Why Speed Matters for Voter Trust, but Proactive Messaging Can Save the Day
Election night in the United States has become less a climactic revelation than a prolonged waiting game. In 2020, four days passed before the winner was declared the winner, and in 2022, control of Congress remained uncertain for over a week. These delays—caused by legitimate procedures like verifying mail-in ballots—feed a growing distrust in elections. But does the delay itself erode trust, or is it the vacuum of information during this time that allows skepticism to fester?
A study of nearly 10,000 Americans offers a critical insight: delays in vote counting do harm trust, even without deliberate efforts to misinform. Yet, there’s a powerful vaccine—prebunking. By educating voters beforehand about why accurate results take time, election officials can temper much of the distrust that delays might otherwise create.
Delays in announcing election results create a fertile ground for doubt. Voters accustomed to rapid results may interpret delays as incompetence—or worse, malfeasance. In recent years, political rhetoric has amplified these concerns, with claims of fraud tied to slower counts. Even when these claims are baseless, they tap into preexisting fears, particularly among partisans.
The study reveals that simply informing voters about a delay reduces trust by 6.5 percentage points. For Republicans, already primed by narratives of election fraud, the drop is even steeper—nearly 10 percentage points. This effect occurs without any mention of fraud, underscoring that the delay itself, paired with a lack of context, is enough to seed doubt.
Prebunking—providing accurate, anticipatory information—acts as a vaccine against distrust. The study tested a 40-second video from Arizona’s Secretary of State that explained why counting ballots takes time and emphasized the importance of accuracy. The results were astounding: viewers of the video were significantly more likely to trust the election, even if they later learned about delays.
Among Republicans, who exhibited the sharpest drop in trust due to delays, prebunking restored most of their confidence. The key lies in its timing—by addressing concerns before they arise, prebunking prevents misinformation from taking root and shapes how voters interpret delays.
Much is to be done to reduce these long waits. Legislators should address policies that exacerbate delays, such as prohibiting early ballot processing. Allowing election workers to verify and count mail-in votes before Election Day can shorten the timeline and reduce opportunities for distrust.
Second, election officials must embrace prebunking as a standard practice. Simple, low-cost videos explaining the ballot-counting process can have outsized effects. These messages are especially impactful coming from trusted local officials rather than faceless institutions.
In a time where speed is often equated with competence, delayed election results will always invite scrutiny. But delays need not erode trust if voters understand their purpose. By prebunking, election officials can bridge the gap between integrity and perception, ensuring that democracy remains credible—even when it takes a little longer to count.
