Washblog

"Voter fraud," while it is something more than nonexistent, is also rare.  This makes sense because voter fraud gains a single vote (hardly enough to decide even a single election) while risking a five year prison sentence.

On the other hand, election fraud by insiders like vendors or government officials has the capability of delivering the desired result:  the election result.  Moreover, with electronic voting a single person with access to a single machine can alter an entire county's results with an appropriate virus that deletes itself, while a similarly election-altering "voter fraud" would require thousands of voters to be involved.   There are also facts like election officials in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County, Ohio who would rather commit election recount-rigging felonies than do a recount of the 2004 presidential election ballots -- because they want to protect the first numbers they put out there and avoid work.    The few media that cover this major story of election cover-up alter the story to call officials in supervisory positions "workers" and otherwise minimize and fail to report that they spent two full days illegally "preparing" the recount to make sure it came out OK.  See http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16536269.htm   For better coverage of this story and other elections coverage see bradblog:  http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4266

The Ohio elections officials were sentenced to the maximum sentence of 18 months for rigging the recount to be nonrandom and expose no problems, while the maximum sentence in the typical case of a single double-voting 'voter fraud' is substantially higher than or disproportionate to insider rigging of entire election results or recounts.