To Foster a Free and Fair Election, American Voters Must Stay Calm and Patient
Even after casting their ballots, American voters still have a role to play in helping to foster a free and fair election.
By Michael McFaul and Bronte Kass
Over 79 million Americans have already voted in the 2020 U.S. presidential election — an incredible number that surpasses 160% of the early turnout from four years ago. This turnout is especially impressive given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, rising numbers of cases, and continued voter suppression. Some even speculate that suppression efforts may have backfired in states like Georgia (currently at over 80% of its total 2016 turnout) and Texas (at 94% of its total 2016 turnout). As the long lines at many polling stations underscore, the obstacles that Americans are overcoming should not be understated — voting remains much harder than it should be in many states. At the same time, American determination in casting their votes is also inspiring. Expect even more moments of resilience on Election Day.
But obstacles to a free and fair election still remain. Even after casting their ballots, American voters still have a role to play in helping to foster a free and fair election.
1. Share Positive Voting Experiences on Election Day — and Negative Evidence only with Context
First and foremost, individual voters have a role to play in fostering perceptions about the freeness and fairness of our electoral process. According to experts at the Election Integrity Partnership, four types of stories are likely to be shared in our broader information ecosystem on Election Day:
a. Eyewitness accounts of voting experiences and participation at the ballot box;
b. Health and safety concerns related to the pandemic (e.g., individuals without masks, or long lines that may demotivate voters from going to the polls);
c. Concerns about voter intimidation and potential violence;
d. Stories of mistreated ballots by other voters, postal workers, or poll workers.
Both fictitious and legitimate information is likely to be shared. Genuine stories about long lines, problems with poll workers, or other issues will demonstrate how these systems have never worked flawlessly; mistakes are all but certain in this year’s pressure-filled and emotionally-charged political environment.
However, most mistakes have remedies, including the availability of provisional ballots and ballot tracking. Whether they are shared dozens or millions of times, these photos and videos also may be inaccurate representations of reality. Such media could be reframed to exaggerate impact and ultimately reinforce a greater narrative of systematic flaws.
Particularly for journalists, election coverage should include context. Coverage about the safety and security of polling places (as well as legitimate election observation) could counter and balance stories of unofficial poll watchers.
For non-journalists who are documenting voting experiences, consider posting positive voting experiences too, and remember to stay safe, since filming incidents can provoke aggression. In addition, it is important to know your legal rights, and perhaps include a source for verification. For example, you can turn on GPS tracking or show local landmarks and street signs, which may be helpful later for officials or legal aid.
While it’s critical to amplify issues and instances of suppression, it may be equally impactful to use our platforms to encourage voting and democratic participation, rather than sharing stories that could depress turnout.
2. Contextualize the Threat of Foreign Interference
A similar caution is important for discussing foreign intervention. In this vein, the Stanford Internet Observatory, in partnership with Lawfare, has curated a series analyzing whether the threat of interstate influence operations is overblown. Their analysis incorporates the relative effect of domestic to foreign disinformation, how to measure the impact of an influence operation, and Russia’s social media efforts in 2016.
Our previous memo detailed today’s differences from four years ago. Although future behavior remains to be seen, numerous agencies and states have undertaken steps to ensure the 2020 U.S. election is potentially the most secure in our country’s history.
When evaluating reports of foreign interference, distinguish between capability, intentions and impact. For instance, the Russian government already has demonstrated the capability to disrupt our elections. According to the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Russian state-sponsored actors have targeted the infrastructure of dozens of U.S. state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) government networks — upon which elections information is housed — and exfiltrated data from at least two victim servers as of October 2020. But having the capability to be disruptive does not mean that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the decision to try to be disruptive. Even if Putin or another foreign actor does try to interfere, that mere attempt does not mean that it will be consequential. Overreaction to reports of interference may, in fact, be the goal of such foreign behavior.
3. Have Patience on Election Night and Beyond
The timeline of vote counting varies from state to state. During this period, the Election Integrity Partnership notes that misinformation is likely to spread related to several topics, including:
a. Premature declarations of election outcomes;
b. Confusion and distrust in electoral processes and results;
c. Existing narratives claiming fraud;
d. Mobilized crowdsourced “evidence” from Election Day;
e. Feelings of disenfranchisement;
f. Accusations of censorship and bias towards social media platforms.
All of these examples could be amplified by foreign actors, who may play a larger role after Election Day in terms of sowing distrust across the United States.
As election experts Nathaniel Persily and Charles Stewart remind us, vote reports on November 3rd will be unofficial. They always have been. It is important to be aware of where reported ballots originate from and to remember the number of expected voters in each state when considering the number of votes already counted. More specifically, national media outlets should clarify their process for projecting the winner of each race and wait for races to be certified by actual election authorities. It is unlikely that the 2020 U.S. presidential election will end on November 3rd, as dozens of election law cases continue through the courts (including those related to mail voting), thousands of postmarked ballots are counted, and results become certified.
It is therefore critical — especially for journalists — to prepare for uncertainty, follow the number of votes that have been validated, and balance coverage of problems with successful voting experiences. Finally, it is most critical for American voters to be patient. Anyone who believes in democracy should want all of the votes to be counted.
For more information, visit the Healthy Elections Project and the Election Integrity Partnership. To see real-time research, monitoring and analysis about the Stanford Cyber Policy Center’s programs and partnerships, visit FSI’s Free, Fair and Healthy Elections in 2020.
Elections deadlines, dates, and rules are available at Vote.org. To plan your vote in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, visit Plan Your Vote or How to Vote in the 2020 General Election.
*Note: This is the sixth post in Michael McFaul and Bronte Kass’s series “Preserving American Democracy.”
Read the last three posts, Yes, Voting by Mail Remains Safe, Fair, and Democratic in 2020, In-Person Voting Requires Safe and Accessible Solutions, the Four Years Later, How is Russian Interference Different in the 2020 Election?
