Kamala Harris secured a significant advantage in the late-counted votes following the 2024 election, a recurring phenomenon that conveniently seems to favor one side whenever ballot counting drags on for weeks. It’s remarkable how, like clockwork, the longer the tally takes, the more the margins tilt in one direction. Harris ended up with an eye-popping 8.3 million additional votes, dwarfing Donald Trump’s 5.65 million in this late surge, even though she failed to flip a single county—a statistical oddity not seen since 1932. The optics alone have left plenty of people scratching their heads.
Trump’s overall victory wasn’t in jeopardy, but the glaring gap in late-counted votes has sparked significant suspicion. States infamous for their sluggish ballot-counting operations included California, where an astonishing 63% of votes remained uncounted after election day. Not far behind were Arizona, Utah, and Washington, each clocking in at over 50% unfinished. Meanwhile, states like Florida and Tennessee, which boast efficient and transparent systems, reported late ballot margins under 0.5%. The stark contrast between timely, orderly results and states dragging their feet raises serious questions about what’s really happening during those extended counting periods.
California, supposedly the nation’s tech hub, is particularly mystifying in its inability to count votes efficiently. Take Florida, for example—it managed to finalize 99% of its tally mere hours after polls closed, wrapping up its count within four days. Meanwhile, California was still dribbling out results weeks later, with Harris somehow pulling nearly a 20-point lead in these late returns. For someone who lost nationally by around 2%, the dramatic shift in margins from these snail-paced states is, at best, perplexing. Calls for nationwide election reform to streamline and unify processes have grown louder, as the current patchwork system fuels public distrust.
Criticism of California’s voting practices centers on its loose election laws, especially regarding mail-in ballots. These ballots, hailed as a bastion of accessibility, are processed painstakingly without the safeguard of voter ID verification, creating ample room for human error—or worse. Advocates insist the method increases participation, but detractors argue it opens the door to ballot stuffing and other irregularities. When states with lax procedures deliver last-minute windfalls for one candidate, skepticism is inevitable, and public confidence takes a hit.
Adding insult to injury, lawmakers from these slow-counting states are lobbying to replicate their chaotic systems across the nation. Critics of this proposal argue it’s the last thing America needs. Instead of importing inefficiencies from California and other liberal bastions, many believe the focus should be on making elections faster, more secure, and less susceptible to manipulation. For now, Harris’s late-vote windfall remains a glaring example of how delays and questionable practices undermine trust in the democratic process.
