US Electoral System Is Outdated — It Needs Saving

A bitterly divided electorate, polarising candidates, and an assassination attempt on Donald Trump aside, the United States' (US) electoral system and voter distrust will be key issues as the country heads to polls later this year.

The overarching problem remains voter distrust, exemplified by innovator Elon Musk’s denouncing of electronic voting machines, or EVMs (read here and here). Musk believes the country "should mandate paper ballots and in-person voting only".

An anti-EVM, and therefore anti-technology, stance coming from the chief of SpaceX and Tesla is ironic. But while his issues with EVMs might be misplaced, his scepticism about the integrity of the US electoral process is not.

Consider, for instance, the 6 January US Capitol riots after the 2020 presidential election. Trump and "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) supporters stormed the US Capitol building, claiming that the election was “stolen". They even called on then-vice president Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election result.

The insurrection was crushed. While the US establishment does not accept the election was stolen, it is a gospel truth for Trump supporters. The MAGA voters are convinced that the public mandate was betrayed.

That there is deep-seated public distrust in the US electoral system cannot therefore be denied.

But what has brought the self-proclaimed exporter of democracy to such a dire state?

The problems that plague the electoral system of the world’s oldest modern democracy are varied — from complicated voter ID laws to non-standardised voter lists, paper ballots to voter suppression.

Voter IDs

Something as basic as the voter ID is a contentious issue in the US.

Keeping with its purely federal nature, the US government does not mandate a national voter ID card for voting. It is up to the individual states to determine their own requirements and pass laws accordingly.

As a result, states have different laws regarding voter IDs, which are often loosely categorised in the following manner — strict photo ID laws, non-strict photo ID laws, strict non-photo ID laws, and non-strict non-photo ID laws.

In states like Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, where there are strict photo ID laws, voters need a government-issued photo ID to exercise their franchise.

If they do not have one, they’re allowed to cast a provisional ballot that is counted after some additional verification once the election is completed.

States with non-strict photo ID laws like Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas also ask voters for a photo ID, but they aren’t as strict.

If residents of these states don’t have a photo ID, they can still vote by signing an affidavit or having their photo taken at the polling station.

Then there are Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio with the strict non-photo ID laws, where voters must present some form of ID, but it doesn’t have to include a photo. Here, too, provisional voting is allowed, subject to verification later.

As the reader might have guessed by now, the non-strict non-photo ID laws allow non-photo IDs and even alternative methods like affidavits or provisional ballots without the need for verification.

Some states that have such laws: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.

Now if all that wasn’t enough, wait for California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, and Wyoming. These states do not require any voter IDs at all.

Go in, vote, and exit.

Some Court rulings, over and above the state laws, have made things more complex.

Therefore, instead of encouraging more voter participation, such a voting muddle acts as a barrier and actively discourages voters from polling.

The root of this inconsistency and complexity also lies in the great red-blue divide of the US. While the conservatives support voter ID laws, citing electoral integrity, progressives oppose them, citing voter suppression.

Effectively, it is possible for a voter in some states of the US to vote from home using mail-in ballot without even needing a voter ID. This makes the election system as vulnerable as it can get.

Therefore, voter IDs raise public confidence in the integrity of the election process. Similarly, standardisation of laws brings clarity to the voting process, especially for voters not residing in their home states.

The Democrats say voter ID laws bring with them issues of disenfranchisement. A pet peeve of this side has been that voter ID laws disproportionately affect minorities, the elderly, students, and low-income individuals, as they may have more difficulty obtaining IDs. Obtaining the required ID can be costly and time-consuming, is their argument.

To an Indian voter living in the remote mountains with no regular Internet connectivity, or for another one living in the slums, or for yet another one from a minority group — all of them with government-issued IDs — this will seem a strange hindrance.

How difficult can it be for a ‘first-world democracy’ to balance electoral integrity and voter participation? Definitely more than it is for a ‘third-world, flawed democracy’, it seems.

Varying Voter Lists

In addition to voter ID issues, improper voter list management and inconsistent application of federal voter registration laws further betray the decaying US electoral process.

The interpretation and application of federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) vary across states. This causes disparities in voter registration and lists.

Many states struggle to implement the mandate of federal laws to ensure accessible registration options and updated voter lists. A big issue is aversion to and lag in adopting modernised online registration.

The voter lists are often marred by inaccurate or flawed purges to remove ineligible voters. Voters regularly complain of such purges being done without adequate notification or due process, leading to disenfranchisement.

Fading Voter Trust And Political Violence

Another bone of contention, as mentioned before, is the system of mail-in or postal ballot. Some argue that in the absence of voter IDs, this increases chances of impersonation and bogus voting. Further, it makes the detection and proving of such electoral fraud almost impossible.

All these issues feed into the distrust of US voters in their electoral system and consequently even the state of democracy in the country.

In the Global Attitudes Survey by the Pew Research Center, US citizens had among the least levels of “satisfaction” with the functioning of democracy in their country. An overwhelming 68 per cent of citizens were dissatisfied with the state of democracy in the US.

An assassination attempt on a presidential candidate and former president adds to the troubles of US elections. It has further polarised an already divergent electorate that is not even on talking terms. That the leftist media, politicians, and activists could not bring themselves to label it an assassination attempt has made things worse.

With an electoral system stuck in the past and the normalising of political violence, the US needs to do more to win back the trust of its voters.

Adopt Best Practices

The US electoral process is outdated, a system out of step with the modern times.

In contrast, the Election Commission of India (EC) ensures a more streamlined and meticulous process of voter registration and management of electoral rolls. Unique voter ID cards issued to Indians facilitate a standardised voter verification process.

The use of EVMs has ensured increased voter turnout. Stringent security protocols and introduction of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPATs) by the EC enhance transparency and confidence in the electoral process.

Just one month ago, India successfully conducted the largest electoral exercise in the history of mankind where 642 million out of the 968 million eligible voters exercised their franchise — with negligible and sparse untoward incidents.

There were some corners crying foul over the use of EVMs even after the EC and Supreme Court had repeatedly attested their reliability. The 4 June results have lowered those voices too.

So, despite challenges, India's electoral framework, on the back of continuous improvement and a focus on transparency, sets a benchmark for democratic participation — something which it can help other democracies like the US with.

On the part of the US, there shouldn’t be any hesitation in seeking assistance from the world’s largest democracy with a robust electoral machinery.