A veneer of legality and constitutionality
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of How Democracies Die tell us the biggest threat is not another insurrection but a steal.
The looming danger is not that the mob will return; it’s that mainstream Republicans will “legally” overturn an election.
They’re energetically at work on it now, like for instance all that voter suppression in Texas we were just reading about.
Last year, for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting president refused to accept defeat and attempted to overturn election results. Rather than oppose this attempted coup, leading Republicans either cooperated with it or enabled it by refusing to publicly acknowledge Trump’s defeat. In the run-up to January 6, most top GOP officials refused to denounce extremist groups that were spreading conspiracy theories, calling for armed insurrection and assassinations, and ultimately implicated in the Capitol assault. Few Republicans broke with Trump after his incitement of the insurrection, and those who did were censured by their state parties.
This is very very very bad. The Republicans are one of the two “respectable” parties, the majority parties, the as if official parties. They’re half of what they’re is – and they’re doing their best to become the only party.
From November 2020 to January 2021, then, a significant portion of the Republican Party refused to unambiguously accept electoral defeat, eschew violence, or break with extremist groups—the three principles that define prodemocracy parties. Because of that behavior, as well as its behavior over the past six months, we are convinced that the Republican Party leadership is willing to overturn an election. Moreover, we are concerned that it will be able to do so—legally.
You know…between global warming and the pandemic and far-right parties grabbing power in country after country, things are not going swimmingly for the human project right now. I kind of think we’ve messed up.
Democracy’s primary assailants today are not generals or armed revolutionaries, but rather politicians—Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—who eviscerate democracy’s substance behind a carefully crafted veneer of legality and constitutionality.
…Election officials can legally throw out large numbers of ballots on the basis of the most minor technicalities (e.g., the oval on the ballot is not entirely penciled in, or the mail-in ballot form contains a typo or spelling mistake). Large-scale ballot disqualification accords with the letter of the law, but it is inherently antidemocratic, for it denies suffrage to many voters. Crucially, if hardball criteria are applied unevenly, such that many ballots are disqualified in one party’s stronghold but not in other areas, they can turn an election.
Do we think they will if they can? In a heartbeat, and institutions will help them.
Competition’s effects are being undermined in the U.S. today by what political scientists call countermajoritarian institutions. We believe that the U.S. Constitution, in its current form, is enabling the radicalization of the Republican Party and exacerbating America’s democratic crisis. The Constitution’s key countermajoritarian features, such as the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate, have long been biased toward sparsely populated territories. But given that Democrats are increasingly the party of densely populated areas and Republicans dominate less populated areas, this long-standing rural bias now allows the Republican Party to win the presidency, control Congress, and pack the Supreme Court without winning electoral majorities.
They go on to say we should reform all that, which is true, but what are the odds. So that’s cheery.
It’s easy to make voters doubt the integrity of our elections. They aren’t transparent. Why should citizens trust results they can’t verify.
It’s likely they aren’t accurate either, but there isn’t any way to tell with paperless voting machines which are still used in my state in some counties. But even with paper records, citizens can’t verify the results. I know because I tried and failed to get access to the records needed to do so.
Once we lost transparency, it’s like that old joke: it doesn’t matter how the people vote (or who votes), what matters is who counts the votes. Currently it’s done by computers owned by private companies that don’t allow anyone who isn’t their employee – not even election officials who’s job it is to oversee the elections and make sure the results are accurately reported – to see their software. This is insane, but currently standard operating procedure in most states.
So let’s set the temperature to 108 degrees and then balkanize for decade or two and see what burning wreckage of a country still exists.
What the fuck do they even think they’ll still have to rule over? How many resources does it take to enforce your will on a massive decentralized population? I should think the roll-out of Covid related measures should demonstrate how ineffective they’d be at it.
Nice trumpy talking points there Beth Clarkson.Withdrawn.
On a more positive note, the trumpists and their counterparts on the far left are making me feel a lot better about the prospect of the human project coming to an end. I still feel kind of bad for all those other life-forms doomed to go down with us though. I always thought the lemurs showed a lot of promise…
Yes, if we could limit the destruction to our own species, that would be much less tragic. Were I to be offered the choice between 1) human-only extinction at the current state of play, and 2) human survival into an even more biologically impoverished future, I’d be hard pressed not to choose Option 1.
Lemurs might be a bit too much like us to avoid making the same mistakes we did. It’s those clever hands. Cetaceans, on the other hand, have no clever hands. No fire, either. As whale researcher Roger Payne once put it, they’ve been around with their big brains for twenty million years without destroying the planet. Given our track record, I think a legacy of bubble nets and music is a wonderful achievement.
@Ophelia #3
I’m sorry they are “trumpy talking points”. Unfortunately, the reason he’s able to make such progress with getting people to believe his lies is because the points I made above are true. Our voting system is not transparent and therefore, it isn’t trustworthy. I don’t think we’ll be able to solve any of our other serious problems without first fixing this one.
I was looking into and became an activist on the subject of voting machine integrity years before Trump ran for office. I have an entire website (ShowMeTheVotes.org) devoted to the problem. I created a non-profit foundation to collect funds to conduct research that eventually resulted in a peer-reviewed paper published on the subject: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/spp-2020-0011/html
I’ve pretty much given up on doing anything about it though. It’s bad for my mental health. I get very depressed about the ineffectuality of my efforts. All do I now is make comments on blogs like yours and collect new news articles confirming the existence of the problem. Like this one.
https://zetter.substack.com/p/votings-hash-problem-when-the-system?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3YZJ2nDajYKW8o7suF9mRtM1iMviYTreo81xLIxym54jPjrND5uFt6RLw
“Letting the vendor conduct verification checks of its own software was the equivalent of the fox guarding the hen house, one voting systems examiner for the state said.”
I didn’t know that. I apologize for the trumpy comment.
Do you know if other democracies do it more transparently? Is the US an outlier?
@ Ophelia #7&8
No apology necessary but thank you. My husband actually requested, and I agreed, that I stop making public comments about voting integrity during the period between the election and the inauguration because he thought it would be perceived as support for Trump’s claim. Trump keeps harping on the problems of illegal votes being cast, a non-issue for the most part as it’s too difficult to cast enough fake votes to alter the outcome. Altering the machine counts OTOH can. I read one report that indicated that a subversive actor only needed to alter a few dozen well-selected counties in the country to change the Presidential outcome.
Yes, other democracies do it differently. Some European countries don’t allow machines to be used at all, although I can’t remember which ones off the top of my head. I don’t think the U.S. is an outlier though. India was using voting machines a few years ago.
There are ways to ensure the count though audits and other approaches, but none of them are transparent to the average citizen. Few states in the U.S. have the robust audit procedures necessary to make sure the count is accurate. We are at least moving away from paperless voting machines which cannot be audited at all. But we are moving toward paperless registration books, which could become a serious problem. Anytime there is no paper trail, there is no way to audit the system and verify it’s performance.
I have been aware of concerns about this, now I think about it, I just never zoomed in because it’s technical and I don’t know enough.
So far, we have voting by paper here (I don’t know if it’s all of Nebraska or just the rural counties). It was sort of a shock to me to be given a paper ballot my first election here; I never used actual voting machines where you hit a button or whatever, but I pulled levers most of my life.
Beth, are the levered ones any better, or are they also not giving us a trail?
Beth’s right, there are a lot of issues with paperless voting machines from a technical security perspective alone.
@Ophelia #10 – I think a lot of people feel that way, which is one reason the problems haven’t gotten more attention. After years of working on the issue, I’ve become convinced that voting results should be transparent to all voters regardless of their technical background. Paper ballots, marked by the voter, counted in the public view. It doesn’t require rocket science to count votes.
@Iknklast #11 – I haven’t studied the levered ones in depth. They do provide a paper trail of sorts as they create a punched card with your votes, but it’s difficult and time consuming to do a manual recount. Remember the hanging chads issue of the 2000 election? Those cards were the output of lever machines. The manual recount of the punched cards was halted by the Supreme Court decision that made G.W. Bush president.
Australia uses paper ballots that are hand counted, and still comes out with a known Prime Minister on the night of the election.