a vote intended for one candidate is recorded for another, or electronic results are duplicated or lost, and there is rarely evidence whether the cause was fraud or error.<ref name="freed">{{Cite news |url=https://statescoop.com/south-carolina-voting-machines-miscounted-hundreds-of-ballots-report-finds/ |title=South Carolina voting machines miscounted hundreds of ballots, report finds |last=Freed |first=Benjamin |date=2019-01-07 |access-date=2020-02-05 |language=en |archive-date=2020-02-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200205230625/https://statescoop.com/south-carolina-voting-machines-miscounted-hundreds-of-ballots-report-finds/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="buell">{{Cite report |url=http://www.lwvsc.org/files/buell-lwvscreport2018scelection.pdf |title=Analysis of the Election Data from the 6 November 2018 General Election in South Carolina |last=Buell |first=Duncan |date=2018-12-23 |issue=League of Women Voters of South Carolina |access-date=2020-02-05 |archive-date=2019-02-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224163525/http://lwvsc.org/files/buell-lwvscreport2018scelection.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="everest">{{Cite report |url=https://nordicinnovationlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/everest.pdf |title=Everest: Evaluation and Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards and Testing |last=McDaniel |display-authors=etal |date=2007-12-07 |issue=Ohio Secretary of State |access-date=2020-02-05 |archive-date=2019-07-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190715183345/https://nordicinnovationlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/everest.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

Many elections feature multiple opportunities for unscrupulous officials or 'helpers' to record an elector's vote differently from their intentions. Voters who require assistance to cast their votes are particularly vulnerable to having their votes stolen in this way. For example, a blind or illiterate person may be told that they have voted for one party when in fact they have been led to vote for another.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Misuse of proxy votes ===
[[Proxy voting]] is particularly vulnerable to election fraud, due to the amount of trust placed in the person who casts the vote. In several countries, there have been allegations of retirement home residents being asked to fill out 'absentee voter' forms. When the forms are signed and gathered, they are secretly rewritten as applications for proxy votes, naming party activists or their friends and relatives as the proxies. These people, unknown to the voter, cast the vote for the party of their choice. In the [[United Kingdom]], this is known as 'granny farming.'<ref>{{cite news |title=Row over Alzheimer woman's proxy |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/england/4510971.stm |work=BBC News |access-date=13 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419083742/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/england/4510971.stm |archive-date=19 April 2016 |language=en|date=2005-05-04 }}</ref>

=== Destruction of ballots ===
One of methods of electoral fraud is to destroy ballots for an opposing candidate or party.

While mass destruction of ballots can be difficult to achieve without drawing attention to it, in a very close election it may be possible to destroy a 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 benefit from such destruction as long as it is not linked to it.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

During the [[Restoration (Spain)|Bourbon Restoration]] in late 19th century Spain, the organized "loss" of voting slips (''[[pucherazo]]'') was used to maintain the agreed alternation between the Liberals and the Conservatives. This system of local political domination, especially rooted in rural areas and small cities, was known as ''[[Tribal chief|caciquismo]]''.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Invalidation of ballots ===
Another 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 entitled, for instance. It would be difficult to do this to a large number of paper ballots without detection in some locales, but altogether too simple in others, especially jurisdictions where legitimate ballot spoiling by voter would serve a clear and reasonable aim: for example emulating protest votes in jurisdictions that have recently had and since abolished a "none of the above" or "against all" voting option; civil disobedience where voting is mandatory; and attempts at discrediting or invalidating an election. An unusually large share of invalidated ballots may be attributed to loyal supporters of candidates that lost in primaries or previous rounds, did not run or did not qualify to do so, or some manner of protest movement or organized boycott.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In 2016, during the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|EU membership referendum]], Leave-supporting voters in the UK [[Voting pencil conspiracy theory|alleged without evidence that the pencils]] supplied by voting stations would allow votes to be erased from the ballot.<ref name=Etehad>{{cite news |last=Etehad |first=Melissa |date=23 June 2016 |title=Pencil or pen? An unusual conspiracy theory grips Brexit vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/23/pencil-or-pen-an-unusual-conspiracy-theory-grips-brexit-vote/ |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=12 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="Dobreva">{{open access}} {{cite journal |last1=Dobreva |first1=Diyana |last2=Grinnell |first2=Daniel |last3=Innes |first3=Martin |date=6 May 2019 |title=Prophets and Loss: How 'Soft Facts' on Social Media Influenced the Brexit Campaign and Social Reactions to the Murder of Jo Cox MP |journal=Policy & Internet |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=144–164 |doi=10.1002/poi3.203 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Tampering with electronic voting systems ===
{{main|Election security}}

==== General tampering ====
{{further|Vote counting#Errors in optical scans|Vote counting#Errors in direct-recording electronic voting}}
All [[voting system]]s face threats of some form of electoral fraud. The types of threats that affect [[voting machine]]s vary.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers.htm|title=Threat Analyses & Papers|date=October 7, 2005|publisher=[[National Institute of Standards and Technology]]|access-date=5 March 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021021000/http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers.htm|archive-date=21 October 2006}}</ref> Research at Argonne National Laboratories revealed that a single individual with physical access to a machine, such as a Diebold Accuvote TS, can install inexpensive, readily available electronic components to manipulate its functions.<ref>{{cite web |author=Jaikumar Vijayan |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220356/Argonne_researchers_hack_Diebold_e_voting_system_ |title=Argonne researchers 'hack' Diebold e-voting system |work=Computerworld |date=2011-09-28 |access-date=2012-05-03 |archive-date=2012-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509111053/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9220356/Argonne_researchers_hack_Diebold_e_voting_system_ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Layton">{{cite web|last=Layton|first=J.|title=How can someone tamper with an electronic voting machine|url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/vote-tampering.htm|access-date=2011-02-27|date=2006-09-22|archive-date=2011-07-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110712224237/http://people.howstuffworks.com/vote-tampering.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

Other approaches include:
* Tampering with the [[software]] of a voting machine to add malicious code that alters vote totals or favors a candidate in any way.
** Multiple groups have demonstrated this possibility<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/ts-evt07-init.pdf |title=Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine |publisher=Jhalderm.com |access-date=2015-05-29 |archive-date=2015-02-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205200557/https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/ts-evt07-init.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet1">{{cite web |url=https://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf|title=Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer a security analysis |access-date=February 17, 2012 |first1=Rop |last1=Gonggrijp |first2=Willem-Jan |last2=Hengeveld |first3=Andreas |last3=Bogk|first4=Dirk |last4=Engling |first5=Hannes |last5=Mehnert |first6=Frank |last6=Rieger |first7=Pascal |last7=Scheffers |first8=Barry |last8=Wels |website=The We do not trust voting computers foundation |location=[[Netherlands]] |date=October 6, 2006 |archive-date=October 17, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017080326/https://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/editorial/15889697.htm | title=Problems in test run for voting | date=October 31, 2006 | publisher=[[Miami Herald]]}} {{dead link|date=May 2015}}</ref>
** Private companies manufacture these machines. Many companies will not allow public access or review of the machines' [[source code]], claiming fear of exposing [[trade secret]]s<ref name="Bonsor">{{cite web|last=Bonsor and Strickland|first=Kevin and Jonathan|title=How E-Voting Works|url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/e-voting2.htm|access-date=2011-02-27|date=2007-03-12|archive-date=2011-07-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110712224317/http://people.howstuffworks.com/e-voting2.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
* Tampering with the hardware of the [[voting machine]] to alter vote totals or favor any candidate.<ref name="wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet1" />{{citation needed|date=March 2021}}
** Some of these machines require a smart card to activate the machine and vote. However, a fraudulent smart card could attempt to gain access to voting multiple times<ref name=" Kohno">{{cite web|last=Kohno|first=T.|title=Analysis of Electronic Voting System|url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=vote-tampering.htm&url=http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf#search=%22electronic%20voting%20tampering%22|access-date=2011-02-27|archive-date=2021-01-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180705/https://www.howstuffworks.com/?parent=vote-tampering.htm&url=http%3A%2F%2Favirubin.com%2Fvote.pdf#search=%22electronic%20voting%20tampering%22|url-status=live}}</ref> or be pre-loaded with negative votes to favor one candidate over another, as has been demonstrated
* Abusing the administrative access to the machine by election officials might also allow individuals to vote multiple times{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}
* Election results that are sent directly over the internet from the polling place centre to the vote-counting authority can be vulnerable to a [[man-in-the-middle attack]], where they are diverted to an intermediate website where the man in the middle flips the votes in favour of a certain candidate and then immediately forwards them on to the vote-counting authority. All votes sent over the internet violate the chain of custody and hence should be avoided by driving or flying memory cards in locked metal containers to the vote-counters. For purposes of getting quick preliminary total results on election night, encrypted votes can be sent over the internet, but final official results should be tabulated the next day only after the actual memory cards arrive in secure metal containers and are counted<ref>{{cite web |url=http://electiondefensealliance.org/man_in_the_middle |title="Man in the Middle" Attacks to Subvert the Vote |publisher=Electiondefensealliance.org |access-date=2015-05-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150721233505/http://electiondefensealliance.org/man_in_the_middle |archive-date=2015-07-21 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

==== South Africa ====
In 1994, [[1994 South African general election|the election]] which brought majority rule and put [[Nelson Mandela]] in office, South Africa's election compilation system was hacked, so they re-tabulated by hand.<ref name="birth">{{Cite web |url=http://penguin.bookslive.co.za/blog/2010/10/25/excerpt-from-birth-the-conspiracy-to-stop-the-94-election-by-peter-harris/ |title=Excerpt from Birth: The Conspiracy to Stop the '94 Election by Peter Harris |date=2010-10-25 |website=Penguin SA @ Sunday Times Books |language=en-US |access-date=2020-02-03}}</ref><ref name="umuzi">{{Cite book |title=Birth: The Conspiracy to Stop the '94 Election |last=Harris |first=Peter |publisher=Umuzi |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-4152-0102-2 |edition=1st |location=Cape Town |oclc=683401576}}</ref><ref name="laing">{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8084053/Election-won-by-Mandela-rigged-by-opposition.html |title=Election won by Mandela 'rigged by opposition' |last=Laing |first=Aislinn |journal=The Daily Telegraph |date=2010-10-24 |access-date=2020-02-03 |language=en-GB |issn=0307-1235 |archive-date=2020-02-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200203233046/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/8084053/Election-won-by-Mandela-rigged-by-opposition.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Ukraine ====
In 2014, Ukraine's central election system was hacked. Officials found and removed a virus and said the totals were correct.<ref name="clayton">{{Cite news |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2014/0617/Ukraine-election-narrowly-avoided-wanton-destruction-from-hackers |title=Ukraine election narrowly avoided 'wanton destruction' from hackers |last=Clayton |first=Mark |date=2014-06-17 |work=The Christian Science Monitor |access-date=2020-02-03 |issn=0882-7729 |archive-date=2020-10-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201013043238/https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2014/0617/Ukraine-election-narrowly-avoided-wanton-destruction-from-hackers |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Voter impersonation ===
{{See also|Voter ID laws}}

==== United Kingdom ====
Academic research has generally found voter impersonation to be 'exceptionally rare' in the UK.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=James |first1=Toby S. |last2=Clark |first2=Alistair |year=2020 |title=Electoral integrity, voter fraud and voter ID in polling stations: Lessons from English local elections |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01442872.2019.1694656 |journal=Policy Studies |volume=41 |issue=2–3 |pages=190–209 |doi=10.1080/01442872.2019.1694656 |s2cid=214322870 |quote=Attempted impersonation was exceptionally rare, however, and measures to introduce voter identification requirements therefore had little effect on the security of the electoral process.|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] government passed the [[Elections Act 2022]], which mandated photo identification.<ref name="q344">{{cite web | last=Walker | first=Peter | title=Voter photo ID plan attacked as UK data shows no cases of impersonation | website=the Guardian | date=2023-04-03 | url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/03/voter-photo-id-plan-attacked-as-uk-data-shows-no-cases-of-impersonation | access-date=2024-09-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=May 14, 2021 |title=Voter fraud measures announced in the Queen's speech |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-fraud-measures-announced-in-the-queens-speech}}</ref>

==== United States ====
{{See also|Electoral fraud in the United States#Voter impersonation}}
Voter impersonation is considered extremely rare in the US by experts.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth |title=The Voter-Fraud Myth |magazine=The New Yorker |date=29 October 2012 |access-date=9 December 2015 |author=Mayer, Jane |archive-date=6 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106060127/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth |url-status=live }}</ref> Since 2013, several states have passed [[voter ID laws]] to counter voter impersonation. Voter ID requirements are generally popular among Americans <ref name="l527">{{cite web |last=Cillizza |first=Chris |title=Analysis: Voter ID requirements are really popular. So why are they so divisive? |website=CNN |date=2021-06-25 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/voter-id-election-law-voting-rights/index.html |access-date=2024-09-01}}</ref><ref name="o528">{{cite web |last=Rakich |first=Nathaniel |title=Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws |website=FiveThirtyEight |date=2021-04-02 |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-oppose-many-voting-restrictions-but-not-voter-id-laws/ |access-date=2024-09-01}}</ref> and proponents have argued that it can be difficult to detect voter impersonation without them.<ref name="Ahlquist2">{{cite journal|title=Alien Abduction and Voter Impersonation in the 2012 U.S. General Election: Evidence from a Survey List Experiment|first1=John S.|last1=Ahlquist|first2=Kenneth R.|last2=Mayer|first3=Simon|last3=Jackman|date=December 1, 2014|journal=Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy|volume=13|issue=4|pages=460–475|doi=10.1089/elj.2013.0231 |quote=Existing studies, relying mainly on documented criminal prosecutions and investigations of apparent irregularities, turn up very little evidence of fraud. Critics argue that this is unsurprising because casting fraudulent votes is easy and largely undetectable without strict photo ID requirements.}}</ref><ref name="v612">{{cite web |last=Chatelain |first=Ryan |title=Debate over photo voter ID laws is enduring – and complex |website=Spectrum News NY1 |date=2021-07-15 |url=https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2021/07/14/debate-over-photo-voter-id-laws-enduring-and-complex |access-date=2024-09-01}}</ref><ref name="w819">{{cite web |last=Rousu |first=Matthew |title=Voter ID Would Protect Voter's Rights, Not Inhibit Them |website=Forbes |date=2014-09-03 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/03/voter-id-would-protect-voters-rights-not-inhibit-them/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907085247/https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/03/voter-id-would-protect-voters-rights-not-inhibit-them/ |archive-date=2014-09-07 |url-status=live |access-date=2024-09-01}}</ref> Voter ID laws' effectiveness given the rarity of voter impersonation, and their potential to disenfranchise citizens without the right ID have created controversy. By August 2016, four federal court rulings (Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and North Dakota) overturned laws or parts of such laws because they placed undue burdens on minorities.<ref name="post">{{cite news |author=Rober Barnes |title=Federal judge blocks N. Dakota's voter-ID law, calling it unfair to Native Americans |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federal-judge-blocks-n-dakotas-voter-id-law-calling-it-unfair-to-native-americans/2016/08/01/47a903e0-582c-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=August 1, 2016 |access-date=2016-08-02 |archive-date=2016-08-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160802180358/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federal-judge-blocks-n-dakotas-voter-id-law-calling-it-unfair-to-native-americans/2016/08/01/47a903e0-582c-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Allegations of widespread voter impersonation often turn out to be false.<ref name="nh_once">{{cite news |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/01/says-once-and-for-all-that-one-was-bused-vote/bQxQPQxyrvEOUzXTirnwDP/story.html |title=N.H. says once and for all that no one was bused in to vote |date=1 June 2018 |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |author=James Pindell |access-date=26 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181026064758/https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/01/says-once-and-for-all-that-one-was-bused-vote/bQxQPQxyrvEOUzXTirnwDP/story.html |archive-date=26 October 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The North Carolina Board of Elections reported in 2017 that out of 4,769,640 votes cast in the November 2016 election in North Carolina, only one illegal vote would potentially have been blocked by the voter ID law. The investigation found fewer than 500 incidences of invalid ballots cast, the vast majority of which were cast by individuals on probation for [[felony]] who were likely not aware that this status disqualified them from voting, and the total number of invalid votes was far too small to have affected the outcome of any race in North Carolina in the 2016 election.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html |title=Now we know how bad voter fraud is in North Carolina |author=Editorial Board |work=Charlotte Observer |date=25 April 2017 |access-date=2018-06-28 |archive-date=2018-06-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180628204936/https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article146486019.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release|title=North Carolina State Board of Elections|date=April 21, 2017|url=https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-Election_Audit_Report.pdf|access-date=June 28, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425061254/https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-Election_Audit_Report.pdf|archive-date=April 25, 2017}}</ref>

=== Artificial results ===
{{Main|Show election}}
In particularly corrupt regimes, the voting process may be nothing more than a sham, to the point that officials simply announce whatever results they want, sometimes without even bothering to count the votes. While such practices tend to draw international condemnation, voters typically have little if any recourse, as there would seldom be any ways to remove the fraudulent winner from power, short of a revolution.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In [[Turkmenistan]], incumbent President [[Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov]] received 97.69% of votes [[2017 Turkmen presidential election|in the 2017 election]], with his sole opponent, who was seen as pro-government, in fact being appointed by Berdymukhamedov. In [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], [[Mikheil Saakashvili]] received 96.2% of votes in the election following the [[Rose Revolution]] while his ally [[Nino Burjanadze]] was an interim head of state.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Postal ballot fraud ===
{{further|Election fraud in the United States#Mail-in ballot fraud|Postal voting in the United States#Reliability of postal ballots}}
In both the United Kingdom and the United States, experts estimate that voting fraud by mail has affected only a few local elections, without likely any impact at the national level.<ref name="news21">{{Cite news |title=Who Can Vote? |publisher=A News21 2012 National Project |url=https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/ |access-date=2020-06-12 |archive-date=2020-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200605190855/https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="inq">{{Cite news |last=Kahn |first=Natasha and Corbin Carson |title=Investigation: election day fraud 'virtually nonexistent' |language=en-US |work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]] |url=https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20120811_Investigation__election_day_fraud_virtually_nonexistent.html |access-date=2020-06-15 |archive-date=2020-06-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615230521/https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20120811_Investigation__election_day_fraud_virtually_nonexistent.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="pickles">{{Cite web |last=Pickles |first=Eric |date=2016-08-11 |title=Securing the ballot, Report of Sir Eric Pickles' review into electoral fraud |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545416/eric_pickles_report_electoral_fraud.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200817030054/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545416/eric_pickles_report_electoral_fraud.pdf |archive-date=2020-08-17 |access-date=2020-06-15 |publisher=United Kingdom Government}}</ref><ref name="nprav">{{Cite news |last=Young |first=Ashley |date=2016-09-23 |title=A Complete Guide To Early And Absentee Voting |url=https://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/491999689/a-complete-guide-to-early-and-absentee-voting |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201201205733/https://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/491999689/a-complete-guide-to-early-and-absentee-voting |archive-date=2020-12-01 |access-date=2020-06-15 |language=en}}</ref> In April 2020, a 20-year voter fraud study by the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" in the United States, occurring only in "0.00006 percent" of instances nationally, and, with Oregon's mail-in-ballots, "0.000004 percent—about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning".<ref name="MIT-cite">{{cite news |last1=McReynolds |first1=Amber |last2=Stewart III |first2=Charles |date=April 28, 2020 |title=Opinion: Let's put the vote-by-mail 'fraud' myth to rest |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/494189-lets-put-the-vote-by-mail-fraud-myth-to-rest/ |access-date= |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |publication-place=}}</ref>

Types of fraud have included pressure on voters from family or others, since the ballot is not always cast in secret;<ref name="pickles" /><ref name="wsj-snf">{{Cite news |last=Journal |first=Glenn R. Simpson and Evan Perez |date=2000-12-19 |title='Brokers' Exploit Absentee Voters; Elderly Are Top Targets for Fraud |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB97718372846852342 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612110500/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB97718372846852342 |archive-date=2020-06-12 |access-date=2020-06-12 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}}</ref><ref name="phil-snf">{{Cite news |last=Bender |first=William |title=Nursing home resident's son: 'That's voter fraud' |url=https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/vote-fraud-election-seniors-pennsylvania-20171103.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613023058/https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/vote-fraud-election-seniors-pennsylvania-20171103.html |archive-date=2020-06-13 |access-date=2020-06-12 |language=en-US}}</ref>
collection of ballots by dishonest collectors who mark votes or fail to deliver ballots;<ref name="Judge upholds vote-rigging claims">{{cite news |date=2005-04-04 |title=Judge upholds vote-rigging claims |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001152731/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm |archive-date=2019-10-01 |access-date=2010-09-19 |work=BBC News}}</ref><ref name="tins">{{Cite news |last=Robertson |first=Gary D. |date=2020-04-22 |title=North Carolina ballot probe defendant now faces federal charges |url=https://www.thetimesnews.com/news/20200422/north-carolina-ballot-probe-defendant-now-faces-federal-charges |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200718125004/https://www.thetimesnews.com/news/20200422/north-carolina-ballot-probe-defendant-now-faces-federal-charges |archive-date=2020-07-18 |access-date=2020-06-27 |work=[[Times-News (Burlington, North Carolina)|Times-News]] |language=en}}</ref> and insiders changing, challenging or destroying ballots after they arrive.<ref name="miami">{{Cite news |last=Mazzei |first=Patricia |date=2016-10-28 |title=Two women busted for election fraud in Miami-Dade in 2016 |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200602132006/https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html |archive-date=2020-06-02 |access-date=2020-06-12 |work=Miami Herald}}</ref><ref name="hawkins">{{Cite news |title=Judge hears testimony in Hawkins case |url=https://www.candgnews.com/news/judge-hears-testimony-in-hawkins-case-116075 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613023056/https://www.candgnews.com/news/judge-hears-testimony-in-hawkins-case-116075 |archive-date=2020-06-13 |access-date=2020-06-12 |language=en}}</ref>

A measure championed as a way to prevent some types of mail-in fraud has been to require the voter's signature on the outer envelope, which is compared to one or more signatures on file before taking the ballot out of the envelope and counting it.<ref name="pickles" /><ref name="stan">{{Cite web |title=Signature Verification and Mail Ballots: Guaranteeing Access While Preserving Integrity |url=https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FINAL-Signature-Verification-Report-4-15-20.pdf |date=2020-04-15 |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=2020-06-01 |archive-date=2020-04-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418010356/https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FINAL-Signature-Verification-Report-4-15-20.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Not all places have standards for signature review,<ref name="nvahi-50">{{Cite web |date=May 2020 |title=Vote at Home Policy Actions: 1 and 2 Stars |url=https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NVAHI-50-State-Policy-Analysis.pdf |access-date=2020-06-18 |website=National Vote at Home Institute |archive-date=2020-06-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606200617/https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NVAHI-50-State-Policy-Analysis.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
and there have been calls to update signatures more often to improve this review.<ref name="pickles" /><ref name="stan" /> While any level of strictness involves rejecting some valid votes and accepting some invalid votes,<ref name="sita">{{Cite journal |last1=Sita |first1=Jodi |last2=Found |first2=Bryan |last3=Rogers |first3=Douglas K. |date=September 2002 |title=Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Expertise for Signature Comparison |url=https://www.academia.edu/1361670 |journal=Journal of Forensic Sciences |language=en |volume=47 |issue=5 |pages=1117–1124 |doi=10.1520/JFS15521J |pmid=12353558 |issn=0022-1198 |access-date=2020-06-27 |archive-date=2021-01-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115180647/https://www.academia.edu/1361670/Forensic_Handwriting_Examiners_Expertise_for_Signature_Comparison |url-status=live }}</ref> there have been concerns that signatures are improperly rejected from young and minority voters at higher rates than others, with no or limited ability of voters to appeal the rejection.<ref name="aclu">{{Cite web |title=Vote-By-Mail Ballots Cast in Florida |url=https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/aclufl_-_vote_by_mail_-_report.pdf |last=Smith |first=Daniel |date=2018-09-18 |publisher=ACLU Florida |access-date=2020-06-01 |archive-date=2020-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201202043232/https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/aclufl_-_vote_by_mail_-_report.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="who">{{Cite news |last=Wilkie |first=Jordan |date=2018-10-12 |title=Exclusive: High Rate of Absentee Ballot Rejection Reeks of Voter Suppression |work=Who What Why |url=https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/10/12/exclusive-high-rate-of-absentee-ballot-rejection-reeks-of-voter-suppression/ |access-date=2020-06-18 |archive-date=2020-06-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617052447/https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/10/12/exclusive-high-rate-of-absentee-ballot-rejection-reeks-of-voter-suppression/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Some problems have inherently limited scope, such as family pressure, while others can affect several percent of the vote, such as dishonest collectors<ref name="pickles" /> and overly strict signature verification.<ref name="aclu" />

=== Non-citizen voting ===
{{See also|Non-citizen suffrage}}
==== Canada ====
{{Undue weight section|date=September 2024}}
In 2019, [[Elections Canada]] identified 103,000 non-citizens who were illegally on Canada's federal voters register.<ref name="u203">{{cite web | last=Aiello | first=Rachel | title=Elections Canada set to eliminate 100,000 non-citizens from voters registry | website=CTVNews | date=2019-05-01 | url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/elections-canada-set-to-eliminate-100000-non-citizens-from-voters-registry/ | access-date=2024-07-21}}</ref> It subsequently identified roughly 3,500 cases of potential non-citizens who voted in [[2019 Canadian general election|2019]], but noted that it was not a coordinated effort and did not affect the result in any [[Riding (politics)|riding]].<ref name="y444">{{cite web |last=Burke |first=Ashley |date=2021-01-03 |title=Elections Canada probing thousands of 2019 election ballots with unclear evidence of citizenship |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elections-canada-analysis-non-citizen-voting-2019-federal-election-1.5756434 |access-date=2024-07-21 |website=CBC}}</ref> "But almost a year after Canadians headed to the polls, the agency says it's still trying to determine how many of those cases — if any — involved non-Canadian citizens casting ballots."<ref name="y444" />{{Update needed|date=September 2024}}

==== United States ====
{{See also|Electoral fraud in the United States#Non-citizen voting}}
Illegal non-citizen voting is considered extremely rare in the United States by most experts due to the severe penalties associated with the practice including deportation, incarceration or fines in addition to jeopardizing their attempt to naturalize.<ref name="Sherman 2020">{{cite web |last=Sherman |first=Amy |date=2020-12-07 |title=Do states verify U.S. citizenship as a condition for voting? |url=https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/07/do-states-verify-u-s-citizenship-condition-voting/6480041002/ |access-date=2024-04-21 |website=[[Austin American-Statesman]]}}</ref><ref name="Waldman Karson Waldman Singh 2024">{{cite web | last1=Waldman | first1=Michael | last2=Karson | first2=Kendall | last3=Waldman | first3=Michael | last4=Singh | first4=Jasleen | last5=Karson | first5=Kendall | title=Here's Why | website=Brennan Center for Justice | date=2024-04-12 | url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why | access-date=2024-04-21}}</ref><ref name="Parks 2024">{{cite web | last=Parks | first=Miles | title=Republicans aim to stop noncitizen voting in federal elections. It's already illegal | website=NPR | date=2024-04-12 | url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/12/1244302080/trump-johnson-noncitizen-voting-bill | access-date=2024-04-21}}</ref><ref name="Kessler 2024">{{cite news |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=2024-03-06 |title=The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/truth-about-noncitizen-voting-federal-elections/ |access-date=2024-04-21 |newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref> The federal form to register a voter does not require proof of citizenship,<ref name="Sherman 2020" /> though non-citizens have been found to vote only in very small numbers.<ref name="Kessler 2024 1">{{cite news | last=Kessler | first=Glenn | title=The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections | newspaper=Washington Post | date=2024-03-06 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/truth-about-noncitizen-voting-federal-elections/ | access-date=2024-04-21}}</ref><ref name="Wilgoren 1998">{{cite web |last=Wilgoren |first=Jodi |date=1998-02-05 |title=Sanchez Elated as Probe Is Dropped |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-feb-05-mn-15710-story.html |access-date=2024-04-21 |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>{{Further explanation needed|date=September 2024}}

== In legislature ==
Vote fraud can also take place in legislatures. Some of the forms used in national elections can also be used in parliaments, particularly intimidation and vote-buying. Because of the much smaller number of voters, however, election fraud in legislatures is qualitatively different in many ways. Fewer people are needed to 'swing' the election, and therefore specific people can be targeted in ways impractical on a larger scale. For example, [[Adolf Hitler]] achieved his [[dictator]]ial powers due to the [[Enabling Act of 1933]]. He attempted to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority to pass the Act by arresting members of the opposition, though this turned out to be unnecessary to attain the needed majority. Later, the Reichstag was packed with [[Nazi]] party members who voted for the Act's renewal.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

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 the legislator 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.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

As in public elections, proxy votes are particularly prone to fraud. In some systems, parties may vote on behalf of any member who is not present in parliament. This protects those members from missing out on voting if prevented from attending parliament, but it also allows their party to prevent them from voting against its wishes. In some legislatures, proxy voting is not allowed, but politicians may rig voting buttons or otherwise illegally cast "ghost votes" while absent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040408.html |title=Is "Ghost" Voting Acceptable? |publisher=Writ.lp.findlaw.com |date=2004-04-08 |access-date=2012-05-03 |archive-date=2012-03-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120315062034/http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040408.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Detection and prevention ==
The three main strategies for the prevention of electoral fraud in society are:
# Auditing the election process
# Deterrence through consistent and effective prosecution
# Cultivation of mores that discourage corruption

Some of the main fraud prevention tactics can be summarised 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 allows detection of most interference.

Electoral fraud is generally considered difficult to prove, as perpetrators are highly motivated to conceal their acts.<ref name="t796">{{cite news | last1=Cantú | first1=Francisco | last2=Saiegh | first2=Sebastian M. | title=Was Argentina's election stolen? Here's how you can tell. | newspaper=Washington Post | date=2015-11-06 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/06/was-argentinas-election-stolen-heres-how-you-can-tell/ | access-date=2024-10-25 | quote=Unfortunately, uncovering fraudulent elections is quite difficult. How do you prove or disprove possible wrongdoing? If votes were falsified, the wrongdoers have no motive to say so; if they were not, there’s no proving a negative. Thus it is very difficult to establish a suspect election’s legitimacy or illegitimacy.}}</ref><ref name="b560">{{cite journal | last1=Montgomery | first1=Jacob M. | last2=Olivella | first2=Santiago | last3=Potter | first3=Joshua D. | last4=Crisp | first4=Brian F. | title=An Informed Forensics Approach to Detecting Vote Irregularities | journal=Political Analysis | publisher=[Oxford University Press, Society for Political Methodology] | volume=23 | issue=4 | year=2015 | issn=1047-1987 | jstor=24573188 | pages=488–505 | doi=10.1093/pan/mpv023 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/24573188 | access-date=2024-10-25 | quote=Unfortunately, it remains extremely difficult to detect instances of fraud. Perpetrators of electoral fraud are highly motivated to conceal their acts from opposition parties, the press, and election monitors.| url-access=subscription }}</ref> Researchers must often rely on [[Statistical inference|inferential methods]] to uncover unusual patterns that could indicate election fraud, as fraud often cannot be observed directly.<ref name="p142">{{cite journal | last=Rozenas | first=Arturas | title=Detecting Election Fraud from Irregularities in Vote-Share Distributions | journal=Political Analysis | publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) | volume=25 | issue=1 | year=2017 | issn=1047-1987 | doi=10.1017/pan.2016.9 | doi-access=free | pages=41–56 | quote=Since election fraud often cannot be observed directly, researchers and policy makers often have to rely on inferential methods to uncover unusual patterns in the official election data that might serve as plausible evidence that election results were tampered with.}}</ref>

=== Election audits ===
{{Main|Election audits}}

Election auditing refers to any review conducted after polls close for the purpose of determining whether the votes were counted accurately (a results audit) or whether proper procedures were followed (a process audit), or both.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Audits vary and can include checking that the number of voters signed in at the polls matches the number of ballots, seals on ballot boxes and storage rooms are intact, computer counts (if used) match hand counts, and counts are accurately totaled.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

[[Election recount]]s are a specific type of audit, with elements of both results and process audits.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Prosecution ===
In the United States the goal of prosecutions is not to stop fraud or keep fraudulent winners out of office; it is to deter and punish years later. The [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] has published ''Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses'' in eight editions from 1976 to 2017, under Presidents [[Gerald Ford|Ford]], [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]], [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]], [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]], Bush and [[Donald Trump|Trump]]. It says, "Department does not have authority to directly intercede in the election process itself. ... overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken ... until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded."<ref name="fedpros2017">{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download |title=Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Eighth Edition |date=December 2017 |publisher=[[United States Department of Justice]] |access-date=2019-07-13 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201012214302/https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download |archive-date=October 12, 2020}}</ref><ref name="fedpros">{{Cite web |url=http://site.votewell.net/a/doj-elections.htm |title=Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses |website=votewell.net |access-date=2019-07-13 |archive-date=2019-07-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225607/http://site.votewell.net/a/doj-elections.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Sentencing guidelines provide a range of 0–21 months in prison for a first offender;<ref name="ussc-table">{{Cite web |url=https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2011/manual-pdf/Sentencing_Table.pdf |title=Sentencing Table |year=2011 |website=US Sentencing Commission |access-date=2019-07-13 |archive-date=2020-02-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200220035252/https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2011/manual-pdf/Sentencing_Table.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> [[offense level]]s range from 8 to 14.<ref name="ussc">{{Cite web |url=https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-2-c |title=2018 Chapter 2 Part C, section 2C1.1 |date=2018-06-27 |publisher=United States Sentencing Commission |language=en |access-date=2019-07-13 |archive-date=2019-07-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225619/https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-2-c |url-status=live }}</ref> Investigation, prosecution and appeals can take over 10 years.<ref name="wkyt">{{Cite news |url=https://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/275602001.html |title=Ex-judge convicted of vote fraud in Clay County disbarred |last=WKYT |access-date=2019-07-13 |language=en |archive-date=2019-07-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225608/https://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/275602001.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In the [[Philippines]], former [[President of the Philippines|President]] [[Gloria Macapagal Arroyo]] was arrested in 2011 following the filing of criminal charges against her for electoral sabotage, in connection with the [[2007 Philippine general election]]. She was accused of conspiring with election officials to ensure the victory of her party's [[Senate of the Philippines|senatorial]] slate in the province of [[Maguindanao]], through the tampering of election returns.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/96265/comelec-files-poll-sabotage-raps-vs-Arroyo |title=Electoral sabotage case filed vs Arroyo, Ampatuan, Bedol |author=Jeannette I. Andrade |newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer |date=2011-11-18 |access-date=2018-05-18 |archive-date=2018-05-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519032713/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/96265/comelec-files-poll-sabotage-raps-vs-Arroyo |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Secret ballot ===
{{Main|Secret ballot}}
The [[secret ballot]], in which only the voter knows how they have voted, is believed by many to be a crucial part of ensuring [[free and fair election]]s through preventing voter intimidation or retribution.<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=2021-04-20|title=Should secret voting be mandatory? 'Yes' say political scientists|url=http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/should-secret-voting-be-mandatory-yes-say-political-scientists-459082/|date=26 October 2020}}</ref> Others argue that the secret ballot enables election fraud (because it makes it harder to verify that votes have been counted correctly)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://freepress.org/article/scrap-secret-ballot-return-open-voting|title=Scrap the "secret" ballot – return to open voting|access-date=2016-07-16|archive-date=2016-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160807021639/http://freepress.org/article/scrap-secret-ballot-return-open-voting|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.stanford.edu/~davies/secret-ballot.pdf|title=Consequences of the Secret Ballot|author=Todd Davies|publisher=Symbolic Systems Program, Stanford University|access-date=2016-07-16|archive-date=2016-10-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011144830/https://web.stanford.edu/~davies/secret-ballot.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> and that it discourages voter participation.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Abolish the Secret Ballot|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/309038/|magazine=The Atlantic|access-date=2017-03-06|archive-date=2017-03-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312061849/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/abolish-the-secret-ballot/309038/|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=February 2022}} Although the secret ballot was sometimes practiced in [[ancient Greece]] and was a part of the [[Constitution of the Year III]] of 1795, it only became common in the nineteenth century. Secret balloting appears to have been first implemented in the former British [[colony]]—now an [[Australia]]n [[States and territories of Australia|state]]—of [[Tasmania]] on 7 February 1856. By the turn of the century, the practice had spread to most Western democracies.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In the United States, the popularity of the Australian ballot grew as reformers in the late 19th century sought to reduce the problems of election fraud. Groups such as the Greenbackers, Nationalist, and more fought for those who yearned to vote, but were exiled for their safety. George Walthew, Greenback, helped initiate one of the first secret ballots in America in Michigan in 1885. Even George Walthew had a predecessor in John Seitz, Greenback, who campaigned a bill to "preserve the purity of elections" in 1879 after the discovery of Ohio's electoral fraud in congressional elections.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

The efforts of many helped accomplish this and led to the spread of other secret ballots all across the country. As mentioned on February 18, 1890, in the Galveston News "The Australian ballot has come to stay. It protects the independence of the voter and largely puts a stop to vote to buy." Before this, it was common for candidates to intimidate or bribe voters, as they would always know who had voted which way.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Transparency ===
Most methods of preventing electoral fraud involve making the election process completely transparent to all voters, from nomination of candidates through casting of the votes and tabulation.<ref name="CB1">{{cite web |last=Lundin |first=Leigh |title=Dangerous Ideas |url=http://criminalbrief.com/?p=1892 |work=Voting Fiasco, Part 279.236(a) |publisher=Criminal Brief |access-date=2010-10-07 |date=2008-08-17 |archive-date=2012-10-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121024091426/http://criminalbrief.com/?p=1892 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=May 2024}} A key feature in ensuring the integrity of any part of the electoral process is a strict [[chain of custody]].{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

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.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

[[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 open the door towards forced voting and blackmail. End-to-end systems include [[Punchscan]] and [[Scantegrity]], the latter being an add-on to optical scan systems instead of a replacement.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In many cases, [[election observers]] are used to help prevent fraud and assure voters that the election is fair. International observers (bilateral and multilateral) may be invited to observe the elections (examples include election observation by the Organisation 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 organised by NGOs, such as [[CIS-EMO]], 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).{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

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 different countries permit various forms and extents of international and domestic election observation.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Election observation is also prescribed by various international legal instruments. For example, paragraph 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 organisations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings".{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Critics note that observers cannot spot certain types of election fraud like targeted [[voter suppression]] or manipulated software of [[voting machine]]s.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Statistical indicators and election forensics ===
Various forms of [[statistic]]s can be indicators of election fraud—e.g., [[exit poll]]s which diverge from the final 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). Variations in willingness to participate in an exit poll may result in an unrepresentative sample compared to the overall voting population.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

When elections are marred by ballot-box stuffing (e.g., the Armenian presidential elections of 1996 and 1998), the affected polling stations will show abnormally high voter turnouts with results favouring 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. Stuffing votes in favour of a single candidate affects votes vs. turnout distributions for that candidate and other candidates differently; this difference could be used to quantitatively assess the number of votes stuffed. Also, these distributions sometimes exhibit spikes at round-number turnout percentage values.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://podmoskovnik.livejournal.com/65386.html |title=podmoskovnik: Cтатья о выборах из Троицкого Варианта |publisher=Podmoskovnik.livejournal.com |access-date=2015-05-29 |archive-date=2016-09-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160930110411/http://podmoskovnik.livejournal.com/65386.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.trvscience.ru/2009/10/27/statisticheskoe-issledovanie-rezultatov-rossijskix-vyborov-2007-2009-gg |title=Статистическое исследование результатов российских выборов 2007–2009 гг. : Троицкий вариант – Наука |publisher=Trvscience.ru |date=2009-10-27 |access-date=2015-05-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423162343/http://trvscience.ru/2009/10/27/statisticheskoe-issledovanie-rezultatov-rossijskix-vyborov-2007-2009-gg/ |archive-date=2013-04-23 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author1=Walter R. Mebane, Jr.|author2=Kirill Kalinin|title=Comparative Election Fraud Detection|url=http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/apsa09.pdf|publisher=Personal.umich.edu|access-date=2015-05-29|archive-date=2015-02-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150205200630/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/apsa09.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> High numbers of invalid ballots, overvoting or undervoting are other potential indicators. [[Risk-limiting audit]]s are methods to assess the validity of an election result statistically without the effort of a full [[election recount]].

Though election [[Forensic science|forensics]] can determine if election results are anomalous, the statistical results still need to be interpreted. Alan Hicken and Walter R. Mebane describe the results of election forensic analyses as not providing "definitive proof" of fraud. Election forensics can be combined with other fraud detection and prevention strategies, such as in-person monitoring.<ref name="Hicken_Mebane_2017">{{cite report |url=https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MXR7.pdf |title=A Guide to Elections Forensics |year=2017 |first1=Allen |last1=Hicken |first2=Walter R. |last2=Mebane |publisher=University of Michigan Center for Political Studies |access-date=2020-08-10 |archive-date=2019-06-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626011653/https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MXR7.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Voting machine integrity ===
{{further|Certification of voting machines|Election audits}}

One method for verifying [[voting machine]] accuracy is 'parallel testing', the process of using an independent set of results compared to 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 [[voter-verified paper audit trail]] (VVPAT) or verified paper record (VPR). A VVPAT is intended as an independent verification system for voting machines designed to allow voters to verify that their vote was cast correctly, to detect possible election fraud or malfunction, and to provide a means to audit the stored electronic results. This method is only effective if [[Statistical significance|statistically significant]] numbers of voters verify that their intended vote matches both the electronic and paper votes.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

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 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 does not perform the combination, which requires more insider access but fewer voters).{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

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.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Open source ===
Another method to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines is independent [[software verification]] and [[Certification of voting machines|certification]].<ref name=" CB1" /> Once a software is certified, code signing can ensure 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]].<ref name=":2">{{cite news |last=Wofford |first=Ben |date=June 25, 2021 |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/06/25/voting-machines-costs-election-technology-democracy-matthew-caulfield-483080 |title=One Man's Quest to Break Open the Secretive World of American Voting Machines |work=[[Politico]] |access-date=2022-12-09 }}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=O'Neill |first=Patrick Howell |date=December 16, 2020 |title=The key to future election security starts with a roll of the dice |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/16/1014657/election-security-risk-limiting-audit/ |access-date=2022-12-09 |website=[[MIT Technology Review]] |language=en}}</ref> [[VotingWorks]] has created an [[open-source voting system]] in the United States.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Huseman |first=Jessica |date=November 12, 2019 |title=The Way America Votes Is Broken. In One Rural County, a Nonprofit Showed a Way Forward. |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/the-way-america-votes-is-broken-in-one-rural-county-a-nonprofit-showed-a-way-forward |access-date=2022-12-09 |website=ProPublica |language=en}}</ref>

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.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

Testing and certification can prevent voting machines from being a [[Black Box Voting|black box]] where voters cannot be sure that counting inside is done as intended.<ref name="  CB1" />

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.<ref name="Bonsor" />

== See also ==
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|}}
* [[Administrative resource]]
* [[Branch stacking]]
* [[Carousel voting]]
* [[Cash-for-votes scandal]]
* [[Cooping]]
* [[Election ink]]
* [[Electoral fraud in the United States]]
* [[Electoral integrity]]
* [[Foreign electoral intervention]]
* [[Gerrymandering]]
* [[Identity document forgery]]

== Further reading ==
{{Further reading cleanup|date=May 2024}}

=== General ===
* Simpser, Alberto. ''Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice, and Implications'' (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
* Schaffer, Frederic Charles. ''The hidden costs of clean election reform'' (Cornell University Press, 2008)
* Lehoucq, Fabrice. "Electoral fraud: Causes, types, and consequences". ''Annual review of political science'' (2003) 6#1 pp.&nbsp;233–256.

=== Latin America ===
* Posada-Carbó, Eduardo. "Electoral Juggling: A Comparative History of the Corruption of Suffrage in Latin America, 1830–1930". ''Journal of Latin American Studies'' (2000). pp.&nbsp;611–644.
* Silva, Marcos Fernandes da. "The political economy of corruption in Brazil". ''Revista de Administração de Empresas'' (1999) 39#3 pp.&nbsp;26–41.
* Molina, Iván and Fabrice Lehoucq. "Political Competition and Electoral Fraud: A Latin American Case Study", ''Journal of Interdisciplinary History'' (1999) 30#2 pp.&nbsp;199–234<ref>{{cite web |title=Political Competition and Electoral Fraud: A Latin American Case Study |url=http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/F_Lehoucq_Political_1999.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221202413/http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/F_Lehoucq_Political_1999.pdf |archive-date=2014-02-21 |access-date=2015-05-29 |publisher=Libres.uncg.edu}}</ref>

=== Russia ===
* Reuter, O., & Szakonyi, D. (2021). "[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/electoral-manipulation-and-regime-support/D01D30F0D7D2DA066AEC35E32CEA30CC Electoral Manipulation and Regime Support: Survey Evidence from Russia]". ''World Politics.''

=== United Kingdom ===
* Harling, Philip. "Rethinking 'Old Corruption'", ''Past & Present'' (1995) No. 147 pp.&nbsp;127–158<ref>{{cite journal |author=Philip Harling |date=May 1995 |title=Rethinking 'Old Corruption' |journal=Past & Present |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |issue=147 |pages=127–158 |doi=10.1093/past/147.1.127 |jstor=651042}}</ref>
* O'Gorman, Frank. ''Voters, Patrons and Parties: The Unreformed Electoral System of Hanoverian England, 1734–1832'' (Oxford, 1989).
* O'Leary, Cornelius. ''The elimination of corrupt practices in British elections, 1868–1911'' (Clarendon Press, 1962)

=== United States ===
* {{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Tracy |title=Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, An American Political Tradition, 1742–2004 |publisher=Basic Books |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-78-671591-6}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Fackler |first1=Tim |url=https://repositories2.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/4115/jop1.pdf?sequence=2 |title=Political Corruption and Presidential Elections, 1929–1992 |last2=Lin |first2=Tse-min |publisher=Journal of Politics |year=1995 |volume=57 |pages=971–973 |access-date=2015-05-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304131946/https://repositories2.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/4115/jop1.pdf?sequence=2 |archive-date=2016-03-04 |url-status=dead}}
* {{Cite book |last=Summers |first=Mark Wahlgren |title=The Era of Good Stealings |year=1993|publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-507503-8 }}
* {{Cite journal |last=Argersinger |first=Peter H. |year=1986 |title=New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age |journal=Political Science Quarterly |publisher=The Academy of Political Science |volume=100 |issue=4 |pages=669–687 |doi=10.2307/2151546 |jstor=2151546|s2cid=156214317 }}

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
<!--     {{No more links}}

       Please be cautious about adding more external links.

Wikipedia is not a collection of links and should not be used for advertising.

     Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed.

 See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.

If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on
the article's talk page, or submit your link to the relevant category at
the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link there using {{Dmoz}}.

-->{{Corruption}}
{{Fraud}}

[[Category:Electoral fraud| ]]
[[Category:Organized crime activity]]
[[Category:Fraud]]
[[Category:Voter suppression]]