The following is an extract from our short explainer “Things You Might Not Know About Elections.” You can find the entire explainer here: https://cffad.org/things-you-might-not-know-about-elections/
In the previous weeks, we have covered (1) how elections are essential to your freedom and prosperity, (2) how and why elections can take many forms, and (3) how choices made by our state legislatures and local election administrators can encourage trust or distrust. Last week, we looked at several kinds of threats to election integrity. This week, we will review some more, trickier, threats.
Acts of nature and poor management:
Not all election problems are caused deliberately. Anything that disrupts the efforts of voters or election administrators constitutes election interference. One of the most common causes of election interference is simply bad weather. This reality emphasizes that not all interference is preventable, but planning can help mitigate it. Other logistical errors can be completely accidental, such as traffic jams, power outages, or surprisingly long lines.
The difficulty with these logistical difficulties is that they can be weaponized by the same bad actors that were discussed previously. Politicians can’t control the weather, but they can reduce the number of polling places in unfriendly precincts, so waiting in line is a more uncomfortable experience. Politicians can’t easily alter traffic, but they can reduce the hours of early voting so that being slightly late prevents a voter from casting a ballot. Likewise, those same politicians may not create the demand that makes a long voting line, but they can slash the budget for elections so the polling place has fewer staffers and equipment to process ballots, slowing down the process. In short, just because a problem is not directly caused by bad actors doesn’t mean it isn’t their fault; many problems can be foreseen and planned for as long as malicious actors do not deliberately ignore them.
The role of media and pollsters in setting expectations:
There are frequent examples of the media or pollsters setting up expectations that lead to frustrations.
Most people check their favorite media for election results. This has advantages; media sources often interpret raw information in ways that make it easy to digest. For example, a cable TV network may present election results with more clarity than a state’s website.
An issue arises, however, when voters believe that some media outlet “calling” the results for an election is the official call rather than the eventual certification of results by local and state election authorities. It is important to understand that certification often occurs weeks later after each ballot has been received and counted. For example, in certain circumstances, military and overseas ballots can still be legally received and counted after election day.
Some voters may wonder why voting is worthwhile when a race is “called” by the media before all the votes are counted. An early call by one or more media outlets can lead to charges of fraud or rigged elections if they call a race earlier or later than expected and do not emphasize that these are “unofficial” results.
In 2020, for example, many citizens were confused and outraged when one TV network called the results for the State of Arizona early in the night before those citizens felt confident enough ballots had been counted.
Note that the network was not engaging in fake news. It was merely making an educated guess about how the race would end based on the vote count so far, polling, and historical trends.
Pollsters can cause frustration as well. If polling prior to an election indicates that the election may be a landslide, some voters may not bother “wasting their time.” Likewise, if early results on the East Coast indicate a landslide, voters on the West Coast may be put off from staying in a long voting line.
Campaign finance: One final subject that has recently become polarized on partisan lines is campaign finance laws.
These laws matter because political campaigning costs money. Obviously, more money means more ability to get the word out and win. And that obviously matters most in tight races. (How and when money matters may be a bit more complicated. See this article from FiveThirtyEight.)
This simple logic creates a lot of anxiety among candidates and their parties that various campaign finance laws will give the edge to their opponents. Two issues seem to be especially hot: whether one party is unfairly able to raise and spend more than the other and whether campaign donors should be able to remain anonymous. (See Open Secret’s definition of “dark money.”) The fundamental political dispute is whether political donations are a private expense that individuals shouldn’t have to disclose or a public function of an election that requires transparency.
In recent memory, bipartisan compromises like the McCain-Feingold Act forged a basic framework of campaign finance in America. However, decisions by the Supreme Court since that legislation have eroded most of that framework. But while there might be some grey areas that remain unsettled, it is important to acknowledge that defending our electoral system requires vigilant oversight of campaign finance. Protecting it from hostile actors who might attempt to bias the rules in partisan ways is no less important than preventing ballot stuffing.
Globally, campaign finance rules in most countries tend to be more restrictive than in the United States. In some countries, private donors are completely forbidden; instead, candidates are given a set pot of public money that they are not allowed to exceed. A hybrid of this concept was tried for several decades for presidential elections in the United States – matching funds were set aside from public funds so long as candidates voluntarily spent below a certain limit – but the success of private funding has made it worthwhile for major candidates to decline the matching funds in every election since 2008.
In other countries, private donations are accepted but with firm disclosure requirements and spending limits. One major reason for this difference is that many other countries have much shorter election cycles than the United States. Whereas campaigning in the USA can last for years, many other developed democracies have campaign seasons that last mere weeks. In those cases, this creates another issue to be regulated: not just how much money can be donated and by whom, but when it was spent.
For reflection: Many people believe transparency makes political corruption more difficult. In reality, proving political corruption can be very challenging. To prove a bribe, after McDonnell v. United States (2016), prosecutors must show more than just general efforts to aid a favored contributor. A conviction requires proof that the official committed an act that goes to the core of their office, like voting on a bill or approving a new policy. Moreover, published information about who contributed how much to a winning candidate makes it easier for that candidate to know who to corruptly reward with political favors!
Could it be that a better solution would be to emulate the secret ballot? Specifically, would it work better to require the registration of donors but make it impossible for candidates (winning and losing) to learn who contributed to their campaigns?
The big takeaway for this week is that our electoral system will always require a vigilant defense against threats, deliberate and innocent alike. How effective that defense is will depend upon the legal choices made by voters, their elected representatives, and the judiciary.
Next week, we will review what citizens like yourself can do to defend American democracy in our Republic?
If you want to learn more about elections, we have a 9-part course, each part is a 20-minute read. Easy! Click here: https://cffad.org/things-you-might-not-know-about-elections/
