_{Photo by cookie_studio}

The credibility of its results always measures the health of a democracy — the results of its government, its initiatives, and its ability to declare elections fair and just and prove them so.

Throughout the many historical events that influenced American life and politics, the peaceful transfer of power has long been held as almost sacred and the cornerstone of democratic ideals.

Yet, the act of challenging election results has long been woven into the fabric of the American experiment. In the many times that it has been invoked, one question always arises: is this challenge a dangerous attack on democratic norms, or a necessary tool for assuaging people’s fears?

This question sits squarely at the heart of a living debate.

And to understand it, we must look beyond simple labels and explore the real reasons why people might question an election’s outcome.

_{Photo by freepik}

The Right to Question the Electoral Process

Public trust is the foundation of democracy. Of the people, by the people, for the people, as Lincoln once said. If the people doubt the process, that is tantamount to doubting democracy. Citizens must believe—have to believe—that their votes matter and that the electoral process is fair, for when that trust is shaken and broken, the system is no longer viable, and chaos creeps in.

Thus, when there are signs of electoral tampering and interference, people must speak up. Challenging election results, then, can sometimes signal that the public is watching and deeply attentive to the rules of the game. This is the mark that the American experiment will endure: that people care enough to question what has happened.

Elections are akin to massive sports games. There are rules that everyone has agreed to play and decided upon. If there are too many discrepancies and too many people think there is a violation of any one of the rules, it will be called out—and it has to be addressed.

Of course, it should also be understood that just because they are wary of the results does not mean they are against the game itself, or that they are just sour that their candidate lost — the need to be assured that everything is transparent and fair is natural for each participant in the democratic process. However, the need is manifested, questioning an election comes from a deep desire to protect the process itself and ensure rightful continuity. While meeting all their demands would be preposterous, there should still be an effort to meet them halfway.

The Potential of Risk to Democratic Norms

As Dennis Joiner suggests in The Turn, a system that cannot be questioned and actively hinders scrutiny cannot be trusted.

The act of questioning, in this light, is not an end to the system but a demand for reinforcement and clarity.

However, while it is good to be inquisitive and skeptical about any results, there needs to be a limit, and people have to understand the difference between asking questions and refusing to accept answers.

Unwritten democratic norms keep the system stable. Laws are only as effective as the majority follows them. Thus, respecting official outcomes after all proper reviews have been finished must be followed. When challenging election results, it is quite easy for evidence-based legal complaints to quickly shift into repeated, unproven claims of voter fraud. Sustained occurrences of the latter can erode our democracy.

When this happens, a dangerous “anything goes” environment is created. If a losing side can simply yell “fraud” loudly enough to convince people the election was stolen, without proof, it weakens the foundation for everyone and makes people lose faith for no good reason. Future winners will always be seen as illegitimate by some. This kind of challenge does not protect democracy; it only slowly poisons it.

Denial of a candidate’s loss replaces shared facts with shared suspicions. The focus then shifts from holding politicians to account to the deliberate spread of doubt for political gain.

The Role of Evidence and the Courts

So, what does a proper challenge look like? The key difference between a genuine inquiry and a bout of crying wolf is evidence and the proper forum. In a just system, specific allegations of issues (e.g., a broken voting machine, incorrect deadlines, faulty documentation) should be taken to court, for these are the proper places for challenging election results. This is where judges examine the facts and evidence and issue a ruling grounded in the law.

Hypothetically, if verifiable issues did indeed exist, such as software errors in counting machines, they would also have to be confirmed by independent experts — a legal challenge would not only be just but also necessary. It would fix a genuine and glaring problem.

However, spreading broad voter fraud claims without evidence, or after dozens of courts have looked and found no proof, is different. Pointed misinformation uses the idea of a challenge to undermine, not to correct. It is the difference between saying, “This specific thing went wrong, here is the proof, and we want it fixed,” and saying, “The whole election is stolen because I feel that it is.”

_{Photo by rawpixel.com}

The Healthy Balance Between Vigilance and Stability

Both trust and vigilance are needed for a democracy to remain healthy. This means that citizens should be ever-watchful of any attempts to disorient the election results and that officials, elected or otherwise, must ensure that each step is adequately transparent.

And what’s more, people must learn to accept that sometimes others vote for them. Not all the candidates we vote for can win. And that’s okay. Acceptance of this is the only way the country can move forward.

The ultimate goal, as always, is not perfection. There can’t ever be a perfect election because perfection is reserved for an unreal world and God above. What is needed is only a legitimate one — and that is more achievable.

The debate over challenging election results is really a debate about how to better preserve and protect democracy.

Venture deeper into these crucial ideas about power, trust, and the moments that define a republic in Dennis Joiner’s The Turn.