With Election Day upon us ‘tis the season to make hasty accusations about the insecurity of America’s voting system. In Washington, like in other parts of the country, the right-wing has focused on attacking the idea of mail-in ballots. Last week, with the ballot explosions in Clark County and Portland, right-wing influencers such as Jonathan Choe quickly capitalized on these incidents to make claims that the “entire system is vulnerable.” by Ashley Nerbovig With Election Day upon us ‘tis the season to make hasty accusations about the insecurity of America’s voting system. In Washington, like in other parts of the country, the right-wing has focused on attacking the idea of mail-in ballots. Last week, with the ballot explosions in Clark County and Portland, right-wing influencers such as Jonathan Choe quickly capitalized on these incidents to make claims that the “entire system is vulnerable.” As we move through Election Day and beyond, bad faith actors are poised to take every single election related mishap or misunderstanding and turn it into another reason to make our elections more “secure” which just means erecting more barriers to make it harder to vote, measures that often disproportionately affect Black and Brown voters. So how do you stop yourself from becoming a sucker for a piece of election misinformation that could lead you to support a law that might deprive your neighbor of their right to vote? Glad you asked. I’m here to walk you through what misinformation might look like in the days to come.   Most of the time, rumors around elections fall into four buckets, according to local election rumor expert Kate Starbird. She co-founded the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, which studies false and misleading information online and designs strategies to combat it. First bucket: Someone observes an event and assumes something has gone wrong, but in reality, the system functions as intended—they simply don’t understand the process. But the person shares the information as something potentially nefarious. Some examples include last week when former President Donald Trump’s name appeared on the second screen for the California ballot, leading people to complain about having to click an extra button to vote for him. The explanation was not that California was purposefully suppressing Trump voters, only that California randomizes the order of names on ballots and, unluckily for Trump that meant he landed on the second page. The other three buckets involve when someone faces a real issue with voting, such as the machines not working, their name missing or misspelled on the voter rolls, or as has happened recently in Washington, they receive multiple ballots. These issues are typically distorted in one of three ways. First, the rumor emerges that whatever issue prevented someone from voting was intentional. Second, someone makes an unverified claim that the issue is widespread and deprives a much larger group of people from voting. Finally, the rumor obscures the fact that even if someone faced an issue voting, the elections office actually had a solution to the problem. A good example of some local election rumor coverage happened last week when KING 5 reported a poorly contextualized piece claiming that a woman had received 16 ballots with names of people she’d never met. The station quoted the woman as saying the incident caused her to have concerns over the democratic process. To verify what actually happened, I spoke to the King County Elections Spokesperson Halei Watkins who explained the woman had moved to a new address where she received her ballots. But she also was sent the ballots of seven people who previously lived at her address. She then returned those seven ballots to the post office, which redelivered them to her, creating the appearance that she had received more than a dozen ballots. Watkins said the ballots ultimately were undeliverable because the voters hadn’t updated their addresses with the county. Watkins called it an isolated incident, not indicative of a massive problem within the election system. That’s a pretty typical case of an election rumor that paints a picture of some deeper issue where one doesn’t exist. But when Starbird looks at how people use the ballot boxes to undermine confidence in our elections, things become a little more tricky. The fires don’t fall cleanly into any of the four buckets of misinformation, Starbird said. First of all, the fires represent a real attack on our voting systems. We don’t know the motives of the person involved. Remedies exist for the problem, but they’re imperfect and some ballots may have been lost. These attacks do appear isolated to two ballot boxes, and one possible earlier attempt on October 8 in Vancouver that did not result in any damaged ballots. The fires also had mixed outcomes regarding the ability of ballot boxes to extinguish fires. In Portland, only three ballots actually suffered damage, because the mechanism to extinguish flames in the ballot box deployed quickly. In Vancouver, Washington, the fire-suppressant device worked less effectively, but Clark County and King County are both looking into better tools to prevent fires.  So yes, the fires exposed a vulnerability, but it can hardly be used to definitively call into question mail in voting as a concept, which is how people such as Choe wish to use the incident. Overall, issues with mail in voting are few and far between, and voter fraud involving mail in ballots is exceedingly rare. When Watkins hears people decry mail-in voting or talk about returning to in-person voting, she points out that polling places have a whole host of issues that could leave the election vulnerable to mishaps or mistakes. Before King County switched to mail-in voting in 2009, the county had 500 polling locations, with 8,000 temporary staff or volunteers who received between four to 12 hours of training in preparation for election day. Now, teams of two pick up ballots from the various ballot boxes that they deliver to election headquarters in Renton. King County has 75 permanent and 800 temporary staff who help with all things related to the election. The process is much more streamlined.  Watkins also pointed out that at the time King County switched to all mail-in voting, 86% of votes in King County had registered as permanent absentee voters, meaning they already voted by mail, which speaks to the preferences of the county, Watkins said. “I feel like people who push for in-person voting would just end up creating barriers to voting, not making it more secure,” Watkins says.