America’s midterm elections offered no strong promises about the future. The results were surprisingly positive for the Democrats, who expected complete Republican victory but only lost the House despite the feeble economy and President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings. Nevertheless, losing either Congress body in this politically polarized age spells misfortune for the Democrats and Biden, since he may be barred from passing key legislation. And looking further into the future, it seems too early to predict the outcomes of the 2024 presidential election. Despite the lukewarm midterms, failure of the Democrats to deliver on 2020 presidential campaign promises and the disadvantage they have in the 2024 Senate map may give Republicans the upper hand.

But before 2024 arrives, America must first tackle the various flaws in its electoral process. 2022 midterms yet again brought up claims of voter fraud, while basic voting procedures came under close scrutiny. Public trust and acceptance of election results have frayed, leading to deepening polarization and an “us versus them” mentality that benefits no one.

Both sides of the political aisle expressed discontent about electoral practices. The primary debate is whether to tighten up procedures or to increase voting accessibility. Republicans argue that stricter regulations ensure the validity of all votes, and improve public trust in election results. However, Democrats claim that they can lead to low voter turnout and make voting unnecessarily complex for both voters and poll workers. There is also a possibility that tight requirements may restrict voters' rights, preventing certain demographics from voting, including senior and low-income voters. Democrats instead advocate for more lenient and accessible voting procedures, such as same-day registration or online registration. Though they may improve voter participation, critics maintain that these changes would damage the integrity of votes due to issues in secrecy and security, while increasing the costs involved. The continued debate between the two stances has led to widely differing voting procedures across states, increasing confusion and mistrust among voters. For instance, the voter registration deadline is 30 days before Election Day in nine states, while 22 states offer same-day voter registration. 

Lack of public faith in election outcomes is also concerning. While claims of election fraud have seemingly declined over the years, this year’s midterms revealed that even vote-rigging claims for previous elections remained unresolved, as ex-President Donald Trump continued to insist that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him. New allegations for 2022 cropped up as vote counts proceeded, driven by technical glitches, vote surges, longer voting periods, and more lenient voting procedures. Cheered on by conspiracy-theorists, some losing candidates supported these claims outright or delayed their admission of the results. Doubt in election outcomes promotes polarization, as voters start viewing the opposing party with suspicion. It can also sow violence, as seen through the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol and the attack on Paul Pelosi.

Though actual cases of voter fraud are rare, the procedural glitches that spur these claims are more common. Vulnerabilities in elections arise from a lack of federal oversight on administration, leading to widely varying procedures and performance depending on state and county. In some cases, poor performance not only encourages election deniers, but also discourages or prevents regular voters from casting their ballot. Florida’s flawed ballot designs in the 2000 presidential election remains a famous example of poor performance, though long lines, delays, and software glitches more commonly turn away voters. The federal government also has limited oversight in campaign financing issues. Though the Federal Election Commission is meant to enforce finance laws in campaigns, it remains in a political gridlock. At a time where election spending has risen exponentially, decisions about financing have been left to the Supreme Court.

Another custom that harms elections is gerrymandering: creating electoral districts to give one political party an unfair advantage. Districts correspond directly with seats in the House, making gerrymandering a desirable option. However, it leads to convoluted district maps that don't represent the actual political inclinations of the people.

States draw up new districts every ten years based on a census, which is a count of every US citizen. The census determines the number of districts to be allotted to each state, and the most recent 2020 Census helped draw district lines that influenced the recent midterms. Redistricting should reflect changes in communities, and there are limitations in drawing district lines. The Voting Rights Act and anti-gerrymandering clauses in state constitutions are supposed to protect voters. Nevertheless, gerrymandering persists, and the 2019 Supreme Court ruling that federal courts cannot obstruct partisan gerrymandering gave politicians more leeway with their maps. For instance, Florida's new map gave the Republicans four additional seats. Still, some states seem to be moving in the right direction by letting independent or bipartisan commissions take charge of redistricting.

It seems that the integrity of American elections is under question. Yet this may be an exaggeration. Many of the issues mentioned above are waste products of partisan politics, while there have been signs that things are looking up. Voter fraud claims are on the decrease, while most politicians conceded to election results without fuss. Nevertheless, it remains crucial to regain public trust for election results, even if this may require fundamental alterations to election procedures. A bipartisan stand for universal, accessible, and secure elections is a difficult but critical step in achieving this goal.