The following is an extract from our short explainer “Things You Might Not Know About Elections.” You can find the entire explainer here: https://cffad.org/things-you-might-not-know-about-elections/
In the previous weeks, we have covered (1) how elections are essential to your freedom and prosperity, (2) how and why elections can take many forms, and (3) how choices made by our state legislatures and local election administrators can encourage trust or distrust. Last week, we covered absentee ballots, voting by mail, and ballot-collecting in the context of election integrity. This week, we will explore how election integrity is affected by fraud.
Election Fraud Realities
Voter fraud: Facts show that 21st-century voter fraud exists in the United States but is incredibly rare. By way of example, the Heritage Foundation, a long-established conservative-leaning institution, has created an impressive database of instances of proven electoral fraud going back to 1979. As of March 2022, they found 1,349 cases, for an average of 30 instances per year. In 2022, however, the database records show 67 instances of fraud, most of which were undertaken during the 2020 elections. Of those, many were simply ineligible voters, but there were also more than a few cases of attempted duplicate voting and the fraudulent use of absentee ballots. Some of those involved ten or more ballots. Thus, those 67 instances could potentially represent several hundred fraudulent votes.
These numbers need to be put in the proper perspective. On one hand, many people believed the 2020 presidential election was “stolen.” However, it would not have made any difference to the 2020 presidential race even if all of those fraudulent votes had been cast in the state of Georgia or Arizona, both of which had the closest presidential margins of victory (about 11,000 votes each).
On the other hand, most of the electoral fraud that does occur is not at the presidential level. Rather, it is found mainly in local elections, where patronage jobs are at stake. And at that level, vote fraud can indeed make a difference. For example, in 2015, a city council election in the New Jersey town of Perth Amboy was decided by only ten votes. After it was discovered that at least 13 illegal absentee ballots had been cast, a judge overturned the election and ordered a new one.
The rarity of voter fraud on a scale large enough to affect state or federal elections makes sense based on sheer math: fraudulently casting one ballot is virtually guaranteed not to be enough to sway an election. In any event, the crime of trying to do so risks monetary fines or time in prison. For example, back in 1998, Connecticut would levy fines from $300 to $5,000 or one to five years in prison, depending upon the offense. More recently, Broward County in Florida announced similar penalties. It’s not a worthwhile risk for most people to take. Local elections can be an exception if very few votes are cast and the margin of victory is close; in such cases, a single fraudulent vote might make a difference. Even then, the legal penalty remains high.
Fraudulent counting: What about altering the vote count? How does our system protect against that?
More than 230 years of elections in the U.S., plus lessons learned from other countries, have produced a robust set of procedures that are implemented with only minor variations from state to state and even internationally.
- Basic safeguards against ballot stuffing and ballot stealing include:
- Comparing the total number of ballots created to the total received, as well as unused and spoiled ballots. An imbalance normally triggers a review and additional scrutiny.
- Similarly, a comparison is made of the number of ballots received versus people who voted. If they don’t match, an audit will be launched.
- Ballot return envelopes contain serial numbers unique to each voter and must contain a matching signature from the voter.
- Protections against mistakes in counting and deliberate distortions of counts include:
- Allowing representatives of all interested parties to observe (but not conduct) the count and to present valid challenges when they detect problems.
- Virtually every state conducts pre-testing of their tabulation equipment prior to each election. These tests are done in view of the public and help ensure the equipment is accurately scanning, tabulating, and summarizing the votes.
- In most states, electronic vote counts are double-checked by hand counts and audits. Note, however, that many election administration experts believe and numerous studies have shown that counting by hand is less accurate than machine tabulation.
Citizens should be aware these protections take time. There is an audit and vote certification process in all elections that often takes up to several weeks after an election to complete. The results are unofficial until they are certified.
A final protection is available: paper vote records are securely stored. This makes it possible for candidates to challenge the results or seek a recount. Moreover, in federal elections, all election materials must be kept for 22 months before being destroyed.
Most states have laws setting out the criteria that must be met for challenges and recounts. For example, can candidates provide some evidence that could plausibly change the outcome – implying the margin of victory is small enough for a few votes to make a difference? State-level recounts have been exceptionally rare. FairVote examined 5,778 statewide elections between 2000 and 2019. They found only 31 completed statewide recounts (that’s one half of 1 percent). Of those recounts, three overturned the outcome of the race.
It’s important to accept that no system is ever going to be 100% accurate forever. Isolated incidents of improperly handled ballots aren’t evidence of systemic fraud. They are more likely the result of human error, with rules not being followed or poor management of procedures. Hiring better managers and skilled election administrators along with better-designed voting systems and poll-worker training can help keep these incidents to as low a total as possible.
It is also possible to go too far and make voting so onerous that some qualified citizens cannot register to vote, some registered citizens cannot vote, and some legally cast ballots are not counted. Such outcomes are the opposite of election integrity.
Fake fraud: Election integrity depends on our confidence in the system. Perception of election integrity is shaped by factors that often have little to do with the actual mechanics of counting and voting. For example, pollsters have found that confidence varies strongly according to which side won. Some politicians exploit this fact. A popular tactic in elections, even in the United States, is to raise doubts about the vote count in advance and during the election. This is especially tempting when the results may be close. Even so, the tactic has been seen far more often in emerging democracies lacking basic rights than in the more mature democracies.
This weeks’ main takeaway is that the amount of fraud, whether fraudulent voters or fraudulent counts, has been too small to make any difference in the vast majority of our elections. This outcome is the result of well-constructed procedures for the entire election cycle, from voter registration through the final certification and publication of election results.
If you want to learn more about elections, we have a 9-part course, each part is a 20-minute read. Easy! Click here: https://cffad.org/things-you-might-not-know-about-elections/
