Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why we must avoid temptations to call lost elections ‘rigged’

Person holding a "Stop the steal" sign

Saying an election is stolen or rigged, without good reason, hurts America.

Cory Clark/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization aimed at overcoming toxic polarization, and is the author of “ Defusing American Anger.”

Shortly before the 2020 election, a survey found that many Americans — including many Republicans and Democrats — were prepared to view the election as “rigged” if their candidate lost. One of the survey creators said the results were, “in a word, extreme.”

The stability of a democratic republic like ours depends on widespread trust in and acceptance of election results. Without this, things start to fall apart. Political dysfunction can give way to chaos, constitutional crises and even significant political violence.

We must see that when we call elections “illegitimate” without very good reasons, we hurt America.


Whether you’re more upset about Donald Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen or by Democrats calling Trump’s 2016 win illegitimate due to Russian influence, I hope you’re willing to consider, for America’s sake, how we can be drawn to distrusting elections for weak reasons.

Both political sides have been pulled into the winner-loser gap, which refers to the tendency of those whose group loses an election to have more election distrust than the winners. Regardless of which political group you think is more unreasonable in this regard, it’s possible to see that this dynamic is present for people across the political spectrum.

In “ Election Meltdown,” Richard Hasen examines instances of Trump making false and misleading statements promoting the idea the 2020 election was stolen. He also examines examples on the left, such as Hillary Clinton blaming her 2016 loss in Wisconsin on Republicans passing voter ID legislation, despite a lack of clear evidence to support that claim.

When we dislike and fear the “other side,” it’s easy to believe they’re up to something dishonest, even when we don’t have good evidence for that. Among people who said they thought the 2020 election was stolen, a 2023 study found about half of them weren’t fully convinced of that. Our partisan hostility and suspicion can lead to expressions of election distrust even in the absence of certainty.

Some people may distrust an election because they think bad and biased actors have influenced the vote. For example, some Republicans will cite biased liberal-leaning media among reasons they see the 2020 election as illegitimate.

Leading up to the 2016 election, there were many fake pro-Trump news sites, domestic and foreign, that many thought unfairly shifted the election. Republicans presumably would dislike it if Democrats used such instances as reasons to call Trump’s 2016 win illegitimate. The truth is it’s always possible for people to see biased media as unfairly influencing views, making that a weak reason to call an election “rigged.”

Some people saw Trump’s 2016 win as illegitimate due to thinking Russia influenced the election — but there’s no strong evidence Russia succeeded at that. Various analysts have made the case that Russia’s efforts were minor compared to other political activity. Also, a 2023 study found no evidence that exposure to the Russian campaign had led to “changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.”

Foreign powers who meddle in our elections are trying to foster discord and chaos. We should avoid playing into our enemies’ hands by too readily calling elections illegitimate.

In any given election, there’ll be various mistakes, technical issues and biased decisions — and even some genuine fraud. This means it’s easy for people to seize on irregularities as reasons to distrust an election’s result.

In “ Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” Mollie Hemingway argued the 2020 election was stolen. A Wall Street Journal review criticized her for conflating minor and expected election Iissues with purposeful fraud.

One reason some Democrats have viewed elections as illegitimate is because they think Republicans have suppressed votes in undemocratic ways. One prominent example of this was the 2018 Georgia governor’s race, where Democrats saw Republicans making it harder to vote as causing a Democratic loss.

In “ Why Democrats Should Not Call the Georgia Governor’s Race ‘Stolen’,” Hasen argued that a political group that loses an election should accept the results even when they think an election was not conducted perfectly, and that it’s important to distinguish between legal actions and illegal activity (like fraud).

In America, there’s a tension between the demand for easy voting and concerns about election integrity. We can see how this tension makes it easy for changes to election policy to produce distrust and frustration. But calling an election “illegitimate” without very strong reasons raises the partisan temperature and harms the democratic institutions that make America tick.

If you believe a recent election was illegitimate, this short piece almost certainly didn’t address all your concerns. I do hope that this helps you see the importance of thinking more about our tendency to distrust elections. If we care about this country, we must work against overly pessimistic views — both in ourselves and among our political peers.

For more articles like this, sign up for the Builders newsletter.

Read More

Texas redistricting map
A map of new Texas Senate districts can be seen on a desk in the Legislature.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

SCOTUS Upholds Texas Map, Escalates Gerrymandering Crisis

In the closing weeks of 2025, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court moved our democracy in the wrong direction by clearing the way for a gerrymandered congressional map in Texas to be in place for the 2026 midterm elections in its Abbott v. LULAC decision. Aside from the fact that the new Texas map illegally discriminates to weaken the voting power of the state’s Black and Latino voters, the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply problematic on a number of other levels.

Most disturbingly, the majority in this opinion takes an appalling new turn on the issue of partisan gerrymandering. To illustrate the Court’s backward slide, consider that in 2004 then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote as a concurrence to an opinion in a key redistricting case that, if a state declared it would redistrict with the goal of denying a certain group of voters “fair and effective representation” for partisan reasons, then the Court “would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people with two books, open in front of them.

At Expand Democracy, scholarship is a democratic tool. How research on elections, representation, and governance shapes reform.

Getty Images, Pichsakul Promrungsee

Why Academic Work Matters for a Movement

When I began publishing research on elections and representation, I always imagined the audience as primarily academic - political scientists, methodologists, perhaps a few practitioners who hunt for new data. But as my work with Expand Democracy deepens, I find myself reflecting on how scholarship shapes the public conversation and why academic writing is not necessarily a detour from democracy but can be a foundation for it.

This essay reflects on that specific interaction: how academic work contributes to our understanding of democratic institutions, why it remains essential for reform movements, and how my own research aligns with Expand Democracy’s evolving mission.

Keep ReadingShow less
What ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Warns Us About America Today

What It’s a Wonderful Life reveals about American values, political power, and why humility—not wealth—defines lasting greatness.

Getty Images, Guido Mieth

What ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Warns Us About America Today

Everyone has their favorite holiday movies, and on virtually all lists is “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the 1946 Christmas classic directed by Frank Capra. But when the film was released, it did not do well at the box office. But in the 1970s, it entered the public domain, and there was virtually no stopping it. People embraced the movie, the public loved it, and its place as a cherished part of the holiday season was confirmed.

In the film, Jimmy Stewart stars as George Bailey, an honest, hardworking man who has endured many disappointments in his career and personal life and has given up his own dreams to help his family and friends in his hometown of Bedford Falls. In current “executive office lingo,” George Bailey would likely be termed a “loser,” in the same category as John McCain, Jimmy Fallon, several of our former Presidents, and many of our current Representatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

Despite a spike in executions, public support for the death penalty is collapsing. Jury verdicts and polling reveal democracy at work.

the_burtons/Getty Images

The Spirit of Democracy Is Ending America’s Death Penalty

At first glance, 2025 was not a very good year for the movement to end the death penalty in the United States. The number of executions carried out this year nearly doubled from the previous year.

High-profile killings, like those of Rob Reiner and his wife, made the question of whether the person who murdered them deserves the death penalty a headline-grabbing issue. And the Trump Administration dispensed its own death penalty by bombing boats of alleged drug smugglers.

Keep ReadingShow less