Colombia's fast voting results aren't proof of cheating in California elections 4%

By Maria Briceño8%

6/24/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Availability Heuristic, and Anchoring Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.1% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 939 faulty-reasoning hits from 870 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.4% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,040 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.10% of the article peer group.

Some social media users misleadingly compared two different elections  one in Colombia and another in California  to say that cheating is happening in the Golden State. 
The social media posts referred to Colombia’s June 21 presidential runoff election, won by conservative candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, and California’s June 2 primary, where final results for some races are still pending. 
"How is it possible that the Colombians were able to count 99% of the votes in two hours and California still hasn’t finished counting the votes from three weeks ago?" 
an X user wrote June 21. 
"Oh, yeah… Colombia isn’t trying to cheat a result like California is." 
Comparing the Colombian election with an American election is like comparing a bicycle to a spaceship, said David Becker, Center for Election Innovation & Research executive director and founder. 
The country and the U.S. state have vastly different processes for vote counting. 
For one, Colombia’s elections are organized nationally and the June 21 election had only two candidates on the ballot. 
Number of contests: California’s election included multiple statewide and local races. 
In Colombia’s runoff, there was only one race with two candidates. 
Voting methods: California typically takes longer than other states to count ballots, mainly because of the state’s laws and mail-voting option. 
In Colombia, voters cast their votes in person and don’t have mail-in voting. 
Administration: County election officials administer California elections and count ballots while the state does the final certification. 
Colombia’s presidential election is administered at the national level. 
Here’s a deeper look into how voting works in both places. 
How Colombia counts votes 
In Colombia, De la Espriella and Cepeda became the top two frontrunners after the first round of the presidential election on May 31, advancing to the June 21 runoff. 
Once voting is complete, judges count the ballots to verify that they match the number of people who voted. 
After that, they start counting each vote; eventually, a panel of judges, election observers and notaries review the preliminary count to ensure there are no errors. 
Then, the National Electoral Council announces the results. 
The X post referred to Colombia’s preliminary vote count that showed De la Espriella receiving 49.6% of the votes and progressive candidate Iván Cepeda getting 48.7%. 
Cepeda conceded the race June 24, hours before the final count ended. 
The Colombian National Electoral Council announced De la Espriella as the new president that same day, after judges verified the results. 
How California counts votes 
In California, for most contests the top two vote-getters move on to the November general election, regardless of party preference or whether one candidate receives a majority of all votes cast in the primary election. 
All 58 counties must follow state election laws and deadlines, the results come in at different speeds. 
State law requires county elections officials to send the first batch of results to the secretary of state’s office no more than two hours after they begin counting votes after polls close on Election Day. 
They continue to report results periodically on election night until the total of all the ballots at polling places have been reported. 
Officials also continue to count vote-by-mail and provisional ballots up to 30 days after Election Day. 
In California, a state with about 23 million registered voters, election officials mail ballots to all active voters. 
In 2024, about 19% voted in person. 
It takes time to process mail ballots, including election workers verifying identity by matching signatures on the envelopes with registration records. 
Many voters turn in their ballots on Election Day, experts say. 
The state counts mail-in ballots even if they are received seven days after the election, but are postmarked on Election Day. 
This year, county elections officials must report their final results to the secretary of state by July 3, and the state will certify results by July 10. 
As of June 25, most of the local races in California have been called. 
For governor and attorney general, 99% of votes have been counted. 
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, previously told PolitiFact that the pace of the count is not proof the election was rigged. 
Still, the state should better explain that it is prioritizing access, security and accuracy, she said. 
Eduardo Repilloza Fernández, general coordinator of Transparencia Electoral, an Argentina-based organization that oversees elections in the Americas, said that mail-in ballots and drop boxes in the California elections add protocols that don’t exist in the Colombian elections. 
"In Colombia, voting takes place on a single day, Sunday, and the entire logistics system is set up to count the votes that same day," Repilloza Fernández said. 
Evelyn Pérez-Verdía, CEO of We Are Más, an agency that focuses on countering disinformation, said these social media posts connect an election in another country with a U.S. state election to make them distrust the U.S. electoral system. 
She said it’s a strategy to target diasporas who can vote in the U.S. and in their country of origin. 
"These strategies are increasingly used by alliances of like-minded political groups in the United States and by sympathizers of extreme political parties in other countries," said Pérez-Verdía. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Maria Briceño: 3.8%@politifact: 2.0%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 6.4%Maria Briceño: 0.9%@politifact: 0.6%Anchoring Bias6.4%This article: 6.6%Maria Briceño: 2.6%@politifact: 2.5%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 7.2%Maria Briceño: 1.0%@politifact: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.7%@politifact: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 1.0%@politifact: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Maria Briceño: 2.1%@politifact: 3.5%Framing Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Maria Briceño: 0.6%@politifact: 0.8%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 1.6%@politifact: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Maria Briceño: 4.0%@politifact: 5.1%Negativity Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.3%@politifact: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.1%@politifact: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Maria Briceño: 1.0%@politifact: 0.8%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Maria Briceño: 1.3%@politifact: 1.1%Recency Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.3%@politifact: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.3%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Straw Man3.3%This article: 16.1%Maria Briceño: 7.0%@politifact: 4.7%Appeal to Authority16.1%This article: 1.4%Maria Briceño: 0.5%@politifact: 0.8%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.9%Maria Briceño: 0.1%@politifact: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.9%This article: 6.3%Maria Briceño: 3.5%@politifact: 3.0%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.6%@politifact: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 1.7%@politifact: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 3.0%@politifact: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.3%@politifact: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.8%Maria Briceño: 2.5%@politifact: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.4%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.4%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.5%Maria Briceño: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 1.3%Maria Briceño: 1.1%@politifact: 1.0%Anecdotal1.3%This article: 3.1%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.1%This article: 3.9%Maria Briceño: 1.4%@politifact: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.4%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.4%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Maria Briceño: 2.0%@politifact: 1.7%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 4.8%Maria Briceño: 2.8%@politifact: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 2.5%Maria Briceño: 1.0%@politifact: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice2.5%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.2%@politifact: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Maria Briceño: 0.3%@politifact: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Maria Briceño: 0.4%@politifact: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

870 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers25%attributed speech650writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Becker • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKim Alexander • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKim Alexander • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEduardo Repilloza Fernández • 37 words • 0.0% coverageEduardo Repilloza Fernández • 28 words • 0.0% coverageEvelyn Pérez-Verdía • 38 words • 0.0% coverageEvelyn Pérez-Verdía • 20 words • 0.0% coverageEvelyn Pérez-Verdía • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Becker

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words13% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%David Becker: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%David Becker: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%David Becker: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%David Becker: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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