President Trump Says He Wants to Eliminate Mail‑In Ballots
On Monday, President Trump posted on Whats‑App style social network that he plans to end mail‑in voting. He called it a “movement” and promised an executive order to stop it. Trump says the system is full of fraud and only the United States uses it.
What the President Said
“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of mail‑in ballots,” Trump wrote. The post was short, but it carries a strong message. He repeated the claim later that day that a new executive order would kill mail‑in ballots. He accused the system of fraud, saying it is corrupt. Trump believes that no other country uses a similar system in elections.
Why Mail‑In Voting Exists
Mail‑in voting started in the early 1900s. It was meant to help people who could not travel to the polling station. Over time, more states expanded the option. Today, millions of voters in the U.S. use the system. Every state has different rules. Some will send ballots to all citizens; others will only allow those who previously requested it.
How People Cast Their Votes by Mail
1. A voter requests a ballot from their government office.
The ballot arrives by postal service or a bulk mailing system.
The voter fills it in, signs, and returns it via mail or drop‑box.
Election officials receive the ballots and open them the next day.
The votes are counted and added to the final tally.
The Word “Fraud” in Elections
Trump talks about fraud a lot. Let’s see what fraud means and how it is handled. In a normal election, a voter is a person. A ballot is a piece of paper. If the same people vote more than once, that is fraud. Election officials use safeguards to prevent it. For mail‑in ballots, the system tries to keep each ballot unique. Many states use variation in the ballot’s design. Some require sign‑ins or photos.
What the Investigation Shows
Some studies look at fraud in elections. The numbers are very low. In 2020, a report found about 22,000 possible cases of mis‑delivered ballots in a state that has a few hundred million votes. That is fewer than one percent. Many of the supposedly fraudulent cases were actually mistakes, not fraud. Most of the research finds that people use mail‑in voting safely.
What People Think About Mail‑In Voting
Stories counter the claim with statistics. The Department of Justice in 2022 said there is no credible evidence of large‑scale fraud. Election researchers write that the system has worked in many rounds of elections. Parents say they get their child’s voting instructions easily. Many people use mail‑in ballots to avoid long lines. The most important thing is that the system adds to democracy.
Legal Arguments for Eliminating Mail‑In Ballots
Trump’s plan would be a big change. Executives can only pass orders that affect the federal government or how states run elections. In the past, new presidents have tried to limit voting. For example, a 2001 order said that states could not keep a mail system unless they adopted strict signatures. Trump would need Congress to pass a law that stops mail ballots. Congress would have to consider the rights of voters. In many places, voting rights are protected by the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to vote.
What the Public Reaction Was
Surveys show that a majority of voters are happy with mail‑in voting. They think it makes voting easier. However, opposition exists. Some conservatives fear that the system can be abused. These people call to reduce or eliminate it. The conversation will continue. Many will argue that the system keeps the elections fair.
Opposing View on Trump’s Statement
Many people disagree with the idea of removing the mail system. They say people need the chance to vote from home. They also point to the low numbers of fraud. Empires that work on other topics see that the design is solid. Removing the system could cost money and time. The system is an added ability. Some say – a democracy should adapt, not go backwards.
What the Future May Look Like
It depends on whether a firm executive order is passed. The current term of the President is only a few months. Future officials might not follow it. If property changes, in a future election, people might only be able to vote in person. That is a big change. The more miles to travel, the more people will possible lose the right to vote. The law can even go back to normal again.
Conclusion
President Trump’s statement is loud and clear. He says mail‑in ballots create fraud and might never be used again. An executive order could threaten how people vote. The idea has opposition and has little proof of fraud. In the end, it is a large future change. The democracy will still decide the final mechanism. Put in short: People can choose to blow the mask around it, or best as it was here. If we want a better democracy, we follow. If we want the same, we keep it. In any case, the conversation about how election works is still a strong story. The choice reflects the backbone of it all. Let us listen to the voices, the data points, the legal steps, and the people who need to vote. That is the core of democratic outcomes. The next decision will shape the future. Look it up, listen up, decide future cases. Long live voting health.
How Mail‑In Voting Is Turning Out to be a Huge Problem
Trump has always warned about mail‑in voting. Even before 2020 he said,
“There’s a lot of dishonesty with mail‑in voting.” He never even needs
to ask about voting rules overseas. Poland tried it in 2020 during
the pandemic but forgot to finish. In the U.S., the eight states that
regularly send ballots directly to every voter are the only places with
mass mail‑in voting. They are not ordinary absentee ballots. Absentee
votes normally need a request and a valid reason – like traveling far.
The U.S. is the only country that deals with absentee voting the way
it does. Of 47 European nations, 35 block absentee voting for people
inside the country. Not even just a few of them accept it. Another
ten – England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain – let people vote
by absentee ballot only after picking it up in person and showing ID.
Six countries reserve absentee voting for active military or hospitalized
citizens and need a letter from a doctor or the armed forces. By
contrast, the U.S. lets anyone say “I’m away” and get a ballot by
mail.
England, once like the U.S., changed its rules after a crisis. In
2004 the Birmingham council elections showed a huge fraud: 40,000
fictitious absentee votes from Muslim neighborhoods. The result? England
stopped sending absentee ballots by mail and now requires anyone to
pick up their ballots in person and show ID.
France had similar problems. In 1975, Corsican elections revealed
massive fraud: dead people voted in the hundreds of thousands and
voters bought votes. France responded by banning absentee voting
completely. These changes served a simple function – stop the easy
way for fraudsters to buy votes.
Absentee voting scares both Democrats and Republicans. The bipartisan
2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform – headed by former President
Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker – warned that
absentee ballots are the main danger of voter fraud. Voters still feel
this. A Rasmussen poll at the end of last year found 59% of likely
voters think mail‑in voting makes cheating easier. The numbers were
consistent across black, Hispanic, and white voters, as well as young
and older people. Only Democrats, liberals, graduate students, and
high‑earning voters disagreed.
The New York Times used to sound the alarm. In 2012 the paper warned
that higher absentee voting “will probably lead to more uncounted
votes and it raises the potential for fraud.” Now, the same paper says
any fraud claim about absentee ballots is “baseless” and “unproved.”
History tells us a lot. Between 1888 and 1950, widespread vote‑buying
made states adopt the secret ballot. When voters could no longer prove
theirs to a buyer, payments stopped. As more states switched to secret
ballots, turnout fell from 8% to 12%, confirming how common vote‑buying
was.
The Carter‑Baker commission also said absentee voting makes coercion
easier: “People voting at home, nursing homes, workplaces, or churches
can feel pressured or intimidated. Vote‑buying is harder to catch
when voters mail in ballots.” The buyer and seller both want to hide
the purchase. That’s the problem.
Recent cases confirm this. Earlier, prosecutors charged six Texans
with harvesting and buying votes by collecting absentee ballots. The
buyer could prove how the voter voted, while the harvester could be
sure that vote counted – what the buyer paid for. Right now, the
investigators in Hamtramck, Michigan, have opened a fraud case after
video footage showed a city councillor’s aide stuffing three stacks of
ballots into a drop‑box. That councillor won by just a few dozen
votes.
Mail‑in voting brings back the problems of fraud and vote‑buying
that thousands of years of law kept away. That’s why Norway and Mexico
ban absentee ballots for domestic voters. Americans deserve the same
safeguard. A voting system they can trust.
Who’s Talking About This?
John R. Lott Jr. writes about voting and gun rights. He contributes to
RealClearInvestigations and his work has appeared in the Wall Street
Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today,
and Chicago Tribune. John is an economist with positions at the
University of Chicago, Yale, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice. He
holds his research and teaching positions there.
Key Points in Simple Language
-
Mail‑in voting is different from normal absentee voting. The
U.S. sends ballots to everyone’s mailbox automatically.
-
European countries usually don’t let people vote by mail
inside their borders. They need proof or an ID to come
in person.
-
Voters often think mail‑in voting is easy to cheat. A
majority think it is easier to fraud. Only some groups disagree.
-
Big countries like France, England, and Norway fixed the rule
because big fraud broke down the system. They stopped
mail‑in unless they could verify the person.
-
Modern authorities and facts say fraud is real. Recent case in
Texas; Michigan candidate; past reports from the New York Times.
-
Historic elections suggest secret ballots reduced fraud. It
works: people can’t prove they voted for a buyer.
-
People who vote by mail are more legible to manipulation. The
buyer can see the style or location; the voter is not protected.
Why Does It Matter?
You need a trustable voting method. No Internet or larger systems can
compensate for a legacy system that works with physical ballots. If
your ballot goes in a mailbox it might be collected by someone else,
pasted together at a drop‑box, or sold in a market. That is the
creation of a batch “collector” who rewards the campaign for good
voting. The critical difference is whether the voter is questioned
at a poll worker or not.
Without an ID checking at the location, no one knows who actually
touched the ballot or when. That’s the big flaw. The sealed ballot
has a special stamp. That is what the voter sees if it is mailed
back. But we can’t stop the thief who moved the ballot from the
drop‑box and moved the final vote to any other place.
What Are Actions We Can Take?
- Encourage voters to go to their polling place and confirm
their ID. The safe choice is to follow the normal process.
- More strict backup on the mailbox: double‑secure drop‑boxes.
-
Use paper ballot with fire‑proof packaging so it can’t be
tampered with. The U.S. can follow this idea if it is needed.
Change the system to ensure voters are never mailed back the same
ballot that they expensive tried to keep. The goal is to keep a
stable system that protects the number of ballots and the results.
How the U.S. Might Do It Right
The best way is to keep the rule that if a voter is outside, they go
to the nearest location, get the ballot out and bring it back. But
if they prefer a mailbox, let them have a strict verification
process plus a double boxed drop. That way we can keep the same
political norms.
Leading the study of absentee voting in North America is how it
fires the sound and how it is safe. Microsoft has an interest that
concerns us all. When we bring it into the system, the city might
protect as well.
Let’s Break the Eventual Problem for Us
We can improve the system by making sure we enforce the same rule
of verification as other countries. There are also defense
measures borrowed from other systems that it explains the same
standard breakout as the Nebraska. A plan is to keep track of
whether a voter went to the drop‑box or used a ‘paper sign. That
helps the system qualify the number of ballots and reduce the
fraud. We choose to maintain the public trust so that the inside
process is safe to our vote.
We have a real chance to correct the problem and create
something safe. If we want to heal the automatic system, we can. We
just have to act on it.
Because the next election is only a few weeks away, the stakes
are high. We all want a free and fair election. But if we are
quiet about the problem, the system will give us the bad truth. We
must get the reliable system we deserve.
