How did mail‑in and early voting in 2020 change the timing and reporting of national popular‑vote counts?
Executive summary
The surge in mail‑in and early voting in 2020 shifted when ballots were cast and when they were reported, producing a staggered national tabulation that often showed Election Night leads that later narrowed or reversed as mailed ballots were counted; this was driven by large increases in absentee voting, partisan differences in voting mode, and differing state rules about when to process and count absentee ballots [1] [2] [3]. The result was slower, more layered reporting of the national popular vote and heightened attention — and controversy — over counts that continued for days after Nov. 3 [4] [3].
1. The scale and timing change: more ballots arrived before Election Day but were counted later
In 2020 a historic share of Americans cast ballots outside of Election Day — surveys and administrative tallies put mail and early voting at well over a third and in many analyses near or above half of total votes, with some reports estimating early and mail votes accounted for nearly two‑thirds of the total in key calculations [1] [2] [5]. Most mail voters returned ballots days or weeks before Nov. 3 — for example, about three‑quarters of absentee/mail voters report returning ballots at least a week before Election Day — yet many states’ rules and election practices meant those ballots weren’t fully tabulated or reported until after Election Night, creating a temporal gap between when votes were cast and when they were reported [6].
2. The partisan geography of vote modes altered Election Night signals
Party differences in voting mode amplified the reporting effect: Democrats were substantially more likely to use mail ballots in 2020 while Republicans disproportionately voted in person, especially on Election Day, a pattern widely documented in polling and administrative data [3] [7]. Because many states that saw the largest surges in mail ballots either prohibited pre‑Election Day counting or simply had slower mail‑ballot workflows, initial in‑person tallies on Election Night often skewed toward Republicans while later arrivals of counted mail ballots frequently favored Biden — the phenomenon labeled in contemporary coverage as an early “red” lead giving way to a later “blue” shift [3] [7].
3. State rules and administrative practices determined how long national totals lagged
Counting speed depended less on an abstract national timetable and more on state law and local administrative capacity: some states permitted pre‑canvassing or early counting of absentee ballots, while others barred any opening of mail ballots until Election Day, and still others had backlogs due to volume or signature‑checking procedures [4] [8]. Those legal and operational differences produced not only variable delays within states but also an aggregate national reporting pattern in which solid chunks of the popular vote arrived into the totals over days rather than minutes, complicating the real‑time narrative for media and the public [4].
4. Media projections, public expectations and political backlash
Major outlets adapted by delaying call decisions in swing states until mail ballots were reported, but the uneven flow of results combined with partisan rhetoric and litigation to fuel disputes and protests around counting sites in several cities [3] [4]. Litigation and emergency rule changes during 2020 further altered who received mail ballots and when they could be processed, a contested legal landscape that both reflected and intensified political incentives around timing [8].
5. Did mail voting change who voted or just when votes were counted?
Scholarly and institutional analyses point toward a nuanced answer: while mail‑and‑early voting transformed how Americans cast ballots in 2020, credible causal studies find limited evidence that expanded mail options alone substantially increased turnout at the national level — instead, much of the effect was a switch in mode and timing rather than a wholesale change in who voted [9] [10]. This distinction matters because the reporting irregularities were therefore mostly about temporal sequencing of already‑existing voters’ choices, not an entirely new electorate.
6. Lasting impacts and lessons for future national counts
The 2020 experience exposed how an electorate that votes across many days and by different modes requires clearer rules for pre‑canvass, better resourcing for mail‑ballot processing, and more sophisticated media guidance to avoid misleading early narratives; many states and election administrators have since adjusted procedures, and analysts caution that persistent partisan disputes over these timing effects will influence reforms and coverage going forward [5] [8]. Where reporting lags once signaled confusion in 2020, the longer‑term takeaway is that timing of counting — not merely totals — can shape public perception of national popular‑vote trends, especially in polarized environments [3].