On 5/17/22 2:48 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
> I was wondering, exactly what goes into results likely being
> considered to be rigged and what ones have less fraud and
> are considered to be real?
There are multiple levels of election-rigging.
There is intimidation of opposition voters.
- To deter them from voting.
- To make them accept "assistance".
- To suppress any public displays of opposition support.
- To compel public displays of support.
There is intimidation of opposition organizers.
There is use of state resources for the campaign.
- Government employees...
-- given time off for campaign work
-- required to campaign to keep their jobs
-- required to donate to campaign funds
- Government facilities used for campaigning
-- Offices, phones, vehicles
- State-controlled media...
-- Printing/broadcasting partisan propaganda.
- State funds used to provide favors to voters.
- State authority used to pressure businesses to make
- donations and withhold opposition donations, by
- favorable/hostile treatment in
-- contracting
-- taxation
-- regulation
-- inspections
Properly exploited, these methods can effectively
guarantee victory for the incumbent party, without
resorting to...
Outright fraud.
- Fake ballots.
- Altered vote counts.
In his politics book, Robert Heinlein asserted that
outright fraud was a symptom of breakdown in the
organization. Under a well-run Machine
- every precinct has two or three workers who
know every voter and make sure all "their"
voters get to the polls. These workers also
distribute small favors to voters.
- the regime's policies are reasonably satisfying
to most voters.
- businesses donate heavily to the party's campaign
funds and almost never to the opposition.
- the press is muzzled or state-owned.
- if necessary, potential opposition candidates
are bought off (not necessarily with money) or
intimidated.
When corruption is too blatant, when the regime
fails at basic government services, and when its
precinct workers become lazy and arrogant - then
the Machine resorts to fraud.
In Spain, in the period 1875-1920, politics was
dominated by two parties. A change from one to
the other was a "turno pacifico", resulting from
some major failure by the incumbents. The new
power-holders were expected to "make a majority";
that is, to win an election thanks to support from
local "caciques" who controlled voting in small
towns and could be bought with national patronage.
Thus the election was in a sense rigged - but also
reflected the national consensus.
> The most interesting ones I can think of are...
How about the Venezuelan presidential recall in 2004?
Exit polls indicated a solid majority in favor, and
observers noted that the _chavistas_ seemed very worried
and depressed. But the result as announced was a strong
majority against. No one has ever been able to prove
fraud, but the regime very quickly moved to insure that
there could never be more than a token audit, which is
suspicious.