US Elections Project – Bias and Credibility

US Elections Project is rated Least biased with High factual reporting by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-1.5)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (0.8)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

US Elections Project is a Substack publication written by Michael P. McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida who specializes in American elections, voter turnout, surveys, and statistical methodology. The newsletter describes itself as “a source for information and statistics about American elections” and primarily publishes election turnout data, voter-registration trends, early-voting analysis, redistricting commentary, and election-administration research.

McDonald holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, San Diego and a bachelor’s degree in economics from the California Institute of Technology. He previously held a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University and has taught at George Mason University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Illinois Springfield. He has published more than 40 peer-reviewed academic articles and is the author or editor of several books on elections and political methodology.

McDonald also leads election-data research at the University of Florida and has operated the U.S. Elections Project, which compiles voter-turnout statistics and election-administration data. His election statistics are frequently cited by national media organizations, academics, election officials, and fact-checkers.

Read our profile on the United States media and government.

Location: Gainesville, Florida

Funded by / Ownership

Michael P. McDonald writes and controls US Elections Project, which is hosted on the Substack publishing platform. The newsletter offers both free and paid subscriptions, which provide its primary visible revenue stream.

The newsletter should be distinguished from McDonald’s academic work at the University of Florida and the university’s Election Lab. McDonald publicly identifies his professional credentials, academic affiliation, contact information, research interests, and methodological background, providing strong author transparency.

Analysis / Bias

US Elections Project demonstrates a low level of conventional partisan bias. McDonald primarily analyzes official voter files, registration statistics, historical turnout, election laws, and early-voting data. He routinely cautions readers against assuming that party registration indicates candidate preference or that early-voting patterns will necessarily predict final election results.

For example, Vote-by-Mail States Updates compares turnout patterns across several states while repeatedly warning that early-vote data represent only a snapshot and that registered Democrats or Republicans cannot automatically be assumed to have voted for their party’s candidate. This cautious approach reduces partisan interpretation of incomplete election data.

Likewise, Early Voting Ending the Full Week Three Before Election Day: Party Registration Analysis explicitly warns that election-law changes, campaign dynamics, and differences in voter behavior can make historical comparisons misleading. McDonald explains the methodological limitations of his analysis rather than presenting favorable trends for either party as definitive evidence of electoral success.

A modest leftward tendency is visible on voting-rights and election-administration issues. In Virginia’s Legislature Votes to Send Mid-Decade Redistricting Amendment to Voters, McDonald states that he has long advocated reducing partisan influence over redistricting and argues that gerrymandering can undermine representative democracy. He has also criticized voting restrictions that make mail-ballot access more difficult. These positions generally align more closely with liberal voting-rights advocacy, although his analyses typically rely on election data rather than partisan rhetoric.

Factual standards are very strong. McDonald relies heavily on state election offices, official voter-registration files, Census Bureau statistics, historical election records, and original quantitative analysis. He frequently explains uncertainty, acknowledges incomplete data, revises interpretations when additional information becomes available, and distinguishes turnout from candidate preference. The newsletter’s primary limitation is that some posts include McDonald’s interpretation of emerging election data rather than exclusively established facts.

Failed Fact Checks

• None found from major fact-checking organizations.

Overall, we rate US Elections Project Least Biased with a slight leftward lean based on largely nonpartisan election-data analysis combined with modestly liberal positions on voting access and redistricting reform. We rate it High for factual reporting because it uses extensive official data, shows strong methodological transparency, draws on significant academic expertise, and maintains a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 10/29/2026)

Source: https://michaelmcdonald.substack.com/

Last Updated on October 29, 2026 by Media Bias Fact Check

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources