NPR⁠84%

Replacing aging U.S. voting equipment will take years and billions of dollars ⁠42%

By Miles Parks⁠0%

5/29/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Anchoring Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 212 hits. Analysis detected 1,322 faulty-reasoning hits from 589 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,824 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.60% of the article peer group.

America's voting systems are getting old. 
Take Louisiana, for instance, where many Gen Z and millennial voters cast primary ballots this month using machines that were older than they were. 
Election officials there talk about having to "cannibalize" parts from dead machines to service others. 
"Replacement parts are no longer manufactured," Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry told a state Senate committee earlier this year. 
"Simply put, the [election] system has reached the end of its life cycle." 
A new report out Friday shows the state is not alone in that regard. 
If not replaced, by the next presidential election the average age of voting equipment in the U.S. will be 9.3 years, according to research by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) and shared exclusively with NPR ahead of its release. 
Historically, jurisdictions replace their equipment right around that age, which could be good timing as voting machine manufacturers have just begun to offer systems that conform with the most recent federal election security guidelines. 
Getting counties and states to purchase machines certified to those up-to-date standards is a clear priority for President Trump, who noted the guidelines in his executive order on elections last year. 
But in reality, unless Congress makes a massive financial commitment, the new BPC report finds it could take decades before tabulators and other machines adhering to the new standards are the norm in American elections. 
"It's just really slow to make change in the elections industry," said Will Adler, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center who co-wrote the report. 
The new standards — known as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 (VVSG 2.0) — are widely accepted as best practice and include numerous new security requirements, including requiring all systems to include auditable paper records. 
That practice has already become the norm in recent years, but it is now mandated. 
But U.S. elections are decentralized, meaning states and local governments run their own elections and also purchase their own equipment on their own budget timelines. 
That's how a state like Louisiana can be using certain 30-year-old voting equipment, while voters just a couple of driving hours away in Georgia are voting on equipment that's only seen a few election cycles. 
To replace the entire country's voting systems with equipment certified to VVSG 2.0 would cost roughly $2.71 billion, according to BPC's estimate based on historical pricing and manufacturer projections. 
Because of that hefty price tag, BPC estimates it could be the 2040s before the standards are ubiquitous in American voting. 
"So that's a long time," Adler said. 
"But the good news is that since funding is the main obstacle, if Congress wanted to speed up that transition … it could be much faster." 
After the contested 2000 presidential election, for instance, Congress allocated more than $3 billion for election infrastructure. 
But in more recent years, despite broad concerns from voters about election security, funding support from the federal government has been slowing down. 
Over the past two years combined, Congress appropriated just $60 million to support elections, compared to more than $800 million leading up to 2020. 
Adler hopes that will change, as lawmakers — and their constituents — see the benefits to replacing old equipment. 
"Just think about all the benefits you get when you get a new phone or you get a new computer; it runs faster, it's easier to use, it's more secure," Adler said. 
"So when you upgrade new voting equipment, voters feel those benefits." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Miles Parks: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 13.6%Miles Parks: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias13.6%This article: 9.5%Miles Parks: 3.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 15.8%Miles Parks: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic15.8%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Miles Parks: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias4.9%This article: 12.9%Miles Parks: 9.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.5%Miles Parks: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 3.6%Miles Parks: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.6%This article: 9.5%Miles Parks: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias9.5%This article: 16.5%Miles Parks: 6.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias16.5%This article: 7.5%Miles Parks: 14.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias7.5%This article: 3.2%Miles Parks: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Miles Parks: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Miles Parks: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.0%Miles Parks: 7.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority36.0%This article: 4.4%Miles Parks: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 2.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Miles Parks: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.2%Miles Parks: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon3.2%This article: 4.4%Miles Parks: 8.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 2.2%Miles Parks: 1.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 6.8%Miles Parks: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.9%Miles Parks: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division5.9%This article: 9.5%Miles Parks: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal9.5%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.5%Miles Parks: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground2.5%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Miles Parks: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 3.4%Miles Parks: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 8.7%Miles Parks: 7.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 5.4%Miles Parks: 2.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Miles Parks: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

589 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech454writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Landry • 20 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Landry • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWill Adler • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWill Adler • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWill Adler • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWill Adler • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWill Adler • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nancy Landry

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words24% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+60.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nancy Landry: 60.6%60.6%Unattributed Quote+39.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nancy Landry: 39.4%39.4%Biased Writer Voice-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Nancy Landry: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Nancy Landry: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.