Talk:Electoral fraud

[edit] To do

Someone should check out Black box voting. They have a take on modern day election fraud[1]. Allso Hacking Democracy film? (see f.ex. amazon or if it's not there i think i saw it on the net somewhere) anyone watch it? any ideas? --82.181.201.182 (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Chicago not mentioned, tsk tsk tsk. Ghost voting not mentioned, tsk tsk tsk.

To-do list for Electoral fraud:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Organize neatly into sections i wonder what's the best way to organize the section: before, at, after elections done by voter, official, interest groups ... ? Add more specific examples of electoral fraud (2000 U.S. Election would be perfect here)
Priority 5

Slightly OT: If anyone ever wants to start "Wikisarcasm: The Cynical Encyclopedia", a good start for them would be the original revision of this article. Ashiibaka tlk 03:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"involving court challenges and counter-challenges."

I'm not sure whether this phrase ought to be in the first sentence of the article—Trevor Caira 17:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming: "Electoral fraud" versus "Election fraud"

Personally, I find "electoral fraud" to be a weaker (and clumsier) term than "election fraud"--the word "electoral" is slanted more towards use in reference to electors. At least in my experience, a majority of media and academic works use "election fraud" to refer to the phenomenon discussed in this article.---Knoepfle 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Hacking the Papal Election by Bruce Schneier notable enough to add to the article?

Revisions were done as suggested, adding more text would be the next thing to do. --Noypi380 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Serbia 2000,when 1.000.000. people protested and when Milosevic admitted that they stole election.It should be in the listDzoni 12:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unfortunately they have little to observe when elections are electronic." Unfortunately? That's not neutral.

BEGIN MY COMMENT: I agree with Knoepfle. I'd much prefer "election fraud" as the title or "voter fraud". GBrady (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blatant bias

I cut the following passage out of the article altogether:

The Republican Party seized power in the United States from its nominally-democratic government between 2000 and 2006 with the aid of electoral fraud and maintained formal power through rigged elections.

That is an example of blatant bias, as usual without evidence since it has been clearly established that the vote fraud, if any, was perpetrated by the democrats.

--82.156.49.1 12:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacing the previous blatant bias with your own, in what appears to be an anonymous attempt at igniting a politically motivated flame war, isn't exactly helping things. You might wish to remember that in future posts. --Dh100 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the partisan controversy the statement that "The Republican Party seized power..." which sounds as if the Republican Party of the United States is as unscrupulous as commies, fascists, and Ba'athists, it is best to tone down the language or use weasel words to qualify the statement. "Some claim" is too weak.

The Democratic party still operates, even if pushed to near-irrelevance in current American federal politics, but it has not been outlawed, and it has not been relegated to a permanent and limited role in politics. If there is any danger it is that democracy may have disappeared in the Republican party. The Democrats can still win big in the 2006 midterm elections, and in view of some pervasive scandals in the Republican Party, one would expect the Democrats to make huge gains in 2006.

Even so, Democrats have control of many State governments and especially city governments. Dictatorship would be unambiguous if the federal-level Republican Party attempted to decertify such governments.

Should the Democrats win one or both of the Houses of the American Congress, then the contention that the "Republicans seized power" with language similar to that that I originally used to describe vote fraud in some east-European countries will become irrelevant. But big gains by the Republican Party which has accepted some totalitarian characteristics and can do whatever it likes irrespective of the values, ethical and economic, of the American people, would leave no doubt that the USA made a dictatorial turn around 2000. --66.231.41.57 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This section has largely been rendered irrelevant because of the large gains of the Democratic Party in the 2006 US general election.--Paul from Michigan 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how are points two and three bad in techniques section

You cant vote if you are not a citizen or have been convicted of a felony, and ID is required to vote. Other than, making it look like someone had a gun with them, what is wrong with what was done?

What's wrong with points two and three? For starters, both techniques are designed to intimidate legitimate voters from voting legitimately. Both violate Illinois law about leaving voters free from interference when they're at a polling place. Moreover, photo ID is, in fact, not required by Illinois law; a voter may use other forms of identification, including a utlity bill, a bank statement, a paycheck, or a government document. Also, former felons may vote in Illinois; only current felons--people actually in jail--are proscribed.Jny2cornell 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess i was basing it on my state's election law, Illinois is pretty lax.

[edit] Recent Edit

Anonymous Editor:

This content is not being deleted. This content if being put into correct categories. These are examples of Physical Tampering. You are deleted additional content each time you try to revert, please look at the change log. Electiontechnology 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You deleted:

• ... Voting machines without paper trail have no possibility for a recount, leaving repeating of the election as the only option.
• *Altering voting machines to favor one candidate over another, for example with different sizes of the sensitive area of a touchscreen. This accidently happend in the 2006 elections in florida.

plus "deleting votes" makes more sense in the place of voting instead of "tabulation" where it's already mentioned.

And this: "Election officials misinforming voters of when their vote is recorded and later recording it themselves." ... makes no sense at all without the context of an electronic voting machine.

the "man in the middle attack" is in this case a hardware-hack, not software!

the miami-problems weren't software neither but problems of the touchscreen!

proof: http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=Electoral_fraud&diff=85137136&oldid=85096854

it absolutly makes sense to have a own section for electronic voting since there are 6 unique threads specific to it.

i just reorganised it again, please do not delete anything again!!!

User:Taintain 00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What you are missing

1. These are not specific to electronic voting or ballot boxes, and making that distinction is erroneous., Ballot stuffing, and Booth capturing are problems with any voting system or ballot box.
2. The Man in the middle attack in this case wasn't hardware, it was firmware, which is software. It was the software that callibrate the machines, but I'll add all three.
3. the miami-problems weren't software neither but problems of the touchscreen! : At best it was a mix of hardware and software. Maybe you could say a hardware flaw caused the software error, but the error was in the software.
4. It is just plain false that Voting machines without paper trail have no possibility for a recount, leaving repeating of the election as the only option.
5. Altering voting machines to favor one candidate over another, for example with different sizes of the sensitive area of a touchscreen. This accidently happend in the 2006 elections in florida. :The reference is useful. I incuded the reference, but that description is inaccurate. Further, this is an article on fraud, not accidents. You don't claim fraud, the article does not claim fraud even. There's a perfect section for this Electronic_voting#Documented_problems I'll put it there.
6. The Deleting all votes if the balance was not as desired. makes more sense in the tabulation section because that's when you would know the balance.
7. You Deleted:

• The section"Corrupt Election Officials" The fraud in the example is the election officials action, whether the ballot is cast electronically or not.
• A demonstration how physical tampering could allow the replacement of software of Diebold AccuVote-TS was conducted by the Center for Information Technology Policy, at the University of Princeton. ^[1]
• Deleting all votes if the balance was not as desired.

These edits are poorly written, poorly organized and marginally accurate. I added information and corrected errors. If you want to add or edit information, please do, but please stop wholesale deleting of information.

Electiontechnology 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I am missing

1. Ballot stuffing in the meaning of putting more than one ballot in the box is unique to ballot boxes. In the meaning of impersonating someone else it's covered below in the article. On Booth capturing you're right.
2. That man in the middle attack was hardware (so it does not fit into "altering software"):One can envision a small board that would be places inside the (rather spacious) keyboard housing and that would terminate the cables from the motherboard., see http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf section 7.1.
3. For Miami the newspaper article said the "touchsreen was worn out" => hardware-problem => does not fit into "altering software"
4. i wonder how to recount without paper, printing out the same results again ?
5. It might be a documented problem but the method could also be used for fraud, so leave it there
6. Deleting all votes if the balance was not as desired. makes only sense near the ballot box because there also the records could be deleted. in the tabulation office they wouldn't delete it, they would change it in their favor.
7. deleted or not

• see above, also i think it doesn't make sense to sort the fraud methods by "who could do it"
• i wrote that orginally and just moved it
• i wrote that orginally and just moved it

User:Taintain 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

1. Please read the Wikipedia entry for ballot stuffing. Ballot stuffing is the illegal act of one person submitting multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted. It is not unique to a ballot box.
2. Like I said, I added all forms to the man in the middle scenario. (It's not "altering software" as you said, it's "Altering or replacing voting machines hardware, software, or firmware)
3. For Miami the newspaper did not say the "touchscreen was worn out." Please read more carefully. It said "As for a conspiracy, election officials say that the machines can get out of sync if a particular spot is overused [...] Election officials in Miami-Dade and Broward counties are trained to recalibrate.." Calibration is a software issue. Like I said "At best it was a mix of hardware and software. Maybe you could say a hardware flaw caused the software error, but the error was in the software."
4. Recounts: An electronic record can be written to multiple physical locations, parallel systems, independent recording sytems,... In fact a recent report found that when a recount of VVPAT's was done in Cuyahoga county Ohio that 10% of the paper was missing or illegible. [2] The electronic ballots were retained and the paper ballots were unable to be recounted.
5. I didn't remove the Miami story or the possibility for fraud, I moved the reference to the accident.
6. There's a difference between destroying all votes in the event the tabulation was not favorable and attempting to alter individual votes as they are cast.
7. there's no "or not"

• It's not sorted by "who could do it" it's sorted by Technique
• If you wrote it, you did so anonymously, and you didn't move it, you deleted it. Proof:[3]

[edit] Response again

1. So how do you submit multiple votes at a voting machine ? Please come up with a solution which is not covered by already covered methods like tampering with the machine, inflating voter lists, impersonating, ... . For physical ballot boxes there is a way not usable with voting machines: putting two ballots in there.
2. Have you actually read section 7.1 of that document ? For the third time: it's inserting a hardware-board between keyboard, screen and the main voting machine. Please read it finally!
3. overusing a spot does not change software
4. The corrupted election officials delete all the memory and claim it was a machine-problem, they might get away with it. Destroying all paper ballots and claiming there was a gust of wind sounds harder to justify.
5. again: It might have been accident but the method could also be used for fraud.
6. "tabulation" was for me "central tabulation of all the results". i just split that in two
7. delete

• "corrupted eletion officials" as a section title is not a "method", it's "who". the method was the "deleting ..."
• yes, i wrote that without logging in back then and probably forgot it because of all the messing up by you.

the main problem you seem to have is a section containing anything with "electronic voting". why is that ? it absolutly makes sense to have a own section for electronic voting since there are at least 6 unique threads specific to it. i hope my Dispute resolution request will sort that out. User:Taintain 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Response

1. Depending on the type of voting machines used there are a few different ways. AVS WinVote machines used an single administrative card to access a ballot, theoretically anyone with access to one of those cards could stand in front of a voting machine and vote all day. Another example that has been making news recently is with Sequoia Voting machines. (Not to dog Sequoia, the feature is optional) There is a button on the back of the machine that essentially brings up a new ballot. So again, without supervision one could stand there all day voting.
2. I'm not sure what you don't get here. Yes I understand that hardware is one avenue to implement a man in the middle attack. I've read the document thougroughly, I'm not sure why that single method would discount other methods that include software or firmware
3. I think that you might not understand what the problem was, if it was a hardware problem, recalibration wouldn't have fixed the problem.
4. ok, you asked how could there be a recount with electronic records and that's the question I answered.
5. I agree the method could be used for fraud. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I recommend if you want to elaborate on these problems, you could learn more about the vulnerabilities of touchscreens and expand the section accordinglyl.
6. I like the division of the tabulation section. I think it was a very good idea. I'm glad this discussion is yeilding improvements to this article.
7. .

• The technique is the corruption
• Electronic Voting is not a electoral fraud technique. I'm all for discussing the merits of diffferent systems used in voting. The implication that eletronic voting in inherently fraudulent is inaccurate. I'm not saying electronic voting has no place in the article, but it must be included in an accurate way. Electiontechnology 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another response

1. ok, didn't know that, i included it in ballot stuffing.
2. the problem is that you put 3 different fraud methods into one paragraph, i just split that up
3. in the end it doesn't matter if it's soft- or hardware. i just think it's worth it's own paragraph
4. so you can recount the "stored votes" but not "intended votes" which might be different if someone tampered with the machine, i wouldn't call that a recount.
5. i put it there like it was
6. ok
7. the method is "misinforming voters", corruption is just one way of going there. might also be done by the guy doing civil service to the elderly lady. i renamed it to Social engineering, that's mostly used in IT-security, maybe there's a better term. the pretending helper is now also there.

• there are several fraud techniquies which are unique to voting machines. they should have their own section

[edit] more responsing...

Sometimes it seems like your edits are spot on and have great content and then other times it just seems like I don't know what.

1. Thanks.
2. I have no problem with splitting them up, but the way you wrote it was limiting they types of fraud.
3. Right. That's fine, but accidents don't belong here. Talk about the possibility, the technique, whatever, it's just not relevant to have references to described accidents.
4. What makes you think you can ever recount "intended votes?" The "intended votes" might be tampered with just the same if they were in a paper medium.
5. See 3: "Back like it was is" = not ok
6. .
7. The Social engineering title is pretty good, it might overlap some with the coercion, but I agree it's a better title.

• I have no problem with you writing sections relating to voting machines. I hope you don't think I'm stoping you! Branch out, write it's own section, it's just not a technique. -Electiontechnology 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] even more responding

touchscreens: if you read the article from the miami herald you see that calling it "accident" is very nice and trying to be neutral. others would call that straight fraud. and this "accident" show that it's possible to use that method as intentional fraud.

recount: in a lot of countries it'S everybody right to cast his vote, stay in the election office and watch the counting. this makes one pretty sure that there wasn't any manipulation with the votes. if i do the same in a election office with voting machines i don't know a damn and i can press the recount-button a hundred times without feeling more sure about my vote.

techniques: "Physical tampering with voting machines" is a lot more a technique than "by voters", "During tabulation in the polling place" and "During central tabulation of the results".

[edit] NPOV?

I am assuming the following section, from the second paragraph of History is NPOV:

every election in which the DNC has been victorious

I think this refers to the Democrat party in the US, but not sure so not going to change it. If it refers to something else that probably needs to be expanded on. -- 86.128.253.74 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a US political reference, and fairly common vandalism for this article. It's been reverted. -Electiontechnology 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics argue... democratic rambling

Critics argue that there is strong evidence that the Republican Party committed electoral fraud in the United States in the 2000 and 2004 general elections. They allege that Republican partisans were responsible for removing valid voters from the registration rolls, [1][2][3] intimidating voters and polling place workers,[4][5][6] preventing recounts,[7][8] and tampering with the new electronic voting machines. Unprecedented discrepancies between exit polling and actual election results, always to the benefit of Republican candidates, are cited as evidence for these allegations.[9] It has been noted that the president of the parent company of Diebold Election Systems, which manufactures many of the electronic voting machines, was among many corporate executives who pledged to "deliver the election" for George W. Bush.[10][11] With the introduction of unshielded electronic voting, the radio signals emmitted by every electronic device again threaten the secrecy of the ballot. In 2006 the Dutch government banned a certain type of voting machines because of this.[12]

This is straight up POV. It's in the history of voter fraud? It's disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Believe it or not, both sides accuse each other of cheating. Unless there is a court case ruling that major vote fraud happened to affect the overall results, it shouldn't be in there. Oh, sure there's some news stories about possible voter fraud against Republicans, but there's the same stories coming against the Democrats. Here in Wisconsin a group of Democrats used dead people's addresses to vote. St. Louis had a similar incident. You know why you hear more fraud done by Republicans? Because the media is biased.

Look at this website with sourced information about cases of voter fraud. The accusations come from both sides. Besides, why didn't the Republicans "cheat again" in this election? I mean, they were able to do it rather easily last election, right? Just because it's sourced by a couple of bitter reporters doesn't mean it's not POV.

Even if it was true, does that mean it should be added to the history of election fraud page? It's highly POV because there were no trials that proved that Bush won the election based on voter fraud. If it was proven, then yes, but it's all just speculation and doesn't fit the big picture of the article. And changing "Many argue" to "Critics argue" still makes it a weasel word.--aviper2k7 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it ever being proven that Kennedy won the 1960 election because of electoral fraud either, but that is also so widely believed that it is listed. 82.29.208.195 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALA

I removed this text:

• For example, see "ALA Election Fraud".[4]

Because it is only sourced to a blog of an involved party. It isn't obvious to me that the purported incident even counts as "electoral fraud"; apparently a caucus within the organization didn't include someone in their slate because they disagreed with him. Whatever the case, we'd need a reliable, 3rd-party source for the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "purported" incident. It's an actual case of actual election fraud.

Well, let me ask this. When group X holds an election and purposely omits a group member from the list of persons running, for admitted political reasons, with an admission that this omission is wrong, admittedly so people will not vote for that person, is that considered election fraud? I think so. What do others think?

Let's establish that before looking for various sources (although besides the person "they disagreed with," the party committing the election fraud admits to it quite openly, and I can provide the links, when necessary).

Reasonable answers will not include anything about me personally as ad hominem arguments are of no value. I have not made up these facts. I have not even added anything at all -- I just added "for example, see." Even the offending party admits to the facts. So please leave me out when answering. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks are omitted from ballots all of the time. The Democratic Party refused to seat delegates for Lyndon LaRouche on the grounds that he was not a actual supporter of the Democratic Party policies. That's freedom of association, not electoral fraud. (Though he saw it differently, of course.) But it's not what we, as Wikipedia editors, think that matters. We're not here to conduct original research, We're here to verifiably summarize rteliable sources using the neutral point of view. So let me ask again: what reliable, 3rd-party sources have called this incident "electoral fraud"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This material has been added seven times by a single user, and removed seven times by six different accounts or IPs:

• 00:48, April 27, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (for example, see http://www.shush.ws/wordpress/?p=245)
  • 17:53, August 8, 2007 Akriasas (remove ALA example)
• 04:17, August 9, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (rv - why remove - ALA itself admitted purposely leaving his name off ballot for political reasons -- this is a perfect example of election fraud since the ALA admitted it was election fraud)
  • 03:29, August 16, 2007 68.22.201.168
• 05:43, August 17, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (rv - same comment as a few days ago - plus person who removed this is a member of the ALA and uses dozens of sock puppets to treat Wikipedia as another ALA propaganda tool)
  • 07:14, August 17, 2007 Average Earthman (Who are the ALA? Why is it notable? Why only a blog article link, aren't there any news articles? Sure we should come up with a better example.)
• 23:33, August 17, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (rv - The ALA is a major American institution affecting school and public libraries nationwide. Read the linked material. Such admitted election fraud, with specific reasons why, is truly exemplary.)
  • 22:04, August 22, 2007 Average Earthman (rv. I don't feel you've used this as the best or an exceptional example of electoral fraud, I feel you've used this as an excuse for yet another dig at this organisation.)
• 02:02, August 30, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (my motivations are irrelevant and you must assume good faith. This is a link to an admission by the ALA that the ALA itself purposefully committed election fraud. Thus, no example could be better.)
  • 02:11, August 30, 2007 ArglebargleIV (revert addition of ALA sentence -- it's not a link to an ALA admission, it's a link to a blog posting, which are low quality references.)
• 03:25, August 30, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (it is not a mere low quality blog posting -- it is the blog of the very person the ALA admitted it defrauded. It is absolutely wiki worthy, especially with the evidence the victim provides.)
  • 22:28, September 1, 2007 82.29.208.195 (Remove tiny, irrelevent and easily ignored electoral fraud of no major significance in an organisation that few on this planet have heard of.)
• 01:25, September 2, 2007 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (rv newbie - actually the ALA is a major American institution, around for a long time, with a steady grip on America's libraries. Its admitted election fraud is all the more significant therefore.)
  • 02:30, September 2, 2007 Will Beback (undo supposed fraud sourced only from blog of involved party)

So the question, "What do others think?" has already been answered, 6-1, in opposition to including this example. Please acknowledge the consensus, or change the debate by producing a suitable source for the facts and notability of this incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny! Good try. Let's hear from other people here, not in history. Funny, really!!! Clever! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"History"? A month is "history"? Please address the concerns raised by myself and others. Are there no other sources to verify this incident? If not then that indicates it's not a notable case. So far as the quality of the article goes, is this the most notable incident of electoral fraud in a non-profit organization? If so there should be many references available. If we can find them then it'd be great to include this incident here. Until we can, and while it's still sourceable only to blogs, we should leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, let's be friends, we can work on this together. By history I meant the history comments that are very limited, not the passage of time. As far as finding other sources, I think that does not need to be answered now until it is first established if the example I gave is indeed election fraud. If it is, then sources can be found, and those sources will be from the actual perpetrators and the actual victim and members of the perpetrator organization. As far as quality of the incident goes, the ALA is a major organization that committed major election fraud and admitted to doing so and explained why it did so and that right there is truly exceptional and wikiworthy because I'll bet finding admitted cases of election fraud before the election was held would be like finding a drop of water in the oceans.

Will, sit back and think, set aside any preconceived notions you may have. Here's as organization admitting openly to election fraud and explained why and how it committed that fraud. That is truly shocking, don't you think, making such admissions? Fraud is usually hush hush, mush mush. Not in this case. In this case its blasted out loud by the offending party. Truly shocking. Truly wikiworthy, especially on a wiki page about election fraud and in a paragraph discussing such fraud in private organizations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer of working toegether. I'll choose engagement over "sitting back" until we've resolved this. In my experience it's better to do research first and then draw conclusions, rather than drawing conclusions and then trying to find sources to support them. Horse first, then cart. Is our only draft animal for this assertion an involved blog? If the case is notable it would have gone to court or been reported in the press. Lots of non-profit internal battles go to court. What's the legal status of this claim? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal status is unknown to me. But certainly a court decision is not a requirement for inclusion in a wiki article. And if the victim shrugs it off as another example of abuse, does that mean the election fraud is not wikiworthy? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "victim shrugs it off" and just whines on his blog then it isn't a notable case. If the victim goes to court and overturns the electoral fraud, which in turn is covered by the media, then it is a notable case. Wikipedia can only summarize what's already been reported elsewhere, and this case seems to have gone unreported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good example at all; it is far too parochial, the local US media don't appear to have the slightest interest in it, let alone the rest of the world's media (remember, this is English language wikipedia, not US librarians wikipedia), and it appears to me that this isn't electoral fraud at all - it's a group with published aims picking their representatives and leaving off someone who disagrees with their aims off a postcard listing their candidates. Not off the ballot. You think this is the only time this has ever happened? You think the rest of the world cares one jot? Average Earthman 12:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal Immigrant Electoral Fraud

Would party/special-interest-group gatherings of non-citizens to vote ("Today we march, tomorrow we vote!") with deliberate misrepersentation of their legal status be considered "electoral fraud" in this article? Revolutionaryluddite 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A gathering isn't electoral fraud. If there's a source for actual fraud on a notable scale then it would be worth including. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Voting

In Cook County, Illinois, where ghost voting is illegal, the part on ghost voting is incorrect in the main article. "Ghost Voting" refers to having people who are dead remain on the voting rolls, and then sending a confederate to the polling place to vote the dead person's ballot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.114.33 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist countries

"Some examples of election fraud in the 20th century include Communists seizing power in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia from nominally democratic governments between 1946 and 1948 with the aid of electoral fraud and maintaining formal power through rigged elections" I have found no reference to this therefore I am deleting it Spastas (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of controversial elections

This list is largely subjective an quickly becoming an irrelevant and sprawling list. I strongly suggest deletion. --Electiontechnology (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• What about creating an actual List to collect all of them? 67.190.69.65 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACORN and Obama

Okay. I think the stories about ACORN and its reportedly massive, multistate election frauds can no longer be ignored on this page. US Presidential candidate Barack Obama's direct support for and from ACORN can no longer be ignored either.

Now I am no expert in this area. Neither am I here for political reasons. I'm here because the Obama/ACORN/election fraud story has become so widespread in the media that it should now be included somehow on this page. I don't know how.

Here's just a few articles to consider:

• Vote Drives Defended, Despite Fake Names,
• Multiple Registrants Tell Cuyahoga County Elections Board ACORN Workers Begged for Signatures; Pair Signed Multiple Vote Cards for ACORN,
• Obama and Acorn Community Organizers, Phony Voters, and Your Tax dollars,
• Wright 101; Obama Funded Extremist Afrocentrists Who Shared Rev. Wright’s Anti-Americanism,
• Palin: Obama Must ‘Rein In’ ACORN,
• etc.

So I'll leave this for others to write, but it cannot be ignored any further on this electoral fraud page. Remember, this is a page for encyclopedic facts, not political battles. Other than raising the issue based on the numerous stories from across the country on this story, I will not be further involved in this matter since it is likely to get ugly even though the facts are the facts. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)