International Foundation for Electoral Systems action running contrary to the legal framework that intends to provide undue gains to specific electoral contestants.”21 This report also found that “the source of inexperience and/or fraud should be sought first in the legal framework. Ambiguities and/or lacunae in written law are conducive to fraud, although they can be a result of lack of electoral experience, rather than intentions for malfeasance.” A key shortcoming of this definition is that it addresses actions taken by an unknown group of actors. However, failure to take an action could also constitute fraud. Another legal approach to the definition question was offered by Hector Davalos and Nguyen Huu Dong at a 2011 Venice Commission conference. They define electoral fraud as “a deliberate violation of dispositions of the Electoral Law in order to change the electoral results to overtake or to harm a candidate.”22 They draw the customary distinction between, on the one hand, fraud, and on the other hand, “mistakes, accidents, insufficiencies, incompetence or infractions to the electoral process,” but admit that in practice this line may be blurred, as it can be difficult to gauge intent. Aside from the general limitations of the restrictive approach, as we have discussed, this definition also fails to distinguish between mistakes or accidents on the one hand, and incompetence and infractions on the other. As we will discuss, in practice, this distinction is necessary in order to maintain an understanding of the expected standard or duty of care for a given electoral professional, and pursue cases in which that standard has not been met. Despite the drawbacks mentioned in using a legalistic approach to defining election fraud, there are some practical cases in which this usage will be most appropriate. For example, a 2011 publication, “Guidance on Preventing and Detecting Electoral Malpractice,” in the United Kingdom, was written narrowly and specifically to inform the efforts of police forces working on Election Day in coordination with polling officials. The authors of this publication chose to use the term “electoral malpractice,” and noted that this term “is used to cover all breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It is much wider than voting fraud or other offences involving fraudulent activity. For example, the term includes offences such as bribery, treating, and false statements about the personal character of a candidate.”23 As is discussed below, the use of the term “malpractice” in this context is incorrect, as it conflates intentional acts (i.e., fraud) with breaches of a particular duty of care (i.e., malpractice) that do not rise to the level of fraud. The latter is not an adequate way to represent fraudulent activities of nonprofessional actors, such as voters. For example, a voter who casts a ballot in multiple locations on Election Day has likely committed fraud, but it would be incorrect to call his or her action “malpractice.”24 21 European Commission for Democracy through Law (2010) “Report on Figure Based Management of Possible Election Fraud,” Adopted in Venice in December 2010: page4. 22 Hector Davalos and Nguyen Huu Dong, “Fraud and Fraud Prevention,” paper presented at the 8th European Conference of Electoral Management Bodies, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), May 2011. 23 The Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom (2011) “Guidance on Preventing and Detecting Electoral Malpractice,” London: page 3. 24 Although it is not sufficient for establishing a consensus definition of electoral fraud, a law-based approach is likely adequate for the narrow and well-defined scope of “police election Single Point of Contact Officers (SPOCs), working with Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and Counting Officers” addressed by this publication.The Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom, page 1. 8