There have always been conspiracy theories, with greater or lesser degrees of plausibility, that are believed by at least a substantial minority of the population. These are generally harmless except when someone with perceived authority gives sanction to such a theory, emboldening people to act upon them. This is exactly what happened on January 6.
The mob that stormed the Capitol consisted of diverse groups, including survivalists, QAnon conspiracy theorists, militias, white supremacists, and anti-Semites. Some of the better prepared groups had murderous or otherwise terroristic intentions, while others were violent only in their unlawful entry and destruction of property. Many more, unaffiliated with any group, were simple thrill-seekers caught up in crowd euphoria, entering the Capitol because everyone else was doing it. (See Elle Reeve’s immersion reporting, CNN, January 7, 2021, 1:00 ET) What they all had in common was anger at a perceived injustice, motivated by a strong belief that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen.
It is not unprecedented for so many to believe a presidential election was stolen. Many still believe this was the case for the 2000 election, though Gore would have still lost under the recount rules its legal team accepted, if these had been implemented. (Chicago Tribune) Some historians hold that the 1960 election was swung to Kennedy by mob votes in Chicago and Texas, though this is unprovable. Nixon, believing this, nonetheless thought it prudent not to contest the election openly, both for his own political future and the good of the country, though he allowed his surrogates to pursue legal challenges that corrected the vote count slightly. There is nothing untoward about aggressive legal challenges to perceived electoral fraud or error. What is unprecedented is for the losing candidate to proclaim publicly that he was defrauded even after all legal challenges have failed.
Trump did not stop even there. He actually advocated blocking constitutional processes by extra-legal means. First, he encouraged state legislatures to refuse to certify the electors’ votes, or even to replace the electors outright. When that failed, he waged a weeks-long pressure campaign on Congress and his own vice president to contest or even reject the electoral votes received, remanding them to the states, that they might choose new electors. (Reportedly, he even considered invoking martial law, and he seems to still be getting advice on this as of yesterday.) Moreover, he urged his followers to rally at the Capitol that day to demand that this be carried out. When the vice president failed to “do the right thing,” many in the crowd naturally believed they had no recourse but storming the Capitol in order to reverse the “stolen” election.
Some of the better organized groups had come to this conclusion weeks earlier, as evidenced by their planning. This is why the role of Trump as an inciter was much more obvious in the preceding weeks than in the content of his January 6 speech. It was in the preceding weeks that he asserted unequivocally that the election was fraudulent, and that he would never concede. On January 4 in Georgia, he gave the most incendiary speech yet, calling the opposition Communists and Marxists who hate this country. By doing this, he was putting them beyond the pale, outside of the polity. This is the rhetoric that lays the groundwork for civil war. Between this and what was discussed on fora such as thedonald.win, it was obvious to me then that a civil war would be attempted. I believed it would fail immediately, based on the usual levels of security at the Capitol for such events.
What was shocking is not that the crowd attempted to storm the Capitol, but that they succeeded. Many past protesters would have loved to do the same if it were possible. Exactly how this security failure occurred remains to be fully investigated. Trump was unfortunate in this momentary success by the crowd, of which he was an avid spectator. By invading the Capitol and threatening the lives of the entire Congress and vice president, the riot rose to the level of insurrection. Trump did not denounce it until it was clear that it would end. Only in the aftermath did he acknowledge there would be a peaceful transition of power. The leader of a failed coup should not complain if the worst penalty he faces is being debarred from office.
If Trump did not exactly “lie” about the election being stolen, since he sincerely believes the falsehood, he is nonetheless guilty of a consistent disregard for truth, clinging to falsified claims that he wishes were true. An example is his repetition of the claim that 139% of people voted in Detroit, which is easily refuted by publicly available data. To believe the election fraudulent, we should have to believe that the notoriously mendacious Trump and his allies are the only truth-tellers, against a conspiracy including:
- Judges in state and federal courts, including some Trump appointees
- Election officials of both parties in various states
- Most major news organizations
- Numerous poll workers paid near minimum wage
- Volunteer poll watchers
- Federal intelligence agencies
- The U.S. Postal Service
Anyone so conspiracy-minded is impervious to facts, since one can always add the source of any unfavorable facts to the list of conspirators. Such vast conspiracies are credible only to those lacking familiarity with how the election and result canvassing processes work.
All of Trump’s fraud claims are without factual foundation, which is why his lawyers had the good sense not to present most of them in court. There were some state practices that may have been erroneous in law, but misapplication of the law is not generally grounds for disenfranchising voters who followed the published rules. More importantly, no individual or state has standing to sue for such errors unless they can show actual, not speculative, harm.
The one Trump claim that had legal merit was the challenge of the Pennsylvania rule allowing late-arriving ballots, contrary to the legislative will. There were only 10,000 such ballots, not nearly enough to change the electoral outcome, nor did the late ballots break more favorably for Biden than the timely mail-in ballots. The conservative-leaning 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals correctly found the plaintiffs had no standing, and even if they did, they would not be granted relief, due to the lateness of the petition so close to the election. The late ballots were excluded anyway.
Since Trump’s strategy has simply been to conjecture that every conceivable mode of electoral fraud or error actually did occur, space does not permit the refutation of every single claim. That which is freely asserted may be freely denied with equal force. As for those claims which have at least some equivocal factual support, here are some fact checks:
- Military ballots “dumped” in PA (there were only 9, quickly recovered due to the diligence of an election official)
- “Suitcases” of ballots illegally introduced in Georgia
- Voter “spikes” in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania
- Dead people voting. In a state of millions of voters, statistically we can expect thousands of coincidence of names and birth years with the dead.
- Dominion Voting Systems fraud. This is silliest of all, not only because of the physical and logistic impossibilities involved, but because even if the nonsense about “flipping” votes were true, this would have been caught by the manual recount of paper ballots in Georgia, Michigan and elsewhere.
- Mail-in ballots and “unsolicited ballots”
- Myths about voting machines
- Voter fraud and “ballot dumping”
- Various claims examined by Factcheck.org and the BBC
In every election, there are minor instances of error and fraud, but quantity matters. There are no error-free elections, but the errors are generally much too small to affect the outcome with rare exceptions (e.g. Florida in 2000). Sometimes larger errors occur (in the thousands) on election night counts, but those are just first drafts for the purpose of notifying the public, not the official certified count. The initial count is followed by a thorough results canvassing process, during which the more substantive omissions can be identified. This happens in every election, and there was nothing unusual about this one. More importantly, the original records (ballots and machines) are kept available for inspection, so the data isn’t lost.
Enhanced voter ID and better signature verification would only guard against voter impersonation, which is known to be a statistically rare form of fraud. For fraud to occur on the scale Trump claims (hundreds of thousands of votes in a single state), there would need to be the complicity of election officials. Yet even states with Republican election officials have contradicted his claims.
Notably, Trump still repeated crackpot Dominion theories about removal or replacement of machines in his infamous call to the Georgia secretary of the state, along with other factless claims that had been already debunked publicly. In this call, Trump demonstrates himself to be an uninformed, uncritical thinker who only accepts “facts” in accordance with his preconceived conclusion that he could not have lost the election. Yet we are to accept his highly partial testimony over that of the election officials with access to primary data (all of which is monitored by observers of both parties).
More broadly, an examination of the county-by-county results in key areas is consistent with statewide and nationwide trends, adjusted for the known political demographics of each county. There are no stunning outliers in any major city. In fact, Trump did slightly better than expected in some cities, and fared better than expected with higher turnout, but had slightly weaker support than in 2016 in the suburbs, consistent with trends in recent years. That a president with approval ratings consistently below 50% should lose a tight election is hardly an indicator of fraud. Much less should we expect any Democratic conspirators to be kind enough to permit down-ballot Republicans to win their elections even in areas where Trump lost the presidential race.
Anyone still unpersuaded is likely impervious to argument, because they make the cognitive error of starting with a desired conclusion, and then accepting or rejecting data based on conformity with that conclusion. Such errors are common and generally harmless, except when they are actively and avidly reinforced by someone of the President’s stature and public influence. If a John Bircher or Lyndon LaRouche became President, the result would be comparably noxious to public discourse. The problem is more acute when the conspiracy in question is the purported crime of fraudulent government takeover. Thus we have the crazed spectacle of rioters engaging in an actual insurrection while believing themselves to be resisting an imagined one.
Our uncritical, deluded president undoubtedly provided much amusement at times, but foolishness stops being funny when people die, even if that consequence was not directly intended by the fool. There is something to be said for boring, policy wonky, slick-talking politicians. Perhaps the older, more genteel form of mendacity will have to suffice for now, if truth is too optimistic an ideal for democratic discourse. Ironically, the Trumpistas’ “attack on democracy” may itself have been symptomatic of a deep flaw in secular democracy itself, insofar as it makes the will of the people the arbiter of truth.