With so much attention in the run-up to Election Day paid to potentially fatal delays for millions of mailed ballots, many Americans may be wondering if electronic voting could have been a better solution.
And there are plenty of ready answers to some of the most common questions surrounding e-voting — and plenty of ready guidance about what you still need to watch out for in the final hours of the campaign, to protect yourself and your right to vote if you intend to vote in person.
E-voting is the process by which a registered voter can submit a ballot using electronic means, instead of mailing in a piece of paper or going to a polling place. Generally, voters view their options on a computer screen and make their selections, much like taking an online survey. (They may be required to first insert some type of card into the voting system to verify their identity.) Then their votes are stored on a memory disc, in the cloud or through some other mechanism until they are tabulated.
Some more advanced systems permit voters to visit their country's election website, download and install an app for voting and then cast their ballots any time until the polls close on Election Day.
The most compelling reasons for e-voting handily outnumber the main reasons against:
This system is more convenient than the current options. It's also more private. And it costs less to implement and maintain. It is a faster method for voting and for counting votes. It has the ability to motivate more voting activity. And it can readily allow a more inclusive process, by providing ballots for individuals in different languages and greater accessibility features.
On the other hand, the drawbacks include a lack of transparency regarding how systems work, the potential risk of compromise by hackers and a lack of consistency — since many different manufacturers are producing and marketing electronic voting systems.
E-voter fraud may be committed using many of the methods for cheating in traditional methods of voting, seven of which are succinctly outlined by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank:
- Impersonation fraud — when someone pretends to be you, or someone who's died or moved away, to vote in another person's name.
- False registration — when someone uses a fake name or address to get on the voter rolls.
- Bribery — when someone pays or promises to pay in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate.
- Duplicate voting — when the same person votes multiple times in the same election.
- Absentee ballot fraud, when someone requests a mail ballot on behalf of someone else and fills it out without their permission.
- Ineligible voting, when a person who does not have the right to vote (by not being a citizen, for example) votes anyway.
- Illegal assistance, such as forcing or intimidating voters at the polls.
There is an additional layer of concern regarding e-voting because it uses electronic systems to report votes. Such systems could potentially be hacked by outsiders to alter the count, fabricating tabulations after the voting ends. Additionally, if e-voters do not cast ballots in the contests where they're eligible (because of where they live) it may be easier to commit voter fraud since there would be insufficient oversight.
Beyond that is the risk of voter fraud through identity theft. One form of identity theft occurs when a scammer contacts registered voters, claiming to work for a local election board needing to "verify voter registration." The scammer may then ask the person to verify personal information, such as a Social Security number, which has nothing to do with voting at all.
Cybersecurity statistics show rates of identity theft have significantly increased during the coronavirus pandemic. Some experts estimate that as many as one in four people may wind up a victim of identity theft. With more transactions occurring online, it may be easier for identity thieves to steal your information and go undetected. Additionally, statistics also show that identity theft is a growing concern — and yet not many know about this issue.
There are several steps voters (regardless of how they will mechanically cast their ballots this fall) can take to minimize the possibility of being a victim of voter or identity fraud:
- Do not give confidential information to a person who solicits you.
- Only provide registration information on a form you complete that goes to the appropriate voting authority.
- Make sure you use a secure network when casting your vote.
- Vote as early as you can, even on Tuesday morning.
- Use a monitoring service to detect potential fraud.
Following these steps can help you prevent voter fraud while also preserving your important constitutional right.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.