Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What can the U.S. learn from Argentina’s elections?

A voter submits a ballot in the Nov. 19, 2023, Argentinean election.​

A voter submits a ballot in the Nov. 19, 2023, Argentinean election.

Ricardo Rubio/Europa Press via Getty Images

Levine is the senior elections integrity fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy. Batista is a project assistant at The Carter Center.

In 2024, more voters will head to the polls than ever before across the world and in the United States. However, elections by themselves do not guarantee democracy, and as the 2024 presidential elections heats up, it’s important that the U.S. consider other countries’ recent elections to help inform its preparations for November.

Last August, we went to Buenos Aires to observe the Argentina’s simultaneous and mandatory open primaries (PASO) as part of an international visitor’s delegation hosted by Electoral Transparency and the American Conference of Subnational Election Authorities, and we both continued to monitor Argentina’s general and runoff elections in October and November.


We saw uneasy Argentineans voting amid a bleak economic situation, setting the stage for a high-stakes fight between Sergio Massa, an incumbent minister presiding over high inflation, and Javier Milei, a libertarian who furiously denounced political elites with fiery, profanity-laden language. Milei proposed drastic economic reforms that would overhaul the role of government in Argentinian society. Although he baselessly cast doubt on Argentina’s electoral system, Milei won the polarized and divisive contest.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The deeply polarized context provides two sets of lessons for the U.S. and other onlookers holding elections this year: the first on electoral reform implementation, the second on artificial intelligence.

First, electoral officials must develop contingency plans when significantly changing election processes, even if the changes alter a highly criticized procedure. This happened in Argentina when the city of Buenos Aires’s electoral management body decided to have its voters cast their ballots on voting machines for local elections in August 2023. For decades, Buenos Aires voters had been using a political party ballots system to vote in both local and national elections. In the party ballots system, voters enter a “dark room” (cuarto oscuro), pick the party ballot they would like to vote for and then put it in an envelope that they place into a cardboard box. This instrument has been targeted by substantial criticism from electoral experts, as it opens several opportunities for fraud (e.g., stealing of party ballots by voters) and puts too much burden on parties to monitor their ballots in polling centers throughout the country.

In its federalist system, Argentina’s provincial electoral management bodies have the discretion to determine the dates of local elections and the voting instrument(s) to be used in them. The autonomous city of Buenos Aires decided to keep its PASO on the same date as the national primary and pilot a different voting instrument, a new voting machine, for its local elections to improve ballot secrecy. As a result, Buenos Aires voters voted in two concurrent elections on the same day and had to use two different instruments for each of the elections: a new voting machine they had never used before for the local election, and a hand-marked paper ballot to vote for the national election.

The above situation generated significant confusion and discomfort on Election Day. Big lines were reported in voting locations across the city as voters voted on these machines for the first time. The procedure for voting in the two systems was also not implemented uniformly at all stations. Buenos Aires’s electoral management body (EMB) trained its officials to allow two voters to vote at the same time on different instruments. However, on Election Day, a national electoral judge denounced the long lines and stated that parallel voting by different voters at the same time was not permitted. She also raised questions about the security and legality of the electronic voting adopted by the city.

At least two other lessons were also learned from Buenos Aires’s pilot with the new voting system. One, electoral officials must develop a crisis communication strategy to respond to mistakes or unexpected outcomes arising from electoral reforms. But more importantly, election officials should also conduct dry runs of the voting process when significant changes to procedures are made before Election Day to help potentially identify and anticipate some of the issues that could occur during the voting. Even though the local EMB conducted many trainings on the use of the new voting machines, it did not appear to adequately consider how voters would handle voting in two different elections with different voting instruments.

In addition to electoral reform, AI impacted Argentina’s 2023 elections and are affecting U.S. presidential candidates from both major political parties. In Argentina’s presidential runoff campaign, Massa’s and Milei’s campaigns used AI-generated images to exalt themselves (Massa was a superhero; Milei was a lion) or portray their opponents in cartoonish stereotyped images (Massa as an old communist general; Milei as a Margaret Thatcher supporter during the Falklands war).

Deep fake videos using the candidates’ faces were circulated widely. One notable example was a video featuring an inebriated man implying drug use, onto which Massa’s face was superimposed. Although the video was eventually removed from social media platforms, its extensive reach prior to deletion and its proliferation on messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram render its impact on voters difficult to quantify.

AI introduces a novel and complex dimension to the twin challenges of combating election mis- and disinformation and protecting electoral infrastructure from cyberattacks. The enhanced persuasiveness of fake images, voices and videos exacerbates information pollution, particularly given some voters' propensity to embrace narratives that reinforce their existing beliefs. Election officials and social media platforms must collaboratively address this issue, with the latter vigilantly monitoring the content they host. Implementing measures to tag and identify AI-generated content is an urgent first step the platforms could take toward a cooperative effort with electoral authorities to ensure transparency. Election officials should also incorporate AI risk into training and election planning, double down on cybersecurity, and consider how to leverage AI and new technologies to help improve the administration of future elections.

It is increasingly important for AI companies to implement measures to prevent their technology from being used to pollute the information environment during electoral campaigns. OpenAI, one of the leading AI companies in the market, recently released policies that other AI companies should consider, including not allowing the creation of chatbots that impersonate people or institutions, not allowing the production of information that deters people from participating in elections, and the development of a tool for detecting images generated by their AI image generator, DALL-E. While the effectiveness of these measures is yet to be tested, other generative AI companies must follow their lead in developing guidelines and efforts to protect the information environment from malicious use of their technology.

As the U.S. gears up for its most consequential election in recent memory, it needs to stay abreast of foreseeable changes faced by other countries in conducting their own elections. Whether that’s Buenos Aires’s challenging voting machine pilot in its PASO or the prominent role of artificial intelligence in shaping Argentina’s electoral narratives throughout 2023. Incorporating lessons from examples like these could be the difference between whether the U.S. conducts a 2024 election that is perceived as legitimate or stolen by large segments of its electorate.

Read More

Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less