California's Slow Vote Counting Undermines Democratic Faith and Should Be Reformed
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/by/the-editorial-board. "Opinion | How California Is Damaging Faith in Government - The New York Times." February 19, 2026. www.nytimes.com
The Gist
California takes too long to count votes after elections, which makes people lose faith in government and gives conspiracy theorists ammunition. The slow counting doesn't actually help more people vote, so California should copy faster states like Colorado that still make voting easy but get results quickly.
Conclusion
California should reform its election system to count votes more quickly, as the current slow counting process damages public confidence in government without providing meaningful benefits
Premises
- California's vote counting delays have caused Americans to wait over a week to learn House control results in the past three election cycles
- The slow counting provides no meaningful benefit - turnout in California has fallen further behind the national average since adopting these rules
- Prolonged uncertainty in election results undermines public confidence in democratic processes and government competence
- The delays provide ammunition for bad-faith actors to spread misinformation about election fraud and legitimacy
- Other states like Colorado demonstrate that rapid vote counting is compatible with high turnout and voting access
- California's 2014 law extending mail-in ballot deadlines has not reduced ballot rejection rates, which remained at 0.5% both before and after the change
- Multiple other democratic states and countries successfully count ballots both quickly and accurately
Assumptions
- Rapid election results build more public confidence than slow results
- Government effectiveness and competence are important for democratic legitimacy
- Policy changes should be evaluated based on their actual outcomes rather than intentions
- Systems that work well in other jurisdictions can be adapted to California
- The benefits of preventing a small number of late ballots from being disenfranchised are outweighed by systemic costs