Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Election experts in Pennsylvania expect quicker results than 2020

Former officials plead with the media to be thoughtful about unintended consequences of election reporting

Sign that erads "LOVE every vote)

A sign fell to the ground outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center, the central ballot counting facility in Philadelphia, on Nov. 5, 2020.

Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Kickols is the communications manager for the Election Reformers Network.

Several election law authorities, elected officials and election administration experts came together recently to discuss potential mail-in ballot counting delays, the challenges of reporting on inaccurate fraud claims, and other election dynamics on the horizon in Pennsylvania. And yet they had a positive message: The Keystone State is well-positioned to count ballots faster this fall.

The discussion took place during an online event with media hosted by the Election Overtime Project, which supports journalists in their coverage of close and contested elections. Election Overtime is an initiative of the Election Reformers Network.


The panel featured esteemed experts including U.S. District Court Judge John Jones, who presided over critical 2020 election challenges; former Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, who was a defendant in suits filed by President Donald Trump against Pennsylvania officials; Jennifer Morrell, a leading consultant on election administration and auditing; and Emma Shoucair, a legal specialist focused on voting issues.

The event was the third in a series of media briefings that will continue through the election cycle. (A video of the briefing is available here.)

Panelists agreed that state election officials are in a good position to finish the count earlier this year than in 2020, when “four excruciating days” passed before Pennsylvania issued preliminary results, in the words of Shoucair. She cited several reasons for the 2020 delay, including the pandemic and the very recent adoption of universal mail-in voting, which was passed at the end of 2019. Reasons to expect a quicker turnaround in 2024, according to Shoucair, include that “the boards of elections have refined their processes for counting mail-in ballots and have invested in additional personnel and equipment.”

But there are still structural hurdles. “What folks need to know,” said Jones, “is that because our General Assembly lacks the political will to fix a broken election code, we do not have appropriate pre-canvassing [preparing mailed ballots for tabulation] in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That’s a dreadful flaw, and it leads to delayed results. It will be a couple of days, which will lead into the narrative that there have been these phantom vote drops and something nefarious going on. And that’s not it at all.”

Jones urged reporters to reality test allegations before reporting on them.

Boockvar agreed, and she pleaded with journalists on the call to be informed and thoughtful about their election reporting. Boockvar pointed out the importance of not allowing reporting the news of something outrageous said by a politician to look like confirmation of that politician’s statement. That “can end up unintentionally becoming a source of disinformation that then leads to threats against election officials,” she explained.

Morrell, the co-founder of The Elections Group, cautioned against misrepresenting audits and recounts as an indication that voting results are flawed.

“An audit is a routine part of the post-election process,” Morrell explained. “It’s designed to ensure the systems work as expected. It’s not a bad word. A recount is performed in response to something that happened in a specific contest, such as a close margin, or it could be initiated automatically by statute or requested by a candidate.”

Getting more information in circulation about these procedural elements of election is the goal of Election Overtime. The project website offers a comprehensive set of resources for journalists including guides for reporting on election transparency, verification processes and judicial procedures. The program also offers an extensive speaker bureau to connect journalists with expert commentary for local and national coverage. The program focuses on Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

As ERN Executive Director Kevin Johnson explained, the program is anchored in the idea that, just as in sports, “who won an election is not a subjective question. It’s a matter of fact and a matter of law.” Johnson stressed the importance of helping “voters see the full process of what happens when elections are close and ‘go into overtime” so that it will be “well known and clear that elections, too, have rules that make it absolutely clear who won.”

ERN Vice President Heather Balas called attention to key facts voters should know about presidential elections. “We believe that sound news coverage of the election process — not just of the horse race — is crucial to the future of our democratic republic,” said Balas. “So, with humility, we offer our support to the hardworking election reporters of this nation.”

Materials used on this program have been produced with the generous support of The Carter Center, the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation, and the Bridge Alliance (which publishes The Fulcrum).


Read More

Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less
AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less