New measures surrounding election security and voting methods are at the forefront of American political discourse, particularly as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Amidst heightened scrutiny of voting processes, this election is shaped by controversies, conspiracy theories, and the evolution of voting technologies. Americans are increasingly concerned about the integrity of their elections, spurred on by false claims and the insistence on more traditional methods like hand-counting ballots. But just how effective and viable are these approaches?
The movement to hand-count ballots has some roots—a point many would say is important—in the narrative promoted by former President Donald Trump who continually alleged the 2020 election was stolen. This has fueled distrust not just of electronic voting machines, but of the entire electoral process. Advocates for hand-counting ballots argue it’s a way to restore confidence, but experts warn it’s fraught with potential issues.
Research has shown hand-counting to be more error-prone, costly, and time-consuming than modern methods of electronic counting. For example, one eye-opening case unfolded during the recent primaries when Gillespie County, Texas, launched what was supposed to be an extensive hand-counting effort. The results of this endeavor stretched well beyond normal reckoning, with counting taking nearly 24 consecutive hours and employing 200 people. The financial toll? It roughly doubled what taxpayers had spent during the 2020 Republican primary, including addressing multiple errors during the tallies.
Similar fumbles were recorded during the unprecedented full hand-count of midterm votes in rural Nye County, Nevada, where discrepancies of nearly 25% were found between the hand-tallied results and electronic counts, attributed solely to human error. Alarmingly, the state’s Supreme Court halted the process mid-way over fears of potential leaks of early vote counts, showcasing how the transition to manual counting introduced as many problems as it aimed to solve.
Despite these evident challenges, some jurisdictions persist in their push for hand-counting ballots. The Georgia State Election Board recently mandated new measures where poll workers are required to manually count the number of paper ballots—though not the actual votes counted, as part of the new regulations. This decision garnered resistance, reportedly contradicting advice from various state officials who cited professional election practices.
This ‘grassroots’ movement to discard electronic voting systems stems largely from conspiracy theories urging skepticism around machines. Proponents often lack credible evidence to substantiate claims of fraud, with numerous studies refuting the myth of widespread electoral deception. Political scientist Charles Stewart of MIT compellingly noted this movement treads on fragile ground, gaining traction mainly within ideologically rigid groups.
It’s important to note the national picture painted by election administrators from both parties, which reflects positivity surrounding current systems. America’s elections are decentralized, with thousands of independent jurisdictions offering checks and balances against large-scale election fraud. The multilayered protections and transparency embedded within registration and voting processes inherently deter fraudulent activities. For example, many states require some form of verification at polling stations, preventing impersonation voting and other forms of vote tampering.
Interestingly, contrary to popular narratives, voter fraud, when it does occur, is often caught and prosecuted efficiently. Researchers from the Associated Press found fewer than 475 confirmed cases of potential voter fraud across six battleground states during the contentious 2020 election—a paltry number compared to the millions of votes cast. These anomalies often led to investigations which uniformly revealed errors stemming from misunderstandings, miscommunications, or clerical issues rather than organized attempts to manipulate election outcomes.
Absentee voting also carries its own layers of security. States employ numerous mechanisms for verifying absentee ballots, requiring signatures, having bipartisan teams assess ballot legitimacy, and implementing tracking tools to monitor ballots as they progress through the system. This provides voters added assurance their voices are being accurately represented.
Indeed, the backdrop of allegations and fears stoked by social media and political narratives has complicated efforts to promote trust and transparency within electoral foundations. For every incident touted as evidence of more significant problems, there are layers of safeguards already addressing those concerns. Pellerin, who once managed elections for over 27 years, recounted how even genuine irregularities usually had simple explanations. For example, suspicions about multiple registrations at one address were often clarified as residents, such as nuns, sharing the same home.
Voter verification protocols and lobby efforts for stronger election integrity mechanisms come as various states migrate to systems like ranked choice voting, adding another dimension to the upcoming elections. This method is becoming increasingly popular, particularly in competitive districts. Maine and Alaska are set to implement this system, allowing voters to rank their preferences for candidates. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the initial votes, the system enables redistribution of votes to remaining candidates until the tally elicits majority support.
The adoption of ranked choice voting aims to facilitate broader representation and reduce the likelihood of ‘spoiler’ candidates clouding elections. Advocates argue it encourages positive campaigning and coalition-building. Conversely, opponents cite potential confusion arising from the multi-tier voting rounds, postulating it could challenge voter comprehension about the process. This method extends the counting timeline dramatically, sometimes taking weeks to finalize results, which could raise additional concerns about transparency and trust.
Supporting notions of these voting methodologies as responsible systems, Maine successfully instituted ranked voting through voter referendum back in 2016. It’s now been used several times to influence elections, including outcomes where candidates with the most first-choice votes may be pushed out under the ranked conditions, highlighting voting preferences across wider swathes of choices. Alaska similarly adopted the strategy more recently, indicating increasing acceptance of this model across various political landscapes.
The intriguing intersection of safeguards, conspiracy theories, and novel electoral methodologies paints a complex picture as the nation gears up for potential upheaval during the 2024 election. The blend of both cautionary tales from several states gone awry and the conviction of high-stakes challenges indicates both the potential and pitfalls of American democracy at this time.
Without question, as ballots get cast and counted, the underlying question marks surrounding confidence and transparency will loom large over the electoral process. Are today’s voting technologies and procedures enough to allay the murmurs of doubt still amplified by traditional rhetoric? Time will tell, but one thing is clear: the vibrant discussions ignited by the past elections will resonate just as loudly across the voting booths this fall.
