Malbrough started the Georgia Youth Poll Worker Project this summer after graduating from Georgia State and becoming a fellow with the Andrew Goodman Foundation, which promotes political engagement by young people
In the age of early voting and advanced election technology, one of the main requirements for citizens on Election Day is obsolete. It is time for us as a country to change our election procedures and how we change the processes we use to administer it.
We have the ability to build a democracy that is more efficient and streamlined, and it is time for us to act on it.
Voters walking into a polling place on Election Day are usually presented with three options based on their address. If they are a resident of that local precinct, they can head to the voting booth right there. If they are not a resident of the precinct, they will be given information on their appropriate precinct and its voting location. If they don't want to head to a different polling place, they can stay where they are and cast a provisional ballot.
Poll workers are generally instructed to almost always permit people to cast a ballot, even if it's provisional, to ensure no voters are turned away but also to give local election administrators time to sort out disputes and certify the legitimacy of ballots after the election.
Before the advent of the internet and subsequent technologies, the reason for getting people to vote close to home was obvious — to make sure they were given the right ballots. One precinct may be in a different city council or even congressional district than the precinct across the road.
Poll workers used to have no way verify the identity of voters, and provide the proper ballot, to a voter from another precinct. But modern software, the internet and high-speed printers now mean that voters can be identified, and quickly provided with just the right ballot, at any polling place in their county if not their state.
The ability to cast a ballot wherever the voyager finds most convenient expands democracy and allows for easier election administration.
Every Election Day we see news footage of long lines snaking out of schools and libraries, and people waiting sometimes for hours after the polls are supposed to have closed in order to cast their ballots. Many of these delays are caused by technology failures and precincts that are at once overpopulated with voters and understaffed by poll workers. And many of these voters are stuck in line because they are effectively required to vote in their home precinct.
Technology can allow voters to find a firehouse or city hall that's not overcrowded — and head there to vote, even if it's in the next town down the road. This would reduce wait times as well as alleviate stress on poll workers who oftentimes have to work extended hours every election.
In-person absentee voting, which is often known as early voting, is an option 40 states use to expand voter access. Some states offer this option for several weeks, others only for a few days, but the benefits are shorter waiting times for voters and easier administration of the election by the state. In most of them, polling centers are open to all residents of a county, so voting close to home is not required.
As a country we are working toward a culture of voting in advance of Election Day, in effect creating something closer to an Election Month. The non-official holidays that promote exercising of the franchise, such as National Voter Registration Day and Vote Early Day, are helping. What would help more would be a further blurring of the distinctions between early voting, provisional voting and Election Day voting.
The technology is here to make that happen. We have the tools. Integrated technologies could be a cost effective way to modernize and secure our democracy.




















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.