How mail-in ballots could be destroying the integrity of our elections
- Replies 0
Disclaimer: This article is based on an opinion piece by Rich Lowry. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of this publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered as factual or professional advice.
Mail-in voting has surged in popularity over the past few election cycles, but the dramatic increase in absentee and early ballots is exposing vulnerabilities in how some states handle the vote-counting process.
In his opinion piece, Rich Lowry highlights this, alongside the frustrating contrast between the rapid advancements of technology and the slow pace of vote counting in the U.S.
The introduction of mail-in ballots was intended to make voting more accessible and convenient, especially for those who might be unable to reach polling stations on Election Day.
However, Lowry points out that the unintended consequence has been a protracted vote-counting process that has turned what used to be a single, suspense-filled Election Night into a drawn-out Election Week—or longer.
“This kind of delay is a national embarrassment. It creates uncertainty and breeds distrust, and is also completely unnecessary,” Lowry said.
In his opinion piece, the author recalled that the 2020 general election, held on November 3rd, wasn't called by most media organizations until November 7th. Such a lag creates a breeding ground for uncertainty and distrust at a time when faith in our institutions is already fragile.
Lowry also pointed out that the crux of the issue lies in how some states handle the processing—or lack thereof—of early votes.
“The culprit is early voting, or how some states go about processing — or, to be more accurate, not processing — the early vote.”
He further argued that in Pennsylvania, for example, election workers are not permitted to begin processing mail-in and absentee ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day.
This restriction supposedly guarantees a bottleneck, as election officials are simultaneously tasked with administering the in-person voting process.
“There is something else important happening on Election Day — yes, you guessed it, the administering of an election,” Lowry exclaimed.
The pre-canvassing of mail and absentee ballots involves several meticulous steps, including verifying signatures and dates on outer envelopes, opening envelopes, and unfolding ballots.
While most states sensibly allow this work to commence before Election Day, Pennsylvania remains mired in a partisan deadlock over how to streamline the process.
“It’d be one thing if we didn’t know the results in Alabama or Massachusetts, states that are deep red or blue, on Election Night.”
“But with Pennsylvania, as well as Wisconsin and Arizona, likely to have delays, we are talking about the very most sensitive, important states on the map,” Lowry explained.
The partisan divide has led to a stalemate, with Republicans pushing for voter ID requirements and Democrats resisting such measures.
Lowry then went on to point out that “some Republicans worry that pre-canvassing will allow Democrats to learn how many fraudulent votes they need to produce to win.”
“Pre-canvassing doesn’t involve the actual tabulating of ballots, though, and there is zero evidence that it has abetted widespread, election-determining fraud in other states where it is the norm,” he wrote.
This impasse has left Pennsylvania—and by extension, the nation—ill-served by an antiquated system that fails to deliver timely results.
Meanwhile, Florida stands as a beacon of efficiency, processing its massive early vote well before Election Day and refusing to count ballots arriving after the 7 p.m. deadline.
This approach contrasts sharply with California, where a deluge of mail-in ballots results in weeks of counting, even accepting ballots arriving up to a week post-election.
The California approach has been defended as a rejection of “immediate gratification” in favor of thoroughness.
However, this perspective overlooks the critical need for expeditious and reliable election results, which are fundamental to maintaining public trust in the democratic process.
But for author Lowry, this “immediate gratification” perspective makes it seem “as if there’s something wrong with expecting expeditious, reliable election results”.
What do you think about Rich Lowry’s opinion? Have you experienced frustration with the slow pace of vote counting? Do you have suggestions for improving the system? Or perhaps you have concerns about the security of mail-in voting?
Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.
Mail-in voting has surged in popularity over the past few election cycles, but the dramatic increase in absentee and early ballots is exposing vulnerabilities in how some states handle the vote-counting process.
In his opinion piece, Rich Lowry highlights this, alongside the frustrating contrast between the rapid advancements of technology and the slow pace of vote counting in the U.S.
The introduction of mail-in ballots was intended to make voting more accessible and convenient, especially for those who might be unable to reach polling stations on Election Day.
However, Lowry points out that the unintended consequence has been a protracted vote-counting process that has turned what used to be a single, suspense-filled Election Night into a drawn-out Election Week—or longer.
“This kind of delay is a national embarrassment. It creates uncertainty and breeds distrust, and is also completely unnecessary,” Lowry said.
Author Rich Lowry claims that mail-in ballots have resulted in delays in vote counting. Image source: Pexels.
In his opinion piece, the author recalled that the 2020 general election, held on November 3rd, wasn't called by most media organizations until November 7th. Such a lag creates a breeding ground for uncertainty and distrust at a time when faith in our institutions is already fragile.
Lowry also pointed out that the crux of the issue lies in how some states handle the processing—or lack thereof—of early votes.
“The culprit is early voting, or how some states go about processing — or, to be more accurate, not processing — the early vote.”
He further argued that in Pennsylvania, for example, election workers are not permitted to begin processing mail-in and absentee ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day.
This restriction supposedly guarantees a bottleneck, as election officials are simultaneously tasked with administering the in-person voting process.
“There is something else important happening on Election Day — yes, you guessed it, the administering of an election,” Lowry exclaimed.
The pre-canvassing of mail and absentee ballots involves several meticulous steps, including verifying signatures and dates on outer envelopes, opening envelopes, and unfolding ballots.
While most states sensibly allow this work to commence before Election Day, Pennsylvania remains mired in a partisan deadlock over how to streamline the process.
“It’d be one thing if we didn’t know the results in Alabama or Massachusetts, states that are deep red or blue, on Election Night.”
“But with Pennsylvania, as well as Wisconsin and Arizona, likely to have delays, we are talking about the very most sensitive, important states on the map,” Lowry explained.
The partisan divide has led to a stalemate, with Republicans pushing for voter ID requirements and Democrats resisting such measures.
Lowry then went on to point out that “some Republicans worry that pre-canvassing will allow Democrats to learn how many fraudulent votes they need to produce to win.”
“Pre-canvassing doesn’t involve the actual tabulating of ballots, though, and there is zero evidence that it has abetted widespread, election-determining fraud in other states where it is the norm,” he wrote.
This impasse has left Pennsylvania—and by extension, the nation—ill-served by an antiquated system that fails to deliver timely results.
Meanwhile, Florida stands as a beacon of efficiency, processing its massive early vote well before Election Day and refusing to count ballots arriving after the 7 p.m. deadline.
This approach contrasts sharply with California, where a deluge of mail-in ballots results in weeks of counting, even accepting ballots arriving up to a week post-election.
The California approach has been defended as a rejection of “immediate gratification” in favor of thoroughness.
However, this perspective overlooks the critical need for expeditious and reliable election results, which are fundamental to maintaining public trust in the democratic process.
But for author Lowry, this “immediate gratification” perspective makes it seem “as if there’s something wrong with expecting expeditious, reliable election results”.
Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.
