  Complexity of voting manipulation is a prominent topic in computational
social choice. In this work, we consider a two-stage voting manipulation
scenario. First, a malicious party (an attacker) attempts to manipulate the
election outcome in favor of a preferred candidate by changing the vote counts
in some of the voting districts. Afterwards, another party (a defender), which
cares about the voters' wishes, demands a recount in a subset of the
manipulated districts, restoring their vote counts to their original values. We
investigate the resulting Stackelberg game for the case where votes are
aggregated using two variants of the Plurality rule, and obtain an almost
complete picture of the complexity landscape, both from the attacker's and from
the defender's perspective.
