After the 2024 general elections, most observers agreed that the process was free, fair and secure. (While some on the left and right Conspiracy theories About the election in certain social media segments, none has obtained consumer support). Due to this general consensus, there is a conviction that, like Arizona Secretary of State Andrian Fontes Affirmed: “I think that the age of denial of the elections, for all useful purposes, is dead.”
Unfortunately, the electoral denial can be there to stay. Recently, President Trump Candidate for the Attorney General refused to say that Biden won the 2020 elections during his confirmation hearing, and the Governor of Florida, Ron Desantis, appointed Ashley MoodyA denial of the documented elections, to a vacant seat in the American Senate. President Trump himself also reiterated the assertions that he won the 2020 elections during his Post -inization speech To the supporters, continuing to emphasize the fact that he would have won California in 2024 without the “illegal” votes.
Most of the underlying factors stimulating the electoral denial are alive – the only one who was not filled in this electoral cycle was that the candidate and the political faction entertain the allegations of electoral fraud were victorious. However, in the end, the supporting pendulum will probably swing as it has done in most of American history, and when this moment arrives, the electoral denial is likely to undergo resurgence.
Refusal of elections
According to Protect democracyThe movement of electoral denial is defined by three main strategies – describing the public with a disinformation which decreases public confidence in the elections, the disturbance of the processes of elections and voting, and denying the result of the elections. In 2024, electoral traders have always executed the first and second strategies – and prepared the ground for the third stage before President Trump won.
In the months preceded November 2024, electoral traders cited a myriad of Naked conspiracy theories. US surveillance followed last year’s efforts to deny the election, which included Voter registration challenges,, electoral dispute,, Anti-immigrant conspiracy theories,, Partisan elections administration,, Electoral certificationand other factors, in several states.
While specialists in the social sciences have not yet produced a lot of research on the foundations of the electoral denial in the United States, Charles Stewart III conducted a study on the roots of public opinion of electoral denialism by analyzing the data of the primary elections of several states in 2022. He found that the conspiracy and the high levels of racial resentment made the republicans more likely to believe the denial of the elections. According to the same study, for the self -employed, the strongest factors linked to the denial of election were Christian nationalism and racial resentment. While the Democrats were less likely than the Republicans and the self -employed to be electoral negatives according to these 2022 data, the denial of the elections between them was, once again, widely explained by feelings of racial resentment. (To measure racial resentment, Stewart uses three questions taken from a recently developed scale by the political scientists desante and Smith.)
In 2024, electoral traders cited a myriad of Naked conspiracy theories in the months Before in the elections. US surveillance followed last year’s efforts to deny the elections, which focused on Voter registration challenges,, electoral dispute,, Anti-immigrant conspiracy theories,, Partisan elections administration,, Electoral certificationAnd so on, in several states.
There are solid research on what motivates the allegations and perceptions of electoral fraud, whether or not he understands the electoral denial in its own right. As you can expect there, East Also evidence The fact that the perception of a person of the integrity of the elections is motivated by the fact that the candidate she supported won or lost. However, other research has revealed that partisanry plays a more minor role in an individual’s belief in electoral fraud, while psychological factors such as conspiratorial thought,, Populist attitudesAnd bad cognitive reflection Increased people with people with electoral fraud.
Denial of work election in North Carolina
Most of the proven evidence of a stolen election quoted by electoral traders were abruptly abandoned once Donald Trump was announced the winner of the presidential election. But these allegations are still thriving during certain national and local elections across the country. In progress in Northern Carolina is a legal battle on a Court of the Supreme Court of the State. Following the Initial account and two recountsThe Democratic candidate, Allison Riggs, currently threatens 734 votes to the republican candidate Jefferson Griffin on a little more 5,540,000 votes expressed.
There are currently four legal affairs –Griffin c. North Carolina Board of Elections,, Griffin c. North Carolina Board of Elections II,, Kivett c. North Carolina Board of Elections,, North Carolina Democrat party c. North Carolina State Elections Council– This implies this race (although in the Kivett case applies to all the races on a state scale).
Until now, the Supreme Court of North Carolina blocked the state to certify the result. Griffin continuously fought the result of the race, depositing two prosecution – one directly at the Supreme Court of the State and one in a court of first instance of the State – to disqualify up to 60,000 ballots per mail. However, the National Democratic Convention appeals to a previous decision of the Federal Court to refer the case to the State, a federal appeal Fourth short circuit hear end of January. At the end of January, the Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected By Griffin to decide whether the contested ballots should be disqualified and order that the case is first decided by a lower court – although some judges left the door open To launch votes.
The legal argument of Griffin is that the voting bulletins must be disqualified because the voters have registered using forms which have not explicitly obliged the candidates to provide their driving license or the last four figures of their social security numbers to prove their identity. It should be noted that these forms have been accepted as valid in the past. Griffin asks these voters to be contacted individually to provide this information and disqualify the voting bulletins of voters who do not provide them or respond. As the voting ballots by mail strongly promote Riggs, this could start the race for Griffin – in fact, canceling the valid votes and overthrowing the will of the people. Legal experts from American Civil Liberties Union say that this case represents the threat of “Democrat backsing. “”
In his trial, Griffin does not include more than 159,000 voters with the same registration problems that have registered before 2004 and rather focus on those who voted via the absent and the first ballots. According to the Voting laboratoryThis means that “older, white, white and more likely to be republican” are more likely to be excluded from his petition, while those who are “younger and disproportionately black” are targeted. Young voters are 3.4 times More likely than people over 65 to question their ballots. Voters aged 18 to 25 represented 12,660 of the 60,273 voting bulletins disputed by Griffin.
If you voted by mail in North Carolina, you should go to the website of the State Board of Elections hereSelect the links to your county and search for your name in the protest depot calculation sheet. Depending on the legal result, if you are listed, you can be contacted by local electoral officials to provide proof of your identity so that your ballot is counted. In addition, if your voting bulletin is among those who are challenged, you should have already received an opinion by post. If you have any questions about your ballot, contact your County Elections Council.
The risks are real
The electoral denial has not left – just dormant until it becomes politically opportune, as we see in North Carolina. Democracy Maintains that affirmations like Griffin and the RNCs in the competition of the Supreme Court of the North Carolina State open the ground “for future electoral challenges”.
Disinformation alone becomes more and more difficult to control and detect as Social media platforms return to the verification of the factsand federal officials carrying out 2025 project Could penalize social media societies that restrict or limit the content of “basic political views”. More and more people get their Social media informationAnd technological advances Facilitate the generation of deceptive content.
In addition, we must remain vigilant and monitor attempts by electoral negatives according to modifying the electoral processes and influencing the electoral administration to influence future elections. In December, I wrote on an attempt to influence the administration of the elections in North Carolina. According to data from ElectionDeniers.orgA project managed by Center for United States of DemocracyThere will be electoral negators in 2025 as governors in ten states (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Texas and Virginie-Western) and secretaries of state in four states (Alabama, Indiana, Missouri, and Wyoming) – three of which won functions in 2024. In this congress, there are 138 representatives and 20 senators serving at 2020 electoral negatives. Depending on the extent to which President Trump goes in the implementation of the 2025 project, we could also see drastic negative changes made to federal support for the electoral administration and the application of the rights of votes. I have also written On how President Trump’s candidates at the Ministry of Justice could constitute a danger for elections and voting rights.
One of the ways of fighting the denial of election is to thwart the disinformation of the elections and to strengthen public confidence in the electoral process thanks to greater transparency of electoral data. We have created a series of recommendations supported by science to increase Transparency of electoral data. People deserve to know how their elections are organized, to be able to hold those responsible for the responsible elections and see the full results of their elections. And it is imperative that state and premises offices take responsibility for contacting voters to help cure potential voting problems – not just throwing votes. Electoral data accessible to the public and transparent are essential to improve our elections and increase public confidence in the elections.
