Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voters favor accuracy over speed on election night — and fear violence after

Donald Trump

President Trump has repeatedly said a winner should be declared on Election Night, despite additional time likely being necessary to ensure an accurate ballot count.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

There's polling about more than just battleground horse races in the campaign's final days. Two new surveys capture the level of apprehension and anxiety in the days before a historically contentious and complicated presidential election.

In one poll, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of voters in six swing states said they would prefer to wait for a reliably accurate count than to know the winner on Tuesday night. President Trump reiterated Wednesday he does not share this view.

In the second, almost all Americans expressed concerns about violence after the election gets called, especially if the loser declines to concede and alleges fraud. Trump has signaled repeatedly he believes the only way he can lose is because of his baseless expectation of widespread absentee ballot fraud.


Secure Democracy, a nonprofit advocating for secure and fair elections, released its swing state survey Wednesday. The report gauged voters' feelings about how the election is being conducted and how votes will be counted. There was little variance in the responses from Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which have a combined 91 electoral votes on the line that remain too close to call.

More than 8 in 10 voters in each state — where millions of votes have already been cast by mail or in person — professed confidence the election was being conducted in a way that would produce an accurate count. Between three-quarters and four-fifths in each said having an accurate ballot count was more important than declaring a winner in the hours after the polls close.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Along those same lines, most voters said they don't expect election officials to finish counting ballots until after Election Day. A majority also said it would be understandable, rather than problematic, if it took longer to tabulate results this year.

"Getting this right is worth the wait, and voters overwhelmingly want to see votes counted accurately and fully accounted for before a final call is made," said Sarah Walker, director of state and federal affairs for Secure Democracy.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has said he's willing to wait to know his future until all valid votes are tabulated, which could take days because many states permit absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive late and still count.

Trump does not see it that way. "It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on Nov. 3 instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate," he told reporters as he left the White House on Tuesday for more campaign rallies, adding incorrectly: "I don't believe that that's by our laws."

The second survey, released by the civic engagement nonprofit More in Common USA on Tuesday, was the latest to analyze perceptions of the risk of election violence.

While voters of both parties were nearly unanimous in rejecting physical attacks as a justifiable response if they come to view the election was stolen, almost half of Democrats and Republicans alike believe the other side is willing to condone violence in such a situation.

Republicans were slightly but clearly more worried about Democratic violence if Biden wins than the other way around.

GOP respondents predicted more than three in five Democrats would justify confronting Trump supporters online or in person after the former vice president loses, and more than half their opponents would condone property destruction or physical attacks.

Democrats say that, if the president is denied reelection, they expect three fifths of his GOP allies will call for confrontation of Biden's fans — but slightly less than half of them predicted Trump's people will destroy property or become physically dangerous.

Despite these beliefs, 96 percent of Democrats and 97 percent of Republicans rejected those types of responses.

"This is not to say Americans should ignore the threat of election related violence. We must take these threats seriously — 3 percent or 4 percent of people justifying such violence is still unacceptably high," More in Common's report concluded. "At the same time, we can be confident the overwhelming majority of Americans are committed to a peaceful election."

Secure Democracy surveyed 600 voters in each of the states between Oct. 1-16 but did not offer a margin of sampling error. More in Common polled 2,000 adults from Oct. 14-20 and pegged its margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less