Nobody Trusts Elections -- That’s the Crisis

Nobody Trusts Elections -- That’s the Crisis

Trust must be earned through transparency, consistent rules, and procedures that make fraud difficult and detection easy.

Brian C. Joondeph For American Thinker 

One of the most corrosive realities in contemporary American electoral politics isn't polarization, misinformation, or even foreign interference. It is something more basic: a majority of Americans no longer trust the integrity of their elections.

This is not a fringe belief limited to one party or ideology. According to polling from Rasmussen Reports, ahead of the 2024 presidential election, 62 percent of likely voters were “concerned that cheating will affect the outcome of the 2024 election.”

This skepticism crosses party lines and has persisted over the years. The pattern is clear: whichever party loses a presidential election claims the winning party cheated.

Democrats insisted George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. Many believed he did so again in 2004.

The idea that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election became a conviction on the political left, supported for years by media, weaponized intelligence community lies, and congressional investigations.

Republicans, especially President Donald Trump, believe the 2020 election was compromised through mail-in ballots, procedural changes enacted without legislatures, ballot harvesting, delayed counting, and statistical anomalies that were never convincingly explained. And now, after 2024, many Democrats again claim that Trump cheated to regain the presidency.

This recurring cycle reveals an important point: the issue is no longer who wins, but whether Americans trust the legitimacy of the system itself. It’s not about any specific election, but about the electoral process as a whole.

Whether Donald Trump “probably” won in 2020 is a separate debate, one with strong feelings on both sides. But that debate isn't the main point here. The real issue is that half the country sees every election loss as illegitimate, and nothing has been done to rebuild trust in the American election system.

Democracy cannot survive on blind faith alone. Trust must be earned through transparency, consistent rules, and procedures that make fraud difficult and detection easy.

Yet instead of reforming elections to restore public confidence, political leaders often respond to skepticism by dismissing it as dangerous, disloyal, or a “threat to democracy.”

That is backward. In a healthy republic, distrust in elections should lead to reform, not censorship, gaslighting, or moral condemnation.

Election procedures are important. 

Think about how American elections are now run. Voting can start weeks or even months before Election Day. Ballots are mailed en masse, harvested, cured, and counted long after polls close. 

In some jurisdictions, results may take days or weeks to be revealed.

Congressional races sometimes change multiple times as new batches of ballots are “discovered” or counted.

Contrast this with other developed democracies, where elections happen in a single day and results are known the same night or by the next morning. Or think about something closer to home: when Americans vote for a TV talent show winner, results are tabulated almost instantly. Yet, our republic needs weeks and teams of lawyers.

Yet we are told that selecting the leader of the free world must be a lengthy, secretive process that takes weeks of uncertainty. This unnecessarily delays or complicates the already massive transition. 

It also defies common sense, which is why both parties should support election integrity reforms, including the SAVE America Actcurrently before Congress. It has already passed in the House, and has reportedly crossed the 50-vote threshold for passage in the Senate.

At its core, the SAVE America Act affirms a principle that should be uncontroversial: only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections, and states should take reasonable steps to verify eligibility. Secure elections are not voter suppression; they are the foundation of representative government.

Other reforms also merit bipartisan backing:

-       One-day voting with limited hardship exceptions

-       In-person voting as the standard method

-       Same-day counting so results are known promptly.

-       Uniform national standards instead of a patchwork of emergency rule changes

-       A national holiday on Election Day to allow working Americans to vote without barriers. Columbus Day or Juneteenth could be good sacrifices for a national Election Day.

The SAVE America Act enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Gallup and Pew Research Center found 83-84 percent backing for photo ID requirements, including virtually all Republicans and 67-71 percent of Democrats. 

Some countries go even further by requiring voting by law, as Australia does. While that might be a stretch for the United States, the core idea is solid: participation and legitimacy go hand in hand.

Delayed counting isn't just inconvenient; it's damaging. The longer results stay unknown, the more suspicion and distrust grow. When election outcomes change days after voting stops, trust erodes even among well-intentioned citizens.

Or when one candidate is ahead on election night, vote counting supposedly stops, then by morning, the other candidate has taken the lead. And this only happens in a few counties of key swing states.

Every unexplained pause, ballot dump, or last-minute reversal fuels conspiracy theories, regardless of validity. Transparency and speed are not luxuries; they are essential safeguards for trust and integrity.

If elections were settled conclusively on Election night, much of the post-election chaos that currently characterizes American politics would simply vanish.

Yet Democrats criticize voter ID requirements, often using racist and sexist tropes that suggest people of color are not smart enough to obtain a valid photo ID, or that recently divorced or married women cannot change their names and IDs. 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris believes “rural residents” are unable to make copies of their IDs because they “don’t have Kinkos or OfficeMax.” 

Funny how these groups have no trouble flying, checking into hotels, or buying a bottle of wine. To believe otherwise is condescension.

What about foreign interference?

You can’t credibly claim for a decade that elections are under attack from abroad and then object when intelligence agencies investigate.

Many Democrats are currently upset that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in her role, has taken an interest in election integrity and foreign interference.

That outrage is confusing because, for years, Democrats insisted that Russian interference compromised the legitimacy of the 2016 election. They correctly argued that foreign influence in elections is a national security threat, not just a political issue.

If that was true, it still holds now.

The DNI exists specifically to evaluate threats to national sovereignty, including election interference. Anyone genuinely worried about foreign meddling should welcome scrutiny from the DNI, not oppose it.

The United States is nearing a critical point. When large majorities of voters on both the left and right believe elections are rigged unless their side wins, the social contract starts to break down.

Election integrity should not be a partisan talking point. It should be a shared national priority.

The solution isn't to silence doubts or demonize skeptics. The answer is to improve the system so that losing an election doesn't feel like losing one’s voice or country.

Until then, every election will be challenged, not only in courts but also in people's minds. A republic that no longer earns the trust of its citizens is a republic in name only.