On November 4, 2025, the mayoral election in New York City quickly turned into a contentious debate marked by a single tweet. Elon Musk’s claim that the city’s ballot was a “scam” ignited suspicion and highlighted the complexities of the city’s voting system. With online chatter questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process, the focus shifted sharply to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic socialist leading the polls.
Allegations of “scamming” emerged rapidly after Musk’s post. One tweet questioned, “Zohran Mamdani scammed a city of over 8 million people. How does that happen?” The public responded with a barrage of inquiries about apparent voting anomalies, like candidates appearing multiple times and the absence of ID requirements. This led to a surge in discussions, eventually exposing confusion around a system known as fusion voting.
Fusion voting allows candidates to appear on the ballot under multiple party endorsements, permitting them to collect votes from different lines. Mamdani’s presence on both the Democratic Party line and the Working Families Party line exemplified this rule. Similarly, Curtis Sliwa appeared on his own party’s line and also under the Protect Animals Party, while Andrew Cuomo had only one listing—an unfortunate consequence of the timeline surrounding his independent party’s formation.
Nothing in this process is illegal. Jerry H. Goldfeder, an experienced election lawyer, noted, “Having a candidate appear on the ballot twice is not a scam at all—it’s a function of state law.” This underscores the legal underpinnings of New York’s election framework. Rutgers professor Julia Sass Rubin clarified further, stating, “Although candidates may appear on more than one party’s line, voters can only vote for them once.” This explanation aims to demystify public misconceptions regarding the supposed control that candidates have over their listing on the ballot.
Then came Musk’s contention about the lack of voter IDs, suggesting it was another avenue for dishonesty. However, in New York City, voters authenticate their identity through signature matching rather than identification cards. The process of signing a poll book and having it compared to a registration signature is longstanding. Susan Lerner from Common Cause NY reassured that this method is not only standard but also effective. “The electronic poll books update in real time. Once you vote, your record across the system is updated to prevent double voting,” she stated.
The implications of Musk’s comments lingered even without direct accusations of fraud. His remarks fueled doubts about the electoral process, framing the existing voting structure as a loophole leveraged by political progressives. Yet, all procedural steps for ballot design and vote counting adhered strictly to state law, and claims of impropriety sprouted from misunderstandings rather than fact. For instance, the order in which candidates appear on the ballot is dependent on when they submit their information, as clarified by Mark Lindeman from Verified Voting, reinforcing that Cuomo’s low placement was a product of his own timing, not an effort to suppress his campaign.
The situation escalated when a TikTok video surfaced, humorously showing a voter claiming to have voted “six or seven” times for Mamdani. The video gained traction but was ultimately a playful satire, not a confession. Lerner reiterated the integrity of the voting system, explaining that the updates to the voter rolls make it nearly impossible for someone to cast multiple legitimate ballots at a single polling place.
Public perception became the real enemy in this election saga. Mamdani, an outspoken Democratic socialist with a taxing agenda aimed at the financial industry, drew intense scrutiny not just for his policy positions but also due to the circumstances surrounding the election. Musk’s tweet further complicated matters, making a cursory attempt to rally support for Curtis Sliwa through a misspelled jab at Mamdani’s name. “Bear in mind that a vote for Curtis is really a vote for Mumdumi or whatever his name is. VOTE CUOMO!” he wrote, revealing disdain for the frontrunner and misleading many in the process.
The fallout from the Musk controversy caused a ripple of doubt among the electorate. Despite no valid evidence of fraud, accusations and complaints were filed with the Board of Elections. Though Mamdani’s endorsements allowed him to utilize the fusion system legally, public mistrust began to distort perceptions of not only his candidacy but also the electoral process as a whole.
Experts in the field cautioned about the ramifications of such unfounded accusations. Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, articulated a crucial point: “Public confidence in the electoral process is easy to damage and difficult to restore. Baseless claims weaken the system for everyone.”
Fusion voting, a relic of 19th-century electoral design still in practice in New York and Connecticut, sought to give smaller parties a voice without overshadowing larger candidates. Under this format, total votes across different party lines contribute towards a candidate’s success. Yet, fundamentally, a voter can cast their vote only once. Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party defended this democratic mechanism, asserting, “It allows voters the ability to vote their values and send a message to the candidate. That’s not a scam—it’s democracy functioning as intended.”
In a fiercely competitive city, the confusion surrounding a legitimate voting system emerged layer by layer. As Zohran Mamdani faced challenges to his leadership and questioned voter integrity sparked across social media, the essential nature of New York City elections—complex yet lawful—stood at the forefront. One election official succinctly concluded, “If it’s a scam, it’s one we’ve been running—transparently—for over a hundred years.”
"*" indicates required fields
