The Algorithmic Gerrymander: How We Might Fix It!
Everyone has an opinion... here's mine!
Note: This article was inspired by feedback to the previous article, where I identified several aspects of partisan shenanigans that have been used to skew election results. However, this article addresses some specific methodologies to counter the shenanigans. One thing in particular, when you see someone pulling this crap… get loud and call them on it! LOUD!!!
The American electorate is currently a laboratory for high-fidelity psychological warfare. In the wake of the original analysis regarding algorithmic gerrymandering, it is evident that basic proactive measures are no longer sufficient. We must confront the stark reality that our eighteenth-century methodologies and hardware cannot sustain twenty-first-century malware, malicious actors, and the deliberate intent of those seeking to overrule the will of the people. If the 2024 election cycle served as a proof of concept for precision manipulation—evidenced by the deployment of fraudulent elector slates across at least seven states—then 2026 is the year the election architecture of our republic either adapts or collapses. Stagnation is a precursor to failure, so obviously something must be done. We do not require more “civility.” We require structural “armor.” Otherwise, fake news, fake presidents, oligarchs, and social media will poison the well and virtually steal your vote based on misinformation and even fake promises.
The Original Sin and Modern Exploitation of the Electoral College
The Electoral College was originally put in place as a compromise because some of our nation’s forefathers did not want to allow the common folk to vote. After all, it was an uneducated vote. Why do we continue to entertain a system designed as a compromise for a demographic that no longer exists? Proponents often argue that the Electoral College protects rural and isolated voters, yet this is a demonstrable falsehood (but Republicans keep pushing it). The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not a gathering of unified visionaries but a desperate haggle of men who were running from their taxes and crimes, or truly wanted something better for us all (We want to believe they all had good in their hearts, but unfortunately, not ALL were that way). Several founders explicitly sought to prevent the “common man” from possessing a vote that would carry definitive weight. Benjamin Franklin, acting as the “Great Compromiser,” moved to bridge the chasm between those who feared the “uninformed” masses and those who sought a direct vote (National Archives, 2023). While this may have served as a viable bridge in the eighteenth century, its modern persistence provides a structural avenue for exploitation weaponized by partisan actors. Members of the electoral college have been bought and influenced in the past, and have outright ignored the will of the people.
The Electoral College is no longer a deliberative buffer; it is a primary vector for election subversion for those who are easily influenced. In recent cycles, the “winner-take-all” mechanic has been used to concentrate disinformation in a handful of swing states, rendering the votes of millions in “safe” states irrelevant (Wegman, 2020). More dangerously, the system creates legalistic backdoors—such as the appointment of “alternate slates” of electors and the threat of “contingent elections” in the House of Representatives—that allow for the direct reversal of the popular will (Harvard Law Review, 2022). Abolishing the College in favor of a National Popular Vote is a security necessity. By moving to a direct popular election, we eliminate the specific “swing state” bottlenecks that allow a few thousand targeted voters to flip a national result (FairVote, 2026). The logic of the republic demands that the individual with the most votes wins. Period. The next time someone argues against a popular vote being a deciding factor, take careful note of that person’s party affiliation or position.
The 2024 Discrepancy: Dissecting the Statistical Mirage
The most probable decisive point in the 2024 election was not a shift in public sentiment, but rather the lethal combination of vigilante voter-roll purges and a subverted Electoral College. While internal polling suggested a massive influx of new voters and a significant percentage of cross-party defections to the Democratic ticket, the final statistics do not reflect this reality at all. This is a “statistical mirage.” This is where you KNOW what the outcome should be, but partisan shenanigans have changed the outcome.
Research into 2024 turnout reveals deep anomalies that directly contradict the real-world enthusiasm observed on the ground. Investigative reporting, extensively documented in Greg Palast’s film Vigilantes Inc., has uncovered that non-transparent voter purges targeted specific demographics—stripping citizens of their registration status just weeks before the election (Palast, 2024). This resulted in a scenario where both the Republican reported numbers and Democratic turnout appeared lower than actual participation levels. The official record does not match the real-world data because the “missing” voters were purged from the rolls before their ballots could be counted, allowing a subverted Electoral College to finalize a result that ignored the authentic popular surge. Some of the victims of the Republican vigilante purges were found to have been long-time voters, veterans, and so on, who never should have been purged, but then again, is it ethically or morally right to win an election by such cheating? Even more pathetic is the Republicans who did the cheating pointing at Democrats as being the real cheaters. How many times have you heard Trump say precisely that? If the Democrats had been the ones to cheat, would they not have won the 2024 election?
The AI Arms Race: Fighting Fire with Fire
We have entered an era where artificial intelligence (AI) is the primary engine of electoral subversion. Malicious actors now deploy “AI swarms”—autonomous networks capable of infiltrating online communities and fabricating a false sense of consensus with superhuman efficiency (Schiff, 2026). These systems utilize generative AI to produce high-fidelity deepfakes and hyper-personalized phishing attacks that bypass traditional security filters (R Street Institute, 2026).
The solution is not to retreat from technology but to weaponize it for defense. We are forced into a paradigm where we must use AI to defend against AI. Defensive systems are now being integrated into election infrastructure to perform real-time threat hunting and to detect pixel-level inconsistencies in synthetic media invisible to the human eye (World Economic Forum, 2026). If the attackers use Large Language Models (LLMs) to craft divisive narratives, the defenders must use even more sophisticated models to map these influence operations and provide immediate, automated context to the public.
Inoculating the Mind Against Micro-Targeting
Precision manipulation functions through “emotional hijacking,” bypassing the prefrontal cortex to trigger the lizard-brain fear response. We cannot wait for Silicon Valley to develop a conscience. Instead, we must implement psychological inoculation (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2024). Some of the present-day oligarchs alter the algorithms to favor subject matter that they favor. It is not enough to detect it, but to call it out loudly when we do find it. Make it painful for them for having done such a thing. Make them unpopular, no matter how rich they are.
By exposing citizens to weakened doses of misinformation techniques before they encounter them in the wild, we build cognitive resistance. This is a defense mandate. Recent research indicates that undisclosed digital voter suppression disproportionately targets specific geo-racial segments (Kim et al., 2026). Individual citizens must distribute these “educational vaccines,” while specialists design the messaging to neutralize “fake news” before it gains traction (Reganti, 2025). This is something for all of us to take seriously and help to fight whenever we can.
Radical Data Transparency: Ending the “Vigilante” Purge
The recent surge in “vigilante” voter roll purges is a coordinated assault on the franchise. Partisan actors use flawed software to flag legitimate voters for removal (Brennan Center for Justice, 2024). The remedy is Automatic Voter Registration (AVR). When registration is a seamless exchange of data between the Department of Motor Vehicles and election offices, the opportunity for manual interference vanishes. States must strictly remain within the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC). Leaving ERIC is an admission of intent to facilitate error-prone, partisan list maintenance (League of Women Voters, 2024).
Geometry vs. Math: Breaking the Gerrymander
Gerrymandering is a geometric theft of power. When politicians draw their own maps, they choose their victims (Greer, 2012). Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs) are the only viable solution. Coupled with Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), this creates a mathematical environment where “packing and cracking” strategies fail (Wang, 2024). Empirical data from the 2024 and 2025 elections demonstrate that RCV increases competitiveness and rewards coalition-building (Deshpande et al., 2026). If a candidate cannot command a true majority, they do not deserve the seat. I cannot stress enough how important this is. Especially when partisan antics are often to blame for a bunch of extra candidates on the ballot, and not because these were legit people wanting to run for office. Diluting the pool can steal votes from the strong candidates, and those people typically are not running to even win. RCV is a means to thwart that tactic.
The Technical Hardening of the Vote
Finally, we must bridge the gap between electronic convenience and physical security. The insider threat is no longer a theoretical exercise. Consider the unprecedented breach facilitated by former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters, who granted unauthorized individuals direct access to voting machines, compromised secure passwords, and distributed backup copies of the proprietary election software (PBS News, 2024). Because of this catastrophic security failure, the specific vulnerabilities of our voting architecture are now public knowledge. Hostile actors possess the exact blueprints required to develop undetectable exploits, which may well be lying dormant in wait for the next electoral cycle. The structural vulnerabilities of our electoral infrastructure are significantly compounded by recent corporate acquisitions. In late 2025, Dominion Voting Systems—a primary provider of voting hardware—was acquired by a former Republican election official and partisan ally, who subsequently rebranded the entity as Liberty Vote (Votebeat, 2026). While this acquisition does not inherently conclude that nefarious activities will occur, placing the proprietary control of a massive voting infrastructure under the ownership of a partisan supporter logically casts severe doubt upon the integrity of the process. It forces questions of election security to the absolute forefront of their operation. Something must change to protect the very integrity of our elections. Risk-Limiting Audits (RLAs) are the gold standard. By hand-checking random paper samples to verify the electronic tally, we provide a statistical guarantee of accuracy against digital subversion (Risk-Limiting Audits, 2024). The defense of the 2026 election rests on the aggressive implementation of these structural reforms. Will we remain passive observers as the architecture of our democracy is dismantled by code, or will we engineer a system worth defending? The choice is existential.
References
Amar, A. R. (2005). America’s Constitution: A Biography. Random House.
Brennan Center for Justice. (2024). Attacks on Voter Rolls and How to Protect Them. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/attacks-voter-rolls-and-how-protect-them
Dahl, R. A. (2003). How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Yale University Press.
Deshpande, S., Garg, N., & Jacobson, S. (2026). Simpler Than You Think: The Practical Dynamics of Ranked Choice Voting. ResearchGate.
FairVote. (2026). The Case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Greer, C. (2012, October 25). Gerrymandering: How drawing jagged lines can impact an election. (Video). YouTube.
Harvard Law Review. (2022, April 20). Identifying and Minimizing the Risk of Election Subversion and Stolen Elections in the Contemporary United States. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/no-volume/identifying-and-minimizing-the-risk-of-election-subversion-and-stolen-elections-in-the-contemporary-united-states/
Kim, Y. M., et al. (2026). Targeted digital voter suppression efforts likely decrease voter turnout. PNC, 12867748.
League of Women Voters of Arizona. (2024, March 29). ERIC: The Secret Weapon Against Voter Fraud. (Video). YouTube.
National Archives. (2023). The 1787 Constitutional Convention: Records of Debates. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
Palast, G. (2024). Vigilantes Inc. [Film]. https://www.watchvigilantesinc.com/
Palast, G. (2026, February 11). The 2024 Election: The Statistical Mirage and the Great Purge. Greg Palast Investigative Fund.
PBS News. (2024, October 3). Republican election denier Tina Peters sentenced to 9 years in prison for voting data scheme. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republican-election-denier-tina-peters-sentenced-to-9-years-in-prison-for-voting-data-scheme
PBS NewsHour. (2022, November 10). How Ranked Choice Voting Works and Why It Is Gaining Momentum. (Video). YouTube.
R Street Institute. (2026, January 27). AI and Elections: What to Watch for in 2026.
Reganti, A. (2025, March 17). Social media and the age of AI misinformation. (Video). TEDxJacksonville.
Risk-Limiting Audits. (2024). Risk-Limiting Audits: Home. https://risklimitingaudits.org/
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024). The Psychology of Prebunking. Cambridge University Press.
Schiff, D. (2026, March 28). AI Swarms and the Fabricated Consensus. Governance and Responsible AI Lab (Grail).
The Fulcrum. (2026, April 3). Fixing Broken Systems: America’s Path Beyond Polarization.
Votebeat. (2026, February 12). What’s next for Liberty Vote, the company formerly known as Dominion?
Wang, S. (2024, September 20). Can Math Help Repair Democracy? (Video). TED Salon.
Wegman, J. (2020). Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. St. Martin’s Press.
World Economic Forum. (2026, March 12). Cognitive manipulation and AI will shape disinformation in 2026.
No time, or too much to read, listen to the audio overview…