ELECTORAL FRAUDS AND SAFE GUARDS AGAINST. The most common electoral fraud is bribery (q.v.), consisting of the gift of money or the promise of some re ward either to vote *rights or to remain away from the polls. Employers of labor have been accused of attempting to influence the votes of their employees by threats of loss of work, re duced wages, etc.; physical violence has been used many times; and sometimes the threatened loss of social caste has operated to sway the voter. Priests have no right, either in or out of the pulpit, to influence electors to vote a particular way, by threats of excommunication, refusal of the sacrament and the like, and if they do so, it is, according to court decisions, an undue influence which may vitiate the elec tion. The insertion of fictitious names on the roll, the registration of non-residents or non citizens, etc., is almost impossible under present methods of registration. One source of election evil is found in faulty methods of identifying voters. The fraud that results takes the form of ((impersonation* (voting on another man's name), or *repeating* (voting more than once). Sometimes forged naturalization papers are issued to prevent the discovery of fraudulent voting. Floaters are employed in many cases, especially in the crowded districts where elec tion officials do not know the individual voters. Where a party has too many votes in one precinct and too few in another, colonization is sometimes practised (see BLOCKS OF FIVE; and in this connection see also GERRYMANDER ) ; groups of actual voters may be transferred from a "safe* precinct to a *doubtful* one and still fulfil the letter of the law if only a brief residence be required. To lessen the likelihood of these crimes, some States require every voter to establish anew each year his right to vote; others allow a name once on the lists to stay there till death or removal causes it to be dropped. With our dread of red tape and formalities, we hesitate to adopt the ultimate remedy prevailing in France, where every man, as he steps up to the ballot-box, must produce his *electoral card" on which are inscribed his full name, profession and residence. This card is issued by the mayor of the town where the voter lives, after the latter has established his identity and majority by the production of a properly attested ((act of birth? Each electoral card is numbered, and when it is presented at the polls, the judge of elections takes it, and calls off the number and name, while two other judges, with the official poll-list before them, repeat aloud the number and name and check off on the register. Then, and not till then, the first judge accepts the ballot from the voter and drops it into the box; and before handing back the card, he tears off a corner of it, which renders it useless for further voting that day. These bits of card are strung on a wire and are counted, at the dose of the polls, to see if they tally with the number of ballots in the box. Various methods are employed to destroy the efficacy of a ballot after it has been marked by the voter. False counting of ballots has been an easy and common way to vitiate elec tion results. Knavish counters may nullify bal lots by adding marks or altering them; ballots may be rejected on trivial grounds; and some times ballot boxes may be stuffed before the polls open. Defective ballots may be printed by omitting or shifting the position of candi dates' names.
Election frauds developed early, and an es pecial abuse was the temporary conveyancing of lands, so as to enable the grantees to vote for a certain candidate. The election laws of Rhode Island, New Jersey and Virginia for the decade 1760-70 declared penalties for these frauds. The illicit use of money in elections i began almost at the beginning of political his tory in America. Rhode Island, for instance,
found it necessary to pass a general act against bribery and corruption in 1737, and 10 years later replaced it with one even more stringent. Judging by its provisions the evil must have been persistent in that colony. On 14 Oct. 1643 the General Court of Massachusetts ordered *that if any freeman shall put in more than one paper or beane for the choyce of any officer, he shall forfett lOs Id for every offence; and any man that is not free, putting in any vote, shall forfett the like somme of lOs The other New England colonies found no such laws necessary, but all the others had them save New York and Maryland. In England the pur chase of votes was for centuries as natural a thing as the sale of boroughs, and.no serious attempt to prevent it was made until 1854, when the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act defined bribery, forbade certain petty expenditures and required publicity of election expenses of a certain character. Despite this and other legis lation, the evil did not greatly diminish and in 1883 a more drastic measure was adopted, which has served as a model for legislation else where. In England and Scotland if the number of electors does not exceed. 2,000, the Parlia mentary candidate's maximum allowance for expenses is 1380, with an additional f30 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000. In Ireland (which contains many small borough elec torates), where the number does not exceed 500, f200; exceeds 500 but does not exceed f250; exceeds 1,000 but does not exceed f275. After this number has been reached, the rate is the same as in England. In the coun ties where the number of electors does not exceed 2,000 (in England and Scotland), the maximum allowance is f650, with an additional £60 for every complete 1,000 above 2,000. In Ireland, for the same number of electors, the maximum allowance is f500 and f540 ively, with an additional f40 for every com plete 1,000 above 2,000. These items do not include returning officers' fees or the personal expenses of candidates. In the United States all the States have enacted laws penalizing those who commit offenses against the suffrage. Most of the States have provided means to control the use of money in elections, some limiting the amount that may be expended by each candi date and compelling a sworn statement of ceipts and expenditures; some defining the ob. jects for which money may be spent ; some re quiring campaign financial committees to render a detailed statement of sources of receipts and objects of expenditures; and many prohibiting absolutely the gift of money or property to any political party, committee or organization by any corporation or joint-stock company. The more recent enactment of direct primary, initia tive, referendum and recall measures (qq.v.) has also done much to rid politics of corrupt influence. Moreover, if at all possible, the courts prefer to give effect to elections, particu larly if they give evidence of having been con ducted fairly and honestly; and even the most glaring irregularities not actually constituting fraud have been held not to invalidate an elec tion. See CORRUPT PRACTICES ACTS; BALLOT, etc. Consult Brooks, R. C., 'Corruption in American Politics and (New York 1910) ; Ford H. J., 'Rise and Growth of American (ib. 1898) ; Griffith, E. C., 'Rise and Development of the Gerrymander' (Chicago 1907) ; Lowrie, S. G., 'Corrupt Practices at Elections> (Madison, Wis., 1911) ; Shaw, A., 'National Lesson from Adams (in Review of Reviews, Vol. XLIII, pp. 171-180, New York 1911); Schaffner, M. A., 'Corrupt Practices at Elections) (Madison, Wis., 1906); and authorities cited under article CORRUPT