Those intent on committing election fraud prefer ballot tampering techniques rather than miscounting techniques, because ballot tampering destroys the original evidence while miscounting preserves the original evidence. Miscounting techniques are used when ballot tampering and other techniques that have a permanent affect and destroy evidence have failed to yield sufficient fraudulent votes to steal the election.
 

PRE-ELECTION POLL CLOSE FRAUD

1. Recruit and encourage those who are ineligible to vote, including illegal aliens, convicted felons, and mentally ill and under-age persons.

 
2. Register and vote in the name of multiple non-existent persons, or dead persons.

 
3. Delaying or removing absentee ballots in the mail stream.

 
4. Delaying or removing campaign literature and organization news publications with voter recommendations in the mail stream.

TAMPERING WITH BALLOTS WHILE IN STORAGE OR DURING MANUAL HAND RECOUNTS

1. Addition of new, fraudulent ballots to the legitimate ballots.

 
2. Removal of legitimate ballots that are voted for the opposition candidate.

 
3. Marking a new vote choice (i.e., punching new hole) on a paper ballot where no vote choice was made for a specific office, such as President. Such a non-voted office is in effect a vote for "none of the above", due to voter dissatisfaction, indecision, or neglect.

 
4. Marking a new vote choice (i.e., punching new hole) on a paper ballot where a vote choice was made for a specific office, such as President. Such an extra mark or hole creates an ambiguity for that office, and the ballot is considered a "spoiled" invalid ballot as far as that office is concerned. This has the effect of subtracting one vote for the opposition candidate for each ballot that contained a vote for that candidate and which is "double-punched" during election fraud activities.

MIS-COUNTING BALLOTS DURING MACHINE COUNTS OR MANUAL HAND RECOUNTS

1. Interpreting and counting "dimpled chads" and "pregnant chads" for the supported candidate and ignoring such chads for the opposition candidate, even though such chads are not legally counted as votes anywhere in the U.S.

 
2. Intentionally miscounting ballots during manual counts, such as placing ballots in piles for the wrong candidate, inserting errors into tally sheets, etc.

 
3. Intentionally not counting selected stacks or groups of ballots from election precincts or counties that would yield more votes for the opposition candidate than the supported candidate.

 
4. Intentionally not counting overseas absentee ballots from U.S. military men and women who vote predominantly Republican and who have suffered greatly reduced moral under the Clinton-Gore administration.

 
5. Feeding stacks of ballots that would yield higher vote counts for the supported candidate through the counting machine more than once.

 
6. Performing manual re-counts of only carefully selected high yield precincts for the supported candidate, based on voter registration/party affiliation, voter turn-out, and historical and traditional vote distribution between the different parties. By failing to re-count entire counties or an entire state, "new found votes" are obtained in disproportionately larger numbers for the supported candidate than for the opposition candidate. (This is why it is a good idea to have a state or federal law that requires that any manual re-counts must cover entire counties or an entire state. Florida has such a law.)

 
7. Using inaccurate and biased samples and extrapolation of those samples to claim that a manual re-count would change the result of the election. For example, sample only high yield precincts for the supported candidate, and then extrapolate the numbers of "new found votes" for each candidate to "represent" the entire county, without applying appropriate weight factors (multipliers) to account for differences in voter registration/party affiliation, voter turn-out, and historical and traditional vote distribution between the different parties. During a county-wide manual hand re-count, there is more handling of the actual ballots, and more opportunity to commit election fraud.

COMPLETE PROCESS OF SYSTEMATIC ELECTION FRAUD

1. Continuing the election fraud activities, including repeated manual hand-recounts, until sufficient fraudulent votes have been obtained for the supported candidate to change the outcome of the election. In the case of the 2000 Presidential Election, the Gore-Lieberman campaign and the Democrat Party used an iterative process that would not end until they either obtain enough fraudulent votes to switch the outcome of the election, or they run out of time based on statutory deadlines and lawsuit outcomes.

SUBTERFUGE

1. Accuse opposition of committing election fraud to divert attention from the real election fraud and to put the opposition on the defensive to suppress any real and legitimate charges of election fraud. This will also create a false belief that the opposition candidate is an illegitimate candidate and and illegitimate office holder should the number of fraudulent votes be insufficient to steal the election. This false belief will hinder the opposition candidate from being as effective a public official, and will make it easier to defeat that opponent and other candidates from the opposition party in the next election.

 
2. Get the news media and entertainment industry involved as enthusiastic willing accomplices to publicize these false accusations without doing any competent or honest fact checking, research, or presentation of balancing information.