Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: Refining the Vocabulary Second, we propose a framework for understanding election fraud and malpractice that builds on our previous work on this subject3 and takes into account comments from election practitioners and academics made at the 2011 International Political Science Association-European Consortium of Political Research (IPSA-ECPR) Joint Conference in Brazil. This framework seeks to avoid some of the drawbacks of definitions that have been proposed by our colleagues in the election community, discussed more fully below. Through this effort, IFES seeks to bridge the gap between academic research and its practical applications in election contexts around the world. II. A Brief Review of Relevant Definitions and Frameworks Practitioners and academics seeking to define and categorize practices that undermine the electoral process have generally used one of two basic approaches, which we have termed inclusive and restrictive. 4 The Inclusive Approach The first approach used by writers to conceptualize and define these issues (variously called fraud, malpractice and manipulation, despite important differences) is to be as broad as possible, no matter the imprecision. Some writers in this category situate their definitions normatively, finding that electoral wrongdoing violates domestic norms or internationally accepted standards for free and fair elections. A hallmark of this approach is that the definitions neither distinguish between nor mention potential actors and they often conflate terms that have precise legal meanings. From a practitioner’s perspective, it is worth noting that any consensus definition should be useful in reality. However, this type of approach generally lacks focused definitional attributes that can aid in deterring or mitigating actual fraud or negligence by election professionals. As discussed later in this paper, we propose a nuanced distinction between fraud, malpractice (including criminal malpractice) and systemic manipulation that avoids this pitfall. A range of authors have taken the inclusive approach. In a 2003 paper, Fabrice Lehoucq offers the following basic definition for electoral fraud: “all clandestine efforts to shape election results.”5 While pleasingly simple at first glance, this definition is problematic. As Skye Christensen notes in a 2011 paper on the use of digital observation techniques, Lehoucq’s definition brings into the fraud fold a range of 3 In the first white paper in IFES’ electoral fraud series, published in December 2010, the following basic definition was proposed: “deceptive or negligent interference with the electoral process that intends to prevent the outcome from reflecting the will of the people.” Rafael Lopez-Pintor (2010) “Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: A Basic Conceptual Framework,” Electoral Fraud White Paper Series, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, and Staffan Darnolf (2011) “Assessing Electoral Fraud in New Democracies: A New Strategic Approach,” Electoral Fraud White Paper Series, International Foundation for Electoral Systems. 4 In a 2012 volume entitled Electoral Malpractice, Sarah Birch finds that there are four approaches to defining electoral malpractice: “legal, perceptual, ‘best practice,’ and normative.” For the purposes of this white paper, and given the fairly limited number of definitions offered by the community, we have effectively encapsulated the latter three approaches into an “inclusive” approach, as contrasted with the narrow limits afforded by a law-based approach. See Sarah Birch (2012) Electoral Malpractice, Oxford University Press, New York: pages 11-12. 5 Fabrice Lehoucq (2003) “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences,” Annual Review of Political Science 6: page 233. 3