Fixing American Elections
America’s electoral system has very real, systemic problems that must be addressed if we want to restore civic confidence in the democratic process.
Donald Trump resoundingly won the presidency for the second time on Tuesday night, becoming the second politician to be elected to non-consecutive terms in the office. (Sorry, Grover Cleveland. You’re no longer a trivia answer. Bummer.) Many people smarter than I have written all about the shifts in voting patterns, the campaign and get-out-the-vote tactics that worked or didn’t, and the broad-based coalition that will return Trump to the Oval Office in January. You should read them. But, if you want my two cents, the victory was based almost entirely on two facts: that Kamala Harris was an exceptionally awful politician and that the Biden administration she was a part of has been a complete and total disaster on several key fronts, from foreign policy and inflation to immigration and cultural politics. Millions of thinkpieces will be written over the coming decades to explain this seemingly radical shift towards a man who, by all accounts, should have been extremely unpopular. I’m going to avoid joining that crowded chorus. Instead, what I want to focus on is how we can reform our electoral system, particularly with respect to the quadrennial presidential race.
But why reform and why now? The election was not especially close, with Trump winning the Electoral College and even the (overrated) popular vote relatively handily. As of this writing, only a few online crazies have posited that there are millions of missing votes for Kamala Harris. And the stolen election claims by Trump’s backers in 2020 were obviously bogus, as were the more ridiculous arguments about Russian hacking of vote counts in 2016 from the Democratic camp. So were the Diebold voting machine hijinks of 2004 and the narrative that the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election. Can’t forget the constant canard that illegal immigrants are voting en masse in federal elections! All nonsense.
Well, when you put that all together, that means that most elections this century have been plagued by allegations of unfairness, suppression, fraud, malign interference, or blatant theft. That’s a big problem. Two things need to be true about elections in a democratic society: they must be accurate and they must be perceived to be accurate. Free and fair elections require both reality and perception to work. And our elections are clearly failing in the perception department; they have their fair share of problems in reality, too. Far too many people on both sides of the political divide lack faith in our elections, especially when their preferred candidate loses. Even if evidence for impactful voter suppression or fraud is scant, the belief itself is damaging to our polity and our civic compact. And when there are real problems, like the recent attacks on ballot boxes in the Pacific Northwest and the reality of non-citizen voting, they are often glossed over or minimized, lending a degree of credence to the belief.
Given the near-constant allegations of election shenanigans over the past 24 years, there have been plenty of reforms suggested, many of which are truly radical and out of line with the American tradition. Any reforms to the system must retain the key qualities that have made our democracy the most successful in the world. That means keeping state control of election processes, maintaining the distributed, federalist electoral system, and upholding the Electoral College as the critical institution of our presidential election process. We cannot have the federal government controlling all elections, as this single point of failure bodes ill for the ability to continue our tradition of free and fair elections.
Still, that does not mean that federal guidelines have no place in the reform effort. We should keep elections local, but make them more efficient and effective, as well as bolstering security. Voting should be made easier, but in a manner that requires at least some skin in the game or action on the part of the voter. The federal government should set some basic rules of the road and let the states iterate within that framework. With that being said, here are eight reasonable reforms that would make our presidential elections far better and improve the perception of them as fair and impartial.
Election Day As National Holiday
We vote in federal elections every two years, and in presidential elections every four. This is a crucial part of the civic life of American citizens and it should be treated as such. Election Day should be a federal holiday, one where voting, civic participation, and our constitutional order are celebrated and honored. Nobody should have to miss out on voting because they are working. Making election day a holiday would end that issue once and for all. It is genuinely absurd that Labor Day, Juneteenth, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and Columbus Day are federal holidays, but Election Day isn’t. We rightly celebrate those holidays for their important contributions to the national fabric of the United States, so why don’t we do the same for the most significant aspect of American civic life?
On an election day holiday, there will of course be voting, but there should also be celebrations of our American republic, the history of the electoral system, and the genuine accomplishment that is the history of American democracy. I don’t think it should get as rowdy as Independence Day, but we should follow the diktats of our second president, John Adams, who wrote about that day that “It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more.” We should get Americans excited about electoral participation, not try to scare them into voting against the other candidate. This ebullience about our political history would not only be a great way to commemorate our history and the longevity of our polity, but also to boost people’s moods and associate elections not with existential dread, but with levity and national comity. It certainly couldn’t hurt.
Automatic Voter Registration
Every American citizen, either upon naturalization or reaching the age of majority (18), should be automatically registered to vote in the state in which they reside. Citizens should not be made to opt into the political system, just as they are not given the choice whether to file taxes, get a social security card, or – for men – register for the draft. As I’ve written, I do not think voting itself should be mandatory, and I respect people who choose not to participate in elections. That is what freedom is about. But automatically registering voters removes one step from the process, making it easier for citizens to go out and vote on election day itself. Removing a merely bureaucratic obstacle to voting would be good, not only because it eases the electoral process, but also because it stops the highly partisan voter registration drives run by NGOs and private organizations. These politically motivated groups should not be the ones registering select voters; the states who run elections should be doing so on a universal citizenship and age basis.
Notice that I keep saying “citizens” here. That is because we need to make sure that only eligible voters are registered; the current system in many states does not do nearly enough to curtail the possibility of non-citizen voters. State governments absolutely have enough information to ensure that those who are registered to vote are eligible to participate in federal elections. They just need to use that information for the proper purpose. On that note, there should be information sharing across jurisdictions to ensure that, upon moving states, a voter is re-registered in his new home and de-registered in his old one. The only way automatic registration works is with assiduous purging of the voter rolls on an annual basis. If that is not the case, duplication will be supremely common and can lead to inefficiency and even open the door for potential fraud.
Free Universal Voter ID
Voter ID is the major electoral bogeyman of the liberal left. They believe that it unfairly discriminates against minorities and the poor, acting as a modern-day poll tax and suppressing and disenfranchising voters. But none of this is true. America is basically the only advanced democracy that does not require voters to show photo identification when they show up at the polls. We are the outlier, and not because we are more suppressive than others, but more permissive. It is incredibly important to ensure that the people who want to vote are who they say they are and are eligible to cast a ballot. This is basic election stuff, something that even developing countries can do. Yet somehow it is deemed impossible or despicable here in the greatest country on Earth.
The idea that poor people and minorities – formerly the backbone of the Democratic coalition, but perhaps no longer after Tuesday night – simply are unable to procure a photo ID is deeply bigoted and condescending. ID is required for tons of tasks that plenty of impoverished folks and minorities do on a regular basis, from driving and check cashing to purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Just to fully destroy this insulting talking point, every single registered voter (and, under my plan, every eligible voter would be automatically registered) should receive a free photo ID that allows them to vote in elections. We should not take subpar identification types, like student IDs or hunting permits, so as to avoid potential fraud. Even driver’s licenses are suspect in many states given the propensity for many progressive locales to hand out these IDs even to illegal immigrants. Providing this free ID to all Americans would not be very expensive compared to the massive benefit it will have in stabilizing the perception of our electoral system, as well as its reality.
Limits on Mail-In and Absentee Voting
As I have discussed, in-person voting is far more secure and trustworthy than any of the alternatives. Additionally, it puts a very small amount of friction in the process, ensuring that voters have at least a modicum of skin in the game and make the conscious decision to go to the polls. It should be massively prioritized over mail-in balloting. Mailed ballots significantly increase the risk of fraud and tampering, as well as simple error that results in uncounted votes. As a former auditor focused on internal controls (super exciting stuff, I know), I was trained to look carefully at company processes to determine what could go wrong at each stage. Each added layer of complexity or additional departments or individuals touching the process adds further potential for problems to arise. Simpler, tighter processes reduce interference and the possibility of error or fraud. Turning this approach to elections, one can see why mailed ballots are far inferior to in-person voting.
The mail-in ballot process has far too many points where the question “what could go wrong?” leads to myriad answers. First, the ballot needs to go through the postal service from the election officials to the individual voters. In this stage, the ballot could be lost, delivered to the wrong address, deliberately discarded, or misdirected for malign ends. Next, the voter needs to complete the ballot and sign it. In this stage, where voters are often filling out their ballots at home, there are problems of ballot custody, undue influence over the voter, and signature falsification or inability to match signatures. After completing their ballots, voters need to mail them back in or put them in a ballot drop box for later collection. The mail option raises all the problems from step one, but the drop box is far more concerning. These are located in public spaces, often available 24/7, and not consistently monitored. The potential for vote theft, fraudulent voting, ballot destruction, and voter interference are enormous.
In this election cycle, we’ve seen attacks on drop boxes that resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters. We’ve seen deliberate postal interference with ballots. We’ve seen accidental misdeliveries of election mail. We’ve even seen reports of election officials inadvertently leaving the keys to a drop box in the lock, allowing anyone to access ballots. This was entirely preventable had mail voting been restricted to those who genuinely need it. This should be limited strictly to those who physically are unable to get to a polling place due to age or disability and people who will be out of the country for the entirety of the election period. And that brings us to the next reform.
Early Voting Limits
If we are to truly prioritize in-person voting, early voting is a must. Forcing every single voter to vote in person on election day, even if it is a national holiday, would cause chaos, massive lines, and unnecessary counting delays (more on which later). Mandating an in-person early voting period would dramatically reduce those potential election day problems. Many Americans know far in advance which candidate they will pull the lever for on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; allowing them to bank those votes before election day is a positive good. It leads to more people voting and increases the odds that a specific voter will actually end up casting a ballot. It reduces election day lines and smooths the process of tabulation, both of which are critical for both the perception and the reality of election integrity.
Federal guidelines on this issue should mandate at least two weeks of early voting, both on weekends and select weekdays. Between this reform and making election day a national holiday, in-person voting should be far simpler and more doable for the average American. Making polls accessible to people for multiple days over a multiweek period will allow better personal planning for voters and ensure that random events like inclement weather or transit accidents don’t make it impossible for eligible voters to make their voices heard.
Still, as wonderful as early voting is, it can be taken too far. As of now, there are several states that allow voters to cast their ballots as early as mid-September, nearly two months before election day proper. This is absurd. Politics changes incredibly fast in our modern world; a vote cast in September for an election in November could be entirely moot before any ballots are counted. Races can change in an instant, making it inadvisable to allow ballots to be cast so far in advance. So just as the federal government should mandate a minimum period of early voting, it should set a maximum as well. No votes should be cast before the beginning of October, which gives a month for voting. This is more than enough to make certain that no voter is refused the opportunity to participate.
End Ballot Harvesting and Curing
Ballot harvesting is perhaps the most insidious modern development in the American election process. It allows third parties, usually partisan NGOs or private actors, to go to voters directly to collect their completed mail-in ballots and return them securely to election officials. The issues with this are legion.
First, the ballot harvesters do not need to go to every voter equally, they can instead pick and choose who to help in the process. This leads to highly partisan activity, with harvesters going specifically to retrieve ballots from those who are likely to vote in their preferred manner. This skews the electorate and provides an unfair advantage to those who take advantage of it. Next, the harvesters can go to those who they think will vote against their preferred candidates, collect their ballots, and ensure they are not actually delivered to be counted. They can destroy these ballots, misplace them, or otherwise invalidate these legally-cast votes. Finally, harvesters can coach voters through filling out their ballots, ensuring the ‘correct’ partisan outcome. This whole idea is a perversion of the secret ballot and the American electoral tradition. It must be ended immediately. Thankfully, curtailing mail-in voting generally will kneecap ballot harvesting, but it should be legislated against anyway.
Ballot curing is a problem that would not be solved simply by eliminating mail-in voting, as it can affect in-person voting as well. Curing a ballot is the process of having a voter fix an issue that either makes his vote impossible to count or otherwise invalidates his ballot, all after the vote itself is cast and the ballot returned to the election officials. This is ridiculous and it treats voters like children. A voter should be trusted to make his selections according to his own beliefs. He should be able to follow basic instructions that are provided to him in a wide variety of languages. If he errs in this process, fails to notice, and submits his ballot, well, tough luck. You shouldn’t get a second chance to vote if you somehow screw up your first. This also puts immense power in the hands of election officials, who, realistically, can pick and choose which voters to contact for ballot curing. That presents the same partisanship problems as ballot harvesting. Both should be strictly forbidden.
Professionalize the Process
The vast majority of elections, from the polling centers to the vote counting, are staffed by civilian volunteers. This is an American tradition that brings the community further into the electoral process, both demystifying it and broadening its appeal to ordinary citizens. It should be maintained as a bulwark of our civic engagement. Still, it must be overseen far more professionally than it is currently. Internal controls at election offices, whether in tabulation or collection, are scattershot and insufficient. We have had repeated issues arise with tabulation machines, potential miscounted votes, and double counting. This is unacceptable and contributes to the feeling that our elections are insecure and unfair. But there is a solution.
We have the greatest law and accounting firms in the world, with hundreds of thousands of employees who have extensive experience in monitoring, securing, and auditing things like vote counts. We should use this amazing resource in service of the national good, making certain that our elections are both accurate and appear to be so. These firms should design vote counting processes to streamline and secure them from interference. They should monitor counting to guarantee accuracy, putting their reputations on the line as they do in their normal business operations. Again, drawing on my experience as an auditor, there are several ways to improve this process not only in the design but in execution as well. Auditing firms have immense histories of validating votes in things like the Academy Awards – I once spent a day tabulating and validating votes for the International Children’s Emmy’s, for example – and are used to supervising inventory counts and other similar processes. Having these trusted bodies supervise elections, with their own reputations on the line, would greatly improve electoral accuracy and the perception thereof.
Speeding Up Counts
On a related note, there must be legislation guaranteeing rapid vote counting and reporting to the public. It is absolutely unacceptable that we do not know the final results in states like California and New York for weeks after election day. This rarely shifts the final outcome for the presidential election, but it often sways congressional races. And the reality of votes coming in after election day, sometimes without postmarks, being counted slowly over the course of over a month is incredibly detrimental to the public’s confidence in the accuracy and fairness of these elections. Americans deserve to know the outcomes of their elections in a timely manner, as citizens of other advanced democracies do. Professionalizing the supervision of tabulation, as detailed above, would help the situation, but ending this farce requires the force of law.
Federal legislation on electoral reform should decree that no votes that come in after election day are counted; this will not disenfranchise voters in a system where mail-in balloting is strictly curtailed and early voting mandated. It should also make it punishable under law to take longer than one week to count votes and release totals to the public. This is plenty of time to tabulate votes not once, but twice over. Any jurisdiction that takes longer than a week is either terribly inefficient, engaged in corrupt activity, or far too unprofessional to be trusted with such a great responsibility. Votes cast early should be tabulated before election day, ensuring that the counting process of day-of votes is streamlined and prioritized. Audits should be mandatory.
Florida is a shining example of how to properly count votes. After the 2000 debacle, then-governor Jeb Bush pushed state election reform that has turned Florida into a paragon of efficiency. For the third-largest state in the nation, it counts votes incredibly quickly. This should be the norm, not the exception. California, take notes.
These eight election reforms are common sense changes that will undoubtedly improve our electoral system both in perception and reality. They include some policies that conservatives have long advocated and others that are hobbyhorses of the liberal establishment. They would have the support of a large majority of the American public and should, in a sane world, garner bipartisan support in the Congress. They would make our system more effective and efficient, while putting it in line with our peer nations, fellow advanced democratic polities. They are about as close to a political no-brainer as currently exists. Yet they will almost definitely fail to be implemented.
Unfortunately, the extreme partisanship of our current politics makes it near-impossible to foresee bipartisan efforts to pass these reforms. And therein lies the bigger problem: politicians would rather demagogue problems than they would solve them. They prefer to advance magical, pie-in-the-sky, perfectly partisan solutions that have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing even with political supermajorities instead of rational, centrist compromises that actually work. They want to campaign on issues, not fix them. They want to retain a cudgel with which they can rile up their base voters and attack their political opponents. They would rather complain about our elections than they would reform them.
And until we, the American people, decide to choose more serious politicians, we’re stuck in this ridiculous Groundhog Day scenario every few years. Let’s put this country back on the right track, bolster our electoral system’s fairness and accuracy, and demand that our politicians do better for the people they purport to represent. It’s the only way to maintain a healthy body politic and a sustainable civic compact. And those are things that we should all desire, regardless of who we vote for.