top of page
Search

Ep 54 - US Elections Deep Dive: How Do You Fix What Isn't Broken

  • Apr 3
  • 4 min read

Who runs elections in the United States?


It sounds like a simple question. But judging by recent headlines—and some very loud voices online—there’s a lot of confusion.


If your answer is “the President,” you’re not alone. But you’re also not correct.


The truth is, the President has—and is supposed to have—very little direct control over elections. Yes, even Donald Trump. That’s not a political opinion. That’s how the system was designed.



Fifteen hundred-thousandths of 1%.
Fifteen hundred-thousandths of 1%.

And yet, here we are: another executive order, this time targeting mail-in voting, framed as a defense against supposed election fraud. So let’s take a step back and look at how elections actually work—and why the current narrative doesn’t hold up.


A System Built for a Different Era


Before we get into modern debates, it helps to understand the structure of U.S. elections—starting with the Electoral College.


Created in the late 1700s, the Electoral College was a compromise. The Founders were balancing competing concerns: large states versus small states, democracy versus control, and, frankly, how much they trusted the public.


At the time, information moved slowly, and most Americans couldn’t vote. So they created a buffer—a system where electors would ultimately choose the president.


Fast forward to today. We have instant communication, universal suffrage, and a highly engaged electorate. Yet we still use a system that can—and has—awarded the presidency to candidates who lost the popular vote.


The Electoral College doesn’t just affect outcomes. It shapes campaigns. Candidates focus on swing states while millions of votes in “safe” states effectively don’t matter. That’s not exactly a modern design for a modern democracy.


Who Actually Runs Elections?


Here’s the key point: elections in the United States are run by the states. The Constitution—specifically Article I, Section 4—gives states the authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections. That means each state controls how voting is conducted. Pennsylvania runs Pennsylvania elections. Arkansas runs Arkansas elections. And they all do it a little differently.


Some states rely heavily on mail-in voting. Others don’t. Some offer weeks of early voting. Others have tighter windows. Some automatically send ballots. Others require voters to request them.


It’s decentralized. It’s sometimes messy. But that’s the point.


Because there is no single system, there is no single point of failure. There’s no “master switch” to flip an election nationwide.


And that’s what makes claims of large-scale fraud so hard to square with reality.


What the President Can—and Can’t—Do


The President does not administer elections. The President does not count votes. The President does not certify results.


Executive orders can direct federal agencies or signal priorities, but they cannot override the Constitution or take control of state-run election systems.


So when you hear about executive actions targeting voting methods, it’s important to understand: these are often more about messaging than actual legal authority.


Mail-In Voting and the Myth of Fraud


Mail-in voting has been around for decades. It’s used by military personnel, seniors, and everyday voters who can’t easily get to the polls.


It’s also widely used internationally, despite what President Trump claims. On August 18th he wrote n Truth Social - "We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting," This is a lie. 34 countries and territories use mail-in voting. The President knows this.


Until recently, it wasn’t controversial. In fact, many Republican-led states embraced it.

So what changed?


Usage patterns.


In 2020, more Democrats voted by mail. And suddenly, a long-standing voting method became suspect.


But here’s the reality: voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.


Studies across decades—conducted by bipartisan and independent groups—consistently find that fraud occurs at minuscule levels. The best estimate? About 0.00015%.

That’s one fraudulent vote out of roughly 665,000.


Think about that.


Imagine ten packed college football stadiums—every seat filled, people in the aisles—and one single person sneaks in without a ticket. Then someone goes on TV and declares the entire game is lousy with fraud.


That’s what widespread voter fraud claims sound like.


There is no evidence of a coordinated national scheme. No flood of illegal ballots. No systemic breakdown.


Which raises an obvious question: if the problem isn’t real, why all the proposed solutions?


Non-Citizen Voting: A Persistent Myth


Another frequent claim is that non-citizens are voting in large numbers. They’re not. Non-citizen voting in federal elections is illegal, and verified cases are vanishingly rare—so rare they don’t come close to affecting outcomes.


But the idea persists because it’s politically useful. It creates fear, provides a convenient explanation for losses, and helps justify stricter voting laws.


What’s Really Driving This?


At its core, this debate is about turnout.


Higher turnout has historically benefited Democrats. Lower turnout tends to benefit Republicans.


So if one party is concerned about losing ground in upcoming elections—especially midterms—it has an incentive to make voting just a little more difficult. Not impossible. Just harder. Fewer drop boxes. Stricter ID requirements. Reduced access to mail-in voting. More procedural hurdles. These changes don’t need to be dramatic to be effective. They just need to reduce participation at the margins.


When those changes are framed as “protecting election integrity,” they can sound reasonable—even when the underlying problem doesn’t exist in any meaningful way.


Why This Matters


If voter fraud were truly widespread, both parties would be working aggressively to fix it. But that’s not what we’re seeing. Instead, we’re seeing selective outrage, inconsistent concern, and a steady effort to cast doubt on the system itself.


And that’s the real risk.


Because when people lose trust in elections, they become more open to rejecting outcomes they don’t like.


Democracy doesn’t just depend on voting. It depends on understanding how voting works.

And once you understand that, the narrative starts to fall apart.


So the next time someone tells you the system is rigged because of “massive fraud,” picture those packed stadiums…

…and tell that person to go look for the one guy without a ticket.


Sources


U.S. Constitution & Election Authority

Electoral College

Voter Fraud Data

Mail-In Voting

Non-Citizen Voting

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating

© 2023 by Train of Thoughts. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page