Early voting is already underway in many states and polls suggest turnout will be particularly high for a midterm election. As of Oct. 17, nearly 16 million people have already cast their ballots in the general election, 10.5 million of them via the mail, according to the U.S. Election Project.
However, the high ratio of mail-in ballots has caused some individuals to question their validity – despite the precautions taken to ensure ballot integrity.
Regardless of the widespread, yet unfounded concerns about mail-in ballots, they have become a popular mode of voting, especially since the pandemic. The ease and convenience of mail-in ballots may have also contributed to the high voter turnout, a promising sign for democracy.
So we asked for your take on early voting, mail-in ballots, and their effect on election integrity.
- Will you vote early? Why or why not?
- What is your opinion on our election integrity? And what informs your opinion?
Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
This year, I decided to vote early, because I am volunteering as a precinct election official and will not be able to get away during Election Day to vote at my designated polling place. I decided to volunteer, so I could see the process up close and get a better understanding of how it all works. The knowledge already received through training in the lead-up has been enlightening and empowering. At least in Ohio, there seems to be a lot of procedures and checks and balances in place to help ensure election integrity. As a volunteer, it is a lot of information to learn and process, though, so I think more extensive training for volunteers would be a good idea. I highly recommend folks volunteer to serve at a polling place, so they can see for themselves how our democracy functions on Election Day. -Valerie Minerovic
We voted early as we will be out of town on Election Day. I do not have confidence that our votes will be counted or counted fairly, as I believe MAGA Republicans across the country have gotten positions where they are the ones counting the votes. I believe our democracy is in major crisis and will remain so, or be lost completely over the next few years. I am deeply saddened by this. -Lesley Heller
1. I've generally voted on Election Day. There's a special feeling about joining one's neighbors in the common task of exercising our voting rights. But as I've gotten older (though I'm only 82) I now usually vote early, to avoid standing in long lines.
2. I think our U.S. election integrity is as well guarded as anywhere on earth, and our last election has been well documented as being reliable. But I am in favor of requiring a legal form of identification in order to vote, as is required in most countries. That will reduce doubt about our election integrity by removing one possible weakness in the system. Since the law requires that only citizens 18 or older can vote, I see no objection to having to show that you are in fact a citizen of ago. (We require ID to buy a bottle of beer.)
As to voting by mail, that clearly introduces a couple of additional weak points. The voter is not seen by election workers, and the authenticating witness signature – where required – may not be verifiable. Mail-in voting also requires more staff work and incurs additional costs. In my view, voting in person should be preferred for greatest security, if only to minimize the points of attack by those who seek to challenge the election's security. It would be good to have a national requirement regarding the number and spacing of polling places, so that everyone will have a voting location nearby. Some (Republican) jurisdictions have reduced the number of polling places unconscionably, causing day-long waits in line to vote. This should be seen as a failure to uphold the voters' rights. -Paul Lillebo
Will I vote early? Yes, absolutely! I have voted in every election for which I was eligible since 1968. Why? I vote in San Mateo County, in Northern California, where all registered voters receive a mail-in ballot. The process is very secure, familiar and transparent. It has built trust over many elections. I also met our county election administrator at a League of Women Voters meeting; he described the full process for election administration and how secure it is. I have also been a poll worker in past elections, so I know the process from the inside. I am very proud to be in a place that takes election integrity so seriously.
I have a very high and favorable opinion about election integrity in our county. In general, I have faith that election officials have done the best they could, considering all the challenges over the years, to ensure that elections are fairly conducted and that the results are accurate. Recently, however, particularly in certain states, I have seen troubling evidence that partisanship has crept into the administration of elections, the counting of ballots and the certifying of the results. I don’t know how widespread it is, and I hope this upcoming election will continue the tradition that fair and impartial election administration is a fundamental (indeed sacred) duty in a democracy. But I am deeply concerned about these issues. -Robert Barrett
It is likely I will vote early as I am an elected official and have been actively involved in candidate forums and state and local politics. Thus I have already made my decisions. Is the process once ballots are received secure? I believe generally so. Note the use of “generally.” Our election has a long history of some level of electoral manipulation. In school during the 1940s and 1950s, we learned of Tammany Hall, Huey Long, and the Daley machine in Chicago. And later, JFK winning with help from the Chicago mob. A study of Teddy Roosevelt and his battles to clean up politics offers an excellent look into our often corrupted systems. The Democrats in an effort to "double down" on anti-Trump efforts by claiming "No fraud" simply added to the distrust within the "basket of deplorables" and I am finding distrust in a widespread "blue" population. -Michael Marthaller
Coal miners, nurses, teachers, people with long commutes, students, the aged, mothers with toddlers, etc etc. Everyone benefits from:
- Early in-person voting at vote centers.
- Voting by mail.
- Same-day registration and voting (permitted in 20 states and D.C.).
What is important is the act of voting. Our vote is our voice. We need to use it without intimidation. What we must not do is allow state legislatures, who have self-serving, political partisan interests, control the processing of elections. If necessary, the Justice Department needs to step in to ensure one person, one vote and every vote counted. Ignorance and partisan politics suppress the vote and make noise, not good public policy. -Alice Smith
I believe in the integrity of our system, not in the politicians who are trying to discredit it. They couldn’t lie, intimidate, threaten or murder their way into office. So that is why the dishonest side is at voting places intimidating poll workers and why felons are being misled into believing they can vote but then arrested. Calling state senators and intimidating them, threatening their families, acting like bullies and mobsters. I will vote in person and not by mail because I will not be intimated while exercising my right to vote. I want to honor the good men and women who have fought for my freedom to vote, to speak my mind and to carry firearms. I wish I werein a position where I could drive people to polls who have no ride there. I wish more people understood that you can not vote for the person you find qualified in primary elections. I don’t want to vote by party. I want to vote for people who represent us, not a Republican/Democrat backed agenda. -Sherri Aument
I'm a Washington resident and so I have my ballot on the desk right next to me. I'll probably vote early just because I'll get bored at some point and do it before Election Day. If not I'll drop it off on Election Day. I don't think early voting should be a thing though. I think we should have one day for voting, a national holiday with remote voting only done in specific circumstances. If you want a reason why just watch the Fetterman/Oz debate in Pennsylvania and recognize that a lot of people have already voted for Fetterman and probably regret it. -Jeff Freeman
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.