About election.do

About

What it is

election.do lets you explore notable U.S. Senate and governor races on the November 3, 2026 ballot and compare the candidates side by side: their backgrounds and experience, their positions on the issues, their voting records, what they have done in office and what they have said. Every claim links to the source it comes from, so you can examine the evidence yourself and reach your own conclusions.

It is an independent, nonpartisan information project. It is not affiliated with any government agency, candidate, campaign or political party, and no candidate or campaign has paid for or reviewed its content.

What it is not

• Not an endorsement. election.do does not rate, score, rank or recommend candidates, and it does not predict who will win.
• Not a complete ballot guide. It covers a limited set of races. Your ballot includes many other contests and measures.
• Not a news site, a polling site or a source of live results.
• Not an official source of voting information. For registration, deadlines, polling places and voting rules, use your state’s election office (linked on every state page) or vote.gov.

How it stays fair

Both candidates are evaluated using the same framework and standards of evidence. Where information is unavailable or undocumented, we say so rather than speculate. Because a comparison follows the verifiable record, one candidate may have more documented votes, positions or statements than the other; we do not pad a thinner record or trim a fuller one to match. Candidates appear in alphabetical order by last name, and there are no party colors anywhere on the site. The full rules are under Sources & methodology below.

Nonpartisanship is an editorial commitment that these rules are meant to uphold, not a claim that any presentation is perfectly neutral. If you think a comparison falls short of it, please tell us.

Who makes it

election.do is built by FOUND, which curates .do domain names. The site is meant to be useful on its own terms and carries no advertising. No accounts, no tracking cookies, and no collection of political preferences. We use privacy-conscious analytics to understand aggregate site usage; the only personal information the site receives is an email address you choose to include in a correction report (see Privacy).

Sources & methodology

How races are chosen, how candidate profiles are researched and checked, and what we do when the record is thin.

Which races are featured

election.do covers a small number of U.S. Senate and governor races on the November 3, 2026 ballot that are drawing national attention, because they are competitive, open, or closely watched. Being featured says nothing about a race’s importance to the people who vote in it, and coverage is not a complete ballot guide: every state also elects members of the U.S. House, and most have state, local and ballot-measure contests. Each state page lists the statewide federal and governor contests on its ballot, using Ballotpedia: United States Senate elections, 2026, Ballotpedia: Gubernatorial elections, 2026 and U.S. Census Bureau: Congressional apportionment, 2020 Census, and links to the state’s official election office.

Who is compared

Each comparison features the two major-party nominees (in a top-two primary state, the two candidates who advanced). Every other candidate who qualified for the ballot is listed in the race’s “Who’s on the ballot” section, with the source used to check the list. Write-in candidates are not listed. Candidates are shown in alphabetical order by last name.

What we look for, and where

Every factual statement about a candidate is tied to at least one source, shown next to it and listed in full at the bottom of the page. In order of preference:

• Official state election offices, for candidate lists, election dates and rules.
• Official legislative records (congress.gov, senate.gov, clerk.house.gov, state legislatures) for votes and bills. Roll-call votes in Congress link directly to the official record.
• Official biographies and government sources, for offices held and actions taken in office.
• The candidates’ own campaign websites, platform documents and questionnaire answers, for what they propose.
• Transcripts and recordings of debates, interviews and speeches, for what they have said.
• Established news organizations and reference works, for context and where primary records are not readily available.

How claims are labeled

Positions are labeled by what they rest on, so a promise is never presented as a record:

• Campaign proposal: what the candidate says they would do if elected.
• Public statement: what the candidate has said, with the date and setting.
• Past action: something the candidate did, such as a recorded vote, a bill they sponsored, an executive action or a lawsuit filed in an official capacity.
• Enacted policy: a law or policy that took effect under the candidate.

In the track record, items established by official records or independent reporting are marked Documented; an accomplishment that rests on the candidate’s own account is marked Candidate’s claim. When the record establishes a fact, we report it plainly rather than balancing it with an opposing claim.

Significant legal or ethics proceedings appear in the track record only when the candidate, their office or their campaign is the subject, defendant or respondent, and always with their current status or outcome. Cases in which a candidate is a witness or a victim are not listed. We look for such proceedings in the same way for both candidates.

Same standards, not equal length

Both candidates are evaluated using the same framework and standards of evidence: the same issues, the same kinds of sources, the same labels and the same checks. Where information is unavailable or undocumented, we say so rather than speculate. What a comparison can show depends on what can be verified, so the two sides are not always the same length. A candidate who has served in Congress has a roll-call record; a first-time candidate does not. A long-serving official has more documented actions than a newcomer.

When the record is thin

If we cannot find a documented position on an issue, the page says No documented position found. We do not infer positions from party affiliation, and we do not describe a candidate’s views through an opponent’s characterization. A thinner record stays thinner; we do not pad it or trim the other side to match.

Voting records

For candidates who have served in a legislature, we show a selection of recorded roll-call votes on measures tied to the race’s issues, with the date, the question voted on and the candidate’s recorded vote. Sponsoring or cosponsoring a bill is not a vote, so it appears in the track record instead. For candidates who have never served in a legislative body, the page explains that a voting record does not apply.

Quotations

Quotations are short, verbatim, about policy, and dated, with where they were said and a link to the full context. We do not splice separate remarks together or choose remarks to embarrass a candidate, and we aim for comparable topics across the two candidates.

Review before publication

Candidate information is written as structured data before publication and shown exactly as reviewed; nothing is generated when you load a page. election.do uses AI tools to help find, organize and cross-check sources. Before a comparison is published, every claim goes through an independent check against its cited source: that the source exists and says what the claim says, that quotations are verbatim, that roll-call numbers and recorded votes are correct, and that the wording follows these rules. Anything that fails is corrected or removed. Each comparison shows the date it was last reviewed.

Photographs

Candidate photographs are used only when they are in the public domain (such as official portraits of members of Congress) or under a license that permits reuse, and they are credited on the page. A comparison shows photographs for both candidates or for neither; when a suitable photograph is not available for both, both appear as initials.

Neutral presentation

The site uses no party colors. Featured states on the map are marked with a single neutral accent. Language follows plain, descriptive wording: what a bill does rather than what its supporters or opponents call it, and no characterizing adjectives about candidates except inside their own quotations.

Map

State boundaries come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s cartographic boundary files, via the open-source us-atlas project. Alaska and Hawaii are shown as insets and are not to scale.

Privacy

No accounts, no ads, no tracking cookies, and nothing that records which candidate you might prefer.

What we measure

election.do uses Vercel Web Analytics, which counts page views without cookies and without building a profile of you. It reports aggregate figures such as how many people visited, which pages they viewed, the referring site, and the country and device type.

We also record a few anonymous interactions so we can tell whether the site is useful: which states, races and issues are explored, which sections of a comparison are opened or reached, when a source link or share button is used and through which channel (such as X or a copied link), and when a visit arrives through a shared link. These events describe the page, not the person: they contain identifiers such as georgia-senate or healthcare, never your name, contact details or anything you type.

We do not collect political preferences or infer affiliations. No event names a candidate or a party, so reading or sharing a comparison is never recorded as interest in either candidate.

What we don’t do

• No accounts, sign-ups or email lists.
• No advertising, ad trackers or data sales.
• No embedded social-media scripts. Share buttons are plain links that open X, Facebook or WhatsApp only when you choose to.
• No third-party font or tracking requests: fonts are served from this site.

Reports you send us

If you use the correction form, we receive what you submit (the page, your description, any source you add and, only if you provide it, your email address) so we can review the report and, if you asked, reply. Reports are delivered to us by email through Resend, an email delivery service; election.do does not keep a separate copy. We use them for nothing else.

Links to other sites

Source links take you to government sites, campaign sites, news organizations and reference works, which have their own privacy practices. Links we generate for sharing include a short label (such as ?via=x) so we can count visits that come from shared links; it is removed from the address bar when the page loads.

Hosting

The site is hosted on Vercel. Like any web host, Vercel processes technical information such as IP addresses to deliver pages and protect against abuse.

Corrections

We correct errors as quickly as we can. If you see something that is wrong, outdated or missing, report it with a source if you have one. Reports are checked against the record, and corrected pages carry a new review date.