An immigrant from China is drawing parallels between the integrity of China's National College Entrance Exam, known as the Gaokao, and what he argues is necessary to preserve American electoral integrity.

The essay, published in The Daily Wire, contends that unlike other aspects of Chinese society where corruption is tolerated, the annual college entrance examination has maintained what the author describes as "the highest degree of integrity" for decades.

The author traces the Gaokao's roots to China's Imperial Examination system, which began in the 7th century and was used to select government officials based on knowledge rather than connections. The modern Gaokao replaced the imperial system after its abolition in 1905 and was only interrupted during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive critics argue that drawing lessons from China's authoritarian system to address American elections is fundamentally misguided. They note that the U.S. electoral system operates under a constitutional republic with robust safeguards, including independent election administration, paper trails, and judicial oversight.

Voting rights advocates argue that concerns about American electoral integrity are often overstated. They point to multiple audits and reviews that have confirmed the security of U.S. elections, and they warn that rhetoric comparing American democracy to authoritarian systems risks undermining public confidence in democratic institutions without basis.

Progressives also note that China's exam system, while academically rigorous, exists within a political context of severe restrictions on speech, assembly, and political opposition. They argue that importing any element from such a system into American discourse requires extreme caution.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservatives argue that electoral integrity is indeed foundational to American democracy, and they see value in examining how other nations approach the challenge of maintaining public trust in merit-based systems. They note that the Chinese exam system's resistance to corruption, despite broader cultural challenges with favoritism, demonstrates what is possible when a society prioritizes integrity in key institutions.

Conservatives argue that American elections face legitimate challenges that warrant attention, including concerns about ballot security, voter ID verification, and the chain of custody for ballots. They contend that maintaining public confidence requires ongoing vigilance and reforms similar to those China has implemented for its exam system.

They also argue that the core principle underlying both systems — that merit and performance should determine outcomes rather than connections or influence — is a universal value worth defending. Critics who dismiss comparisons to China may be avoiding necessary conversations about election security, they argue.

What the Numbers Show

The Imperial Examination system in China operated for over 1,300 years before its abolition in 1905. The modern Gaokao is taken by approximately 10 million students annually in China, making it the world's largest standardized test.

The U.S. conducts federal elections through a decentralized system administered by state and local election officials, with no national standardized examination equivalent. Election security measures vary significantly across all 50 states and territories.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, multiple audits of the 2020 presidential election found no evidence of widespread fraud. The Heritage Foundation's election fraud database documents a small number of proven fraud cases relative to hundreds of millions of votes cast.

The Bottom Line

The debate over electoral integrity in America continues to divide along partisan lines, with each side drawing different lessons from both domestic experience and international comparisons.

The author's argument that merit-based systems can maintain integrity even in corruption-prone cultures rests on the premise that certain institutions require elevated standards. Whether American elections face challenges equivalent to those in authoritarian systems remains a contested question.

What both sides appear to agree on, however, is that public confidence in electoral outcomes depends on perceived integrity of the process. The challenge for policymakers is determining which reforms, if any, address actual vulnerabilities without disenfranchising eligible voters.

What to watch: Ongoing state-level election security legislation, federal election oversight proposals, and public trust surveys will continue to shape this debate in the months ahead.