As concerns about the security and reliability of the U.S. election process continue to circulate, especially in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, it's crucial to recognize the strength of America's decentralized electoral system.
Unlike countries with a single, centralized election administration, the United States operates a complex system where elections are managed at the state and county levels, creating numerous checks against potential fraud.
Experts—including Steve Kornacki, the NBC News and MSNBC political correspondent famous for analyzing the electoral map while wearing khaki pants—highlight how this multi-layered approach to voting enhances security measures that should reassure voters. "What it ends up creating is this vastly decentralized system," he explained in an episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast.” Although this setup can result in delays and inconsistencies, particularly from slower counties, it also serves as a buffer against large-scale tampering.
Kornacki noted that concerns about election integrity often center on the idea of coordinated interference. However, he argued that the distributed nature of U.S. elections makes large-scale manipulation more difficult. "It’s not like there’s one central nerve that you can kind of disrupt that’ll change the election result all across the country," he said. Anyone attempting to manipulate election outcomes would have to engage in activities across thousands of precincts nationwide, significantly raising the challenge of altering the result on a meaningful scale. This structural complexity, he believes, acts as a “fail-safe” for election security.
Understanding How Pennsylvania’s Localized Election System Resists Large-Scale Fraud
In the wake of election fraud claims about the 2020 presidential election, the structure of Pennsylvania's electoral system has come under scrutiny. Critics, including former President Donald Trump, have alleged widespread fraud, but experts point to the state's decentralized election administration as a significant safeguard against such assertions.
In Pennsylvania, the structure of the electoral system is deliberately decentralized. Thad Hall, the election director in Mercer County, emphasizes that the nature of Pennsylvania’s electoral system, which is highly localized, makes large-scale fraud implausible. “When you claim that mail ballots were mishandled, the people that would do that would be residents of Mercer County,” he explains, pointing out that such claims would require participation from numerous community members and neighbors across both political parties, making widespread misconduct highly unlikely.
Pennsylvania’s election administration operates through a three-tier system: the Department of State, county-level officials, and local poll workers. Each tier plays a distinct role in maintaining election integrity. The Department of State oversees the statewide voter registration database and certifies election results, while county officials handle the testing and storage of voting machines. Poll workers, who are primarily residents of their respective counties, are on the ground during elections to ensure that election procedures are followed and to assist voters on Election Day.
This decentralized framework allows each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties significant local discretion over operational aspects, such as the use of drop boxes and procedures for correcting mail ballot errors. While overarching state laws and legal precedents establish foundational guidelines for election conduct, the flexibility granted to counties leads to a variety of practices tailored to local needs. Pennsylvania's Election Code outlines essential administrative requirements, although it remains largely unchanged since 1937. This localized approach is further reinforced by the presence of elected boards of elections in each county, which are responsible for interpreting laws and making essential policy decisions.
The complexities of Pennsylvania's electoral system, governed by both state and county regulations, necessitate cooperation among local officials. Each county's board of elections, composed of elected officials, plays a crucial role in interpreting state laws and making policy decisions. County officials rely on court rulings, legal advice, and collaboration with their peers to determine best practices. The Department of State also provides guidance in areas where the law is ambiguous, helping to clarify the rules governing elections. Election directors, appointed by county boards, bring diverse professional backgrounds to their roles, managing daily election operations and ensuring compliance with legal standards. Their responsibilities include organizing polling places, ensuring adequate staffing, and overseeing the counting of ballots.
In the most recent election, Pennsylvania operated approximately 9,000 polling places with nearly 50,000 poll workers, showcasing the extensive community involvement in the electoral process. Almost anyone registered to vote in their county can apply to become a poll worker, which promotes community involvement in the electoral process. Training is provided to ensure poll workers are prepared to handle their responsibilities effectively.
Poll workers play a vital role in facilitating a secure and smooth voting experience. Each precinct is overseen by a lead election officer, known as the judge of elections, who addresses any issues at the polling location, tracks voter numbers, and ensures the safe return of ballots to the county director. Other inspectors manage the sign-in process, assist with voter registration and equipment setup, and assist the judge, with all positions typically elected every four years.
The distributed nature of elections in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States, characterized by local oversight and community participation, not only enhances security but also serves as a formidable defense against the potential for large-scale manipulation. Kornacki aptly summarizes this by stating, “It’s not like there’s one central nerve that you can disrupt to change the election result all across the country.” Any attempt to influence election outcomes would require coordinated efforts across thousands of precincts, significantly complicating any potential scheme.
By embedding community participation at every level—from state oversight to local poll workers—the integrity of the electoral process is not just maintained; it is fortified against the challenges of coordinated interference. This localized approach reassures voters that their elections are secure and that their voices truly matter in the democratic process.
Comments