You don’t have to be a genius to rig an election

(NST) IT is a notion, universally acknowledged, that the individual is clever, balanced, rational, reasonable, judicious, even practical. He is objective. He is not at all influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering and representing the facts. He is analytical. The individual is often of sound mind.

This very notion also puts forward that the same individuals, when in mass, have a tendency to descend into madness. An insanity that is socially transmitted, often resulting in violent mental agitation. They become ignorant and unruly. Easily influenced. Pig-headed. Illogical. Indiscriminate. Pitchforks and torches in hand, they're just jonesing for a lynching.

Which is the very reason democracy — this idea of government by the masses, of popular rule, of hoi polloi headwaters — is far too important to be left in the hands of voters. It is of high consequence, the exigencies of which lie far beyond the comprehension of Solomon, let alone the wisdom of the electorate.

With this in mind, with everything that is at stake, I believe that it is crucial that we familiarise ourselves on how best to rig an election.

At this point, it is critically important to note that in a democracy (even in those that are make-believe) it is always best to work within the system. To tense it. To stretch it tight. To bend it. But not to break it.

This way, if caught, one always has recourse to some legal protection. Laws, after all, are sufficiently vague for a reason. Full of ambiguities and inadequacies, little arrow slits in what should be an impenetrable wall. Ripe for exploitation.

It should begin with the gerrymander. Always. To put the plan in motion long before even the slightest whiff of an election.

All democracies, in the interest of equal representation, adjust their electoral boundaries to reflect changes in population. All you need is the power to redraw constituency lines. To create on a map an area that best favours your party. And while everything essentially remains the same — the state, the constituencies, the party affiliations — the results will differ greatly.

The real genius here is that no one has actually changed their minds. Oh, Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, could you have known that your salamander-shaped contrivance would forever change the way we conduct elections?

Which, of course, brings me to the mathematics of it all: by simply changing the voting procedure, we can change the outcome of an entire election. For voting isn't as simple as just picking a candidate, counting the ballots and announcing a winner. They've been trying to push such naivete for years.

Consider this: suppose there's a group of 12 people and they must each decide on a favourite colour. Their choices are among red, blue and green. Five voters prefer red to green to blue; four prefer blue to green to red; and the remaining three prefer green to blue to red.

Now if each of them were allowed to vote only their favourite colour, red would win, blue would come in second and green in third.

A closer look at their choices, however, reveals that seven voters actually prefer blue to red. Similarly, seven voters prefer green to red, and eight voters prefer green to blue. This new method suggests that the voters actually prefer green to red. A result that is quite the opposite to our initial findings.

Once again, no one's changed their minds. We just modify the methodology to get an entirely different result. In fact, we can get any result we wish, and all it takes is the manipulation of mathematical paradoxes.

Who we elect can just as well be a result of the procedure employed, rather than who the electorate actually wants. Simple, relatively straightforward and, most importantly, it looks and sounds right.

All of this finagling must, of course, be backed up by the usual tried-and-tested methods: voter suppression (preferably the minorities; they're always complaining about something; no one's really paying any attention), phone jamming, ghosts, postal vote manipulation, purging registration lists, ballot substitution, ballot box stuffing, ballot destruction, vote switching, tabulator rigging…

There is an endless march of crafty and cunning tactics at one's disposal. The application of which is essential, because if your opposition is too busy fighting the little battles, they are likely to overlook the larger machinations that are already in place.

But a word of warning. It is best never to over-reach. For example, it is probably advisable not to announce the election results before polling actually ends. It is probably best to not trounce your opponent in his home constituency.

And always remember, winning by a hundred votes is just as good as winning by a million. Or 11 million. A win is a win. More important, however, is maintaining a sense of propriety. It puts people off the scent of deceit. It keeps your opponent and his supporters quiet. "It was close", they'll say. "Maybe next time."

It keeps them hoping.