International Foundation for Electoral Systems activities that could actually be part of a healthy electoral process, such as legitimate closed-door strategy sessions of a political campaign.6 At the same time, it eliminates from consideration obviously fraudulent activities that might be committed in the open by a brazen incumbent candidate or party, such as carousel voting or ballot stuffing. Theoretically, most acts of fraud would be hidden from public view, so Lehoucq observes that “manifestly fraudulent behaviors” are only publicized by their victims.7 However, in IFES’ experience around the world, perpetrators of blatant fraud often make no efforts to hide them. Blatant vote-buying, intimidation and violence may all be part of a strategic public display of power intended to evidence their (or their party’s) control over the political process. In an effort to refine his first approximation, Lehoucq goes on to note that “voting irregularities” are also within the scope of fraud, because they change the election result.8 Although he does not define them, we understand voting irregularities to be a general catch-all term for breaches in the normal or prescribed election procedure that may or may not implicate particular election officials or their responsibilities. If the irregularities do result from incompetence or deliberate wrong-doing, they would in fact be considered malpractice, criminal malpractice or fraud, as we detail in Section III of this paper. In some cases, however, these irregularities may be due to logistical factors outside the control of election administrators (for example, adverse weather conditions forcing polling stations to close). Accordingly, the term is far too broad to use as a way of defining fraudulent activities. Andreas Schedler, in a frequently-cited 2002 paper entitled “The Menu of Manipulation,” offers the following wide-ranging definition: “Electoral fraud involves the introduction of bias into the administration of elections. It can take place at any stage of the electoral process, from voter registration to the final tally of ballots. It covers such activities as forging voter ID cards, burning ballot boxes or padding the vote totals of favored parties and candidates. Invariably, though, it violates the principle of democratic equality. Fraudulent practices distort the citizenry’s preferences by denying voting rights to some citizens, while amplifying the voice of others.”9 He attributes this type of “electoral alchemy” especially to uneasy, authoritarian incumbents. Schedler’s definition is alluring, based on a strong principle of democratic equality, but it fails to narrow the field enough to be workable in reality. There are many institutionalized practices in the electoral process that may create “bias” for one party or candidate over another, such as the various benefits of incumbency, but which are perfectly legal and even unavoidable.10 An additional issue with this definition is the focus on “administration of elections,” which may imply for some readers that the main actors are election officials at various levels. However, as we note in the next section, an important dimension of the definition must be the range of possible actors, which, in the case of fraud, should include other stakeholders besides election officials (for example, the media, government officials, state institutions, political parties, candidates and voters). 6 Skye Christensen (2011) “Mapping Manipulation: Digital Observation of Electoral Fraud,” Thesis Submitted to Uppsala University, Department of Government: page 9. 7 Lehoucq, page 235. 8 Ibid. 9 Andreas Schedler (2002) “The Menu of Manipulation,” Journal of Democracy 13(2): page 44-45. 10 Incumbents are widely regarded as more newsworthy and thus receive more coverage in the media. In addition, ruling parties or incumbents can tailor public works programs to coincide with the electoral calendar, making it somewhat easier to attract campaign contributions. 4