How Important Are the Upcoming November Elections? * The Gateway Pundit * by Guest Contributor

Guest post by Tim Meisburger

Assessing the Legitimacy of U.S. Elections

The vast majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, are in favor of commonsense electoral reforms, yet on the evening of July 16, the President gave a speech on challenges to election integrity in US elections, and ABC, NBC and CNN refused to carry it live. Politicians from both political parties, and their allies in the media and judiciary, are waging an all-out war against any reform aimed at increasing the transparency and credibility of elections. Plenty of Americans wonder why, and think (along with the President), “the only reason you wouldn’t do it (election reform) is because you want to cheat.”[1]

If elections are not free and fair, or are conducted in ways intentionally designed to prevent effective monitoring and verification, should candidates and voters who lose elections in November accept those loses as legitimate? To try to answer this question, we should compare our elections to the norms and standards international election observers use to assess elections overseas. Since I spent almost 30 years supporting, monitoring, and assessing foreign elections, beginning in 1992 as a U.N. District Electoral Supervisor in Cambodia’s transitional election, and ending in 2021 as Director of the Center for Democracy Rights and Governance in the first Trump Administration, I have relevant background to consider this issue.

Voter Registration

The foundation of fair elections are clean voter rolls, as they insure only eligible citizens can vote. Unqualified voters on voter rolls (people who are non-citizens, dead, moved, or never existed) enable many types of election fraud, as their names can be used to cast illegal ballots. Typical questions used to assess voter registration are:

• Are voter rolls accurate and complete, including qualified voters and excluding unqualified people.
• Are voter rolls public and auditable?

Assessment: Voter rolls are grossly inaccurate, and actually auditing voters rolls is often illegal, so U.S. voter rolls are ineffective at ensuring only qualified citizens can vote, and in preventing election fraud. Internationally, error rates in rolls, revealed by voter roll audits, are typically 3-6%. In the U.S., no one really knows our actual error rates, as Democrat (and some Republican) politicians and officials have fought in the courts and in the streets any attempts to conduct voter roll audits or to clean voter rolls, but we do know that some localities have more than twice the number people on their rolls as eligible citizens that live in the constituency (i.e. at least 100% error).

Voter ID

Voter ID is considered an essential element in election security, and the provision of photo or biometric voter ID is a major part of many U.S.-funded election assistance programs overseas. A question we might ask on this issue is:

• Can every qualified voter easily obtain voter ID, and are unqualified voters prevented from obtaining voter ID?

Assessment: The situation is mixed, with Republican-led states more likely to meet this security standard, and Democrat-led states less likely. Although more than 80% of Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) support voter ID, and despite the fact that voter ID and proof of citizenship is required in every other democracy in the world, Democrat leaders continue to strenuously object to the universal introduction of photo voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote.

Early Voting

Many states now have early and extended voting periods, creating election seasons rather than a single election day. Extensive experience in developing democracies indicates that any time there is a break between voting and counting the votes caused by moving ballots or storing them overnight, transparency is interrupted, and public and candidate confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome decreases. A question relevant for this issue might be:

• Is polling conducted so that it can be effectively monitored by non-partisan observers and pollwatchers?

Assessment: Due to a lack of transparency introduced by overnight and weekend breaks in the chain of observation, and a lack of resources required to deploy observers for extended periods, it is not possible for non-partisan observers or pollwatchers to effectively monitor and verify extended voting periods. Extended voting periods decrease transparency and facilitate fraud (or the suspicion of fraud), and undermine confidence in the legitimacy of election outcomes, which may decrease voter engagement and turnout. Extended voting enables corrupt administrators to determine likely results by counting Republican and Democrat voters, and because it is impossible to monitor effectively, allows the easy addition or subtraction of votes and manipulation of outcomes. Both politicians and voters support extended voting periods, not understanding how they facilitate fraud and ultimately undermine confidence in election outcomes.

Postal Voting

Originally limited largely to absentee voting for soldiers, by the late 90s and early 2000s postal voting was becoming increasingly popular for ordinary voting, even though the 2005 Bipartisan Commission on Election Reform (led by former President Carter) identified postal voting as the least secure election practice. Questions relevant for this issue include:

• Does the polling process effectively prevent vote buying or selling?
• Are ballots securely stored and monitored to prevent theft and ballot box stuffing?
• Can voters cast their ballot in secret, free from influence or intimidation by family, employers or other powerful people in the community?

Assessment: Widespread or universal postal voting undermines the security and secrecy of the vote because it does not occur in a controlled environment, enabling vote theft, ballot box stuffing, vote buying and voter intimidation.

Voting and Counting Machines

Voting and counting machines have become ubiquitous in American elections, with proponents arguing they are cheaper, faster, and more secure than traditional voting and counting processes, while opponents argue the opposite, that they are more expensive, slower, and less secure. Questions relevant to assessing this issue include:

• Can observers and pollwatchers effectively monitor and verify polling and counting processes?
• Do polling and counting processes used in the election enhance or detract from voter confidence in the integrity of the process and legitimacy of elected representatives?

Assessment: Dur to their lack of transparency, it is not possible to effectively monitor and verify machine-based voting and counting, and this drives public doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. According to assessments by the intelligence community and essentially all cyber-security experts, voting and counting machines are extremely vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by foreign and domestic bad actors. Prominent Democrat and Republican leaders have publicly blamed election losses on hacking of machines for decades, and a large portion of the voting population believe results are routinely manipulated.

 Overall Assessment of U.S. Elections

Based on the identification of severe shortcomings in election procedures, our hypothetical international observation mission would find it impossible to verify and certify electoral outcomes as accurate expressions of the will of the people.

In such cases, observers would deny the legitimacy of elected representatives, and urge the people to continue their struggle for free and fair elections and real democracy. The mission would also make a series of recommendations for reforms required to ensure transparent and credible elections, like those below.

An Agenda for Transparent and Credible Elections

A democracy depends on public confidence that the process is fair, and that its representatives and leaders in government were legitimately elected by a majority of voters. Currently, that confidence in the U.S. is at its lowest level ever, and experience overseas demonstrates that a loss of confidence in the legitimacy of government can lead to a loss of social cohesion, autocracy, revolution, and blood in the streets.

This slide into instability and conflict is preventable through election reforms that increase the transparency and public credibility of election processes. Even those who think there is nothing wrong with our elections should recognize that growing public doubt in current election practices will ultimately result in instability, and that replacing those processes with transparent and verifiable procedures will enhance public confidence in the legitimacy of government.

With that in mind, I would make the following recommendations, all of which align with international standards and norms for free and fair elections, and all of which could be implemented for federal elections before the midterms through legislation or a presidential declaration of a national security emergency. States would not have to follow these reforms for state or local elections, but would be encouraged to do so.

1. Allow and conduct voter list audits in every state (voter list audits are a standard tool used by both monitoring organizations and election administrations throughout the world to assess the accuracy of voter rolls). Decertify current election rolls for federal elections and conduct a new registration in every state, building off the Real ID process used for driver’s licenses to ensure voters are qualified. With proper organization, this re-registration could be conducted in as little as four weeks, making it possible to implement before the mid-term elections.

2. Limit postal voting for federal elections to actual need. Postal voting is inherently insecure, so the volume of postal voting is inversely proportional to confidence in the legitimacy of the process. Postal votes undermine the secrecy of the ballot, are easy to manipulate, and facilitate vote buying and voter intimidation (particularly affected are less powerful minorities and women). This reform could be part of a presidential order, and states could implement the policy by simply going back to their absentee ballot rules of several decades ago.

3. Limit voting in federal elections to one day. Voting seasons are impossible to monitor effectively, creating doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. This reform could be part of a presidential order, and could be accompanied by a decree making Election Day a national holiday.

4. Require voter ID and proof of citizenship to register and vote in federal elections, as is normal and expected in every other country in the world. This reform could be part of a presidential order.

5. Eliminate non-transparent and non-monitorable election processes. In practice, this means eliminating voting and counting machines, which are non-transparent and cannot be effectively monitored and verified, thus contributing to public doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. Manual voting and counting processes are simple by design, and can be developed and introduced within a few weeks by drawing on international best practices for free and fair elections.

6. Count the votes in public at the precinct and post the results for all to see. Moving ballots before counting, or counting in secret or in a non-verifiable way, creates doubt in the legitimacy of the election process.

Conclusion:

All of these reforms are necessary to enhance public confidence in election outcomes and ensure we remain a government of the people. All are possible to implement before the November elections. Without significant reforms, the number of election deniers will continue to grow, leading ultimately, I fear, to tyranny or revolution.

[1] See President Trump’s speech on Election Integrity on July 16, 2026.

Tim Meisburger is an election process and integrity expert with more than 30 years’ experience in international democracy and elections assistance. During the first Trump Administration, he served as the Director of the Center for Democracy Rights and Governance (DRG) at USAID, and during the second Administration, he led the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and served as Head of Programs for the Agency during the dissolution of USAID and transfer of humanitarian assistance to the Department of State. Between administrations, he continued to advance the President’s America First agenda as a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and as a consultant for the America Project, where he developed and managed election integrity programs for the 2021 elections in Virginia, and the 2022 and 2024 national elections. He writes frequently on the election process and foreign assistance reform.