F

or 
weeks, 
Republican 

presidential 
nominee 

Donald Trump has claimed 

that the election is 
rigged 
against 
him 

and that voter fraud 
will hand Democratic 
presidential 
nominee 

Hillary 
Clinton 
the 

presidency. 
These 

claims 
are 
baseless 

and clearly seek to 
undermine the trust 
that U.S. citizens have 
in their political system. 
But last week, Mr. 
Trump was given an opportunity 
to walk back on his claims. During 
the third presidential debate, 
moderator Chris Wallace, a Fox 
News anchor, asked if Trump 
would be willing to concede the 
results of the election if he were 
to be defeated. His response? “I’ll 
keep you in suspense, OK?”

This is what the foundation 

of American democracy — trust 
in the integrity of our electoral 
system — has been reduced to: 
suspense. A reality show, the 
plaything of a billionaire in over 
his head. The ignorance Trump 
displays through his comments is 
truly astounding for a man seeking 
the highest office in the land, 
given the longstanding history 
of political concessions in our 
country. For a man who claims 
to want to “Make America Great 
Again,” Trump seems to have very 
little knowledge of what it is that 
actually made our country so great 
in the first place.

The nonviolent transfer of 

power from one political party 
to the next has been a staple 
of American democracy since 
Thomas 
Jefferson 
and 
the 

Republicans were elected to take 
control of the government from 
their 
federalist 
counterparts 

in the election of 1800. In a 
seminal moment in the history 
of 
American 
democracy, 
the 

federalists peacefully conceded 
power, signifying that the voice of 
the American people was second 
to none in our great nation. In 
doing so, a powerful precedent 
was set that has stood for over 
200 years now. In America, peace 
and 
democracy 
would 
reign 

supreme over chaos and violence. 
In America, ballots would be more 
powerful than bullets.

Thomas Jefferson heralded this 

peaceful revolution and did his 
best to bridge the divide among the 

American public in his 
first inaugural speech, 
stating, “We are all 
Republicans, we are 
all 
Federalists. 
If 

there be any among 
us who would wish 
to 
dissolve 
this 

Union or to change 
its 
republican 

form, 
let 
them 

stand 
undisturbed 

as 
monuments 
of 

the safety with which error of 
opinion may be tolerated where 
reason is left free to combat it.”

Make no mistake, Trump is 

the embodiment of this error in 
opinion. As Jefferson eloquently 
stated, it is his right as an 
American citizen to preach his 
beliefs, no matter how nonsensical 
some of his claims may be. Yet, 
unfortunately for Trump, there 
is still plenty of reason left in our 
world to combat his falsehoods.

While Trump has created 

a laundry list of questionable 
statements over the past year and 
a half, his claim that the election 
is rigged is ludicrous. Plain and 
simple. In fact, the amount of voter 
fraud in our country is amazingly 
small in comparison to the 
number of ballots cast throughout 
our various election cycles. In 
an op-ed for the Washington 
Post in 2014, Justin Levitt, a 
professor focusing on election 
administration at the Loyola Law 
School in Los Angeles, claimed to 
have found only 31 instances of 
election fraud since the year 2000. 
Keep in mind the massive scope 
of our electoral process as “more 
than 1 billion ballots were cast 
in that period.” While virtually 
no margin of victory could be 
explained by such a small amount 
of voter fraud, recent polls have 
shown Trump trailing by as many 
as 11 points, making his claims 
truly laughable.

Though plenty of things could 

change between now and Nov. 
8, it’s quite obvious that as of 
today, the American people prefer 
Hillary Clinton. Yet, Trump’s 
ego seems to prevent him from 
acknowledging 
this 
possibility. 

Instead, he continues to handle the 
situation with the grace and charm 

of an 11-year-old boy throwing his 
controller at a wall and attempting 
to hit reset on a video game that he is 
losing before it officially concludes. 

Not only is this behavior 

far from presidential, it is flat-
out dangerous. In possibly the 
most contentious election in the 
history of American politics, these 
baseless claims do nothing but 
spread further seeds of division 
throughout our nation. Keeping 
in mind that Trump himself has 
encouraged violence at his rallies 
on numerous occasions, these 
statements create an environment 
in which a violent response in the 
aftermath of the election is a real 
possibility. In fact, Milwaukee 
County Sheriff David Clarke Jr., 
a prominent Trump supporter, 
has 
responded 
to 
Trump’s 

claims of a rigged system by 
insisting that it’s “pitchforks and 
torches time” in America.

Thankfully, 
reason 
has 

prevailed and voices from both 
sides of the aisle have been quick 
to discredit this type of violent 
rhetoric 
and 
the 
validity 
of 

Trump’s claims. As Sen. Lindsey 
Graham (R–S.C.) stated, “Mr. 
Trump is doing the party and 
country a great disservice by 
continuing to suggest the outcome 
of this election is out of his hands 
and ‘rigged’ against him. If he 
loses, it will not be because the 
system is ‘rigged’ but because he 
failed as a candidate.”

Yet no matter how many voices 

of reason emerge in the coming 
weeks, Donald Trump is the 
only man who can put this issue 
to bed. Ironically, it seems that 
the head of the party of Lincoln 
should take notes from the 
man who fell to Honest Abe in 
the election of 1860, Stephen 
Douglas, 
who 
congratulated 

Lincoln after the election when 
he claimed that, “Partisan feeling 
must yield to patriotism. I am 
with you Mr. President, and God 
bless you.” There’s a very good 
chance that Mr. Trump will have 
the opportunity to showcase his 
patriotism on election night. If 
that’s the case, he won’t need to 
make America great. He’ll need 
to keep it great, and concede.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 27, 2016

How Trump threatens our democracy

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

The election cycle is too damn long

BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN

A

pril 
12, 
2015, 
Hillary 

Clinton announced her 
candidacy for president 

of the United States. That was 
one year, six months and 14 days 
ago; 563 days have come and gone 
since then and there are still 13 left 
to go before Election Day. Think 
about how long ago 
that was — 563 days 
ago, the University of 
Michigan’s 
campus 

was focused on the 
controversial showing 
of “American Sniper,” 
“Style” by Taylor Swift 
was at the top of the 
charts, Jon Stewart was 
still behind the desk at 
the Daily Show and the 
world was just meeting 
Caitlyn Jenner. Clinton’s campaign 
was not even the first; Ted Cruz 
launched his almost three weeks 
earlier. So, rather than pile on to the 
mountain of political commentary 
that will dominate social media, 
cable news and late night television 
between now and Nov. 8, I would 
like to take this time to state what 
should 
be 
obvious: 
American 

election cycles are far too long.

Statistically speaking, if you’re 

reading this, you probably know 
who you’re voting for. Some 
estimates place the number of 
undecided 
voters 
somewhere 

between 2 and 12 percent. If, by 
some chance, you are undecided, 
feel free to stop reading this article 
and go read something else that 
will help you make up your mind. 
There are lots out there. Seriously, 
go. For those who stayed: When 
we hear about how polarized this 
election cycle has been, about the 
experience of voter fatigue or 
how a debate performance failed 
to sway anyone from one camp 
to another, it should come as no 
surprise. Eighteen months worth 
of news, primary and general 
debates, conventions and SNL 
impressions have slowly pushed 
Americans to one side or another 
and locked them in place.

All the while, an industry 

worth billions — between ad buys, 
campaign contributions and events 
that have crisscrossed the nation 
— has grown. As a self-diagnosed 
political junkie, this is not the worst 
news for me. Since well before the 
primaries, I have watched nearly 
all of the primary debates, listened 
to the podcasts that recapped 
them and then read the articles 
that previewed the next one. But 

not all Americans are political 
science majors. Most just want this 
election to be over.

Voter fatigue, though, is far from 

the most problematic issue of this 
marathon-esque election cycle. In 
order to run a successful campaign, 
not only does a candidate have to 

decide 
on 
running, 

craft 
their 
message 

(which 
will 
likely 

change with current 
events) 
and 
begin 

developing a strategy 
more than two years 
in advance, but they 
also have to have the 
resources 
to 
keep 

the lights on in their 
campaign office for 
a year and a half. 

They have to pay their campaign 
managers and press secretaries 
and field organizers for a year 
and a half. They have to pay for 
buses and planes to take them 
from Iowa to New Hampshire to 
Florida to Ohio to Nevada.

Simply put, the sheer length 

of the election cycle has put an 
unbelievable price tag on running 
for president. It’s not a problem 
we see in most elections, as 
wealthy donors pull most of the 
weight, and in this election cycle 
both candidates have substantial 
personal wealth. But the question 
remains: What kind of candidates 
have been priced out of running? 
And 
could 
candidates 
like 

Independent presidential nominee 
Evan McMullin or Green Party 
presidential nominee Jill Stein be 
more competitive if they were not 
out-flanked by two organizations 
that have been fundraising and 
growing for over a year and a 
half? Successful campaigns are 
about long-term fundraising and 
organization of volunteers, rallies, 
appearances and policy speeches. 
Both major parties can afford an 
18-month long campaign, but third 
parties and independent campaigns, 
with the exception of Ross Perot, 
a 1992 independent presidential 
candidate and businessman, do not 
have the stamina or funds necessary 
to run that long of a race.

Another issue with this timetable 

is less of a disservice to the American 
voter and more a disservice to 
the man who currently sits in the 
Oval Office. Nearly one quarter 
of Barack Obama’s eight years of 
governing have been overshadowed 
by the circus that is this campaign. 
In column inches, airtime and 

energy spent by both major parties, 
speculation about what will happen 
on Nov. 8 has commandeered what 
little public energy was left for 
the president and the project of 
running the country. Part of the 
reason the election has been able 
to so successfully stifle President 
Obama is that the public has no 
concern for what’s happening on 
Capitol Hill and all the attention 
in the world for Donald Trump’s 
lewd comments or Hillary Clinton’s 
WikiLeaks. The public has been 
convinced that governing takes 
place in the first 100 days of an 
administration, and what remains 
of the president’s four years is spent 
gearing up for the next election.

The New York Times’s Emma 

Roller pointed out that, in the nearly 
600 days it will take to elect the 
45th president of the United States, 
“we could have instead hosted 
approximately 
four 
Mexican 

elections, seven Canadian elections, 
14 British elections, 14 Australian 
elections or 41 French elections.” 
Nearly all of these countries have 
legally defined election cycles. 
They judge their candidates just 
like we do, but they judge them over 
months or weeks rather than years, 
so when it comes time to go to the 
polls, they’re not as disenchanted.

Of course, the American system 

requires candidates to undergo 
intense, long-lasting scrutiny and 
prove their stamina. It provides 
voters every opportunity to educate 
themselves about a candidate and 
allows for each party to carefully 
select its candidate with input from 
all 50 states. It forces candidates to 
prove that they are able to become 
the leader of the free world, both 
physically and mentally. But I have 
a tough time believing that all of 
that could not be accomplished in a 
period of nine months.

In all likelihood, the process 

will be a bit longer next cycle 
than it was this time around, and 
a bit longer the next. Maybe this 
election, in which the two most 
disliked candidates in history are 
running, will prove too exhausting 
to the electorate and there will be a 
change to the status quo. That’s the 
optimist in me talking.

Now to the realist in me: Do a 

quick Google search on “president 
2020” and see how many results 
pop up. It’s already started.

BRETT 

GRAHAM

LAURA SCHINAGLE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN 

and REGAN DETWILER 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller

Minsoo Kim

Payton Luokkala

Kit Maher

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Lauren Schandevel

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

L

ast Saturday, Penn State 
University 
shocked 
the 

college 
football 
world 

with 
an 
improbable 

upset over Ohio State 
University 
in 
State 

College, Pa., the town 
popularly 
known 

as 
Happy 
Valley. 

Despite being 20-point 
underdogs, the Nittany 
Lions 
defeated 
the 

Buckeyes by a score 
of 24-21. To celebrate 
the unexpected — and, 
as many pundits are 
describing it, program-defining — 
win, students and fans took to the 
streets of State College to celebrate. 
However, it didn’t take long for 
celebrations to spiral out of hand.

According 
to 
the 
Daily 

Collegian, Penn State’s student 
newspaper, 
up 
to 
10,000 

people joined the riots, causing 
thousands of dollars in damage 
by 
night’s 
end. 
During 
the 

demonstrations, 
“street 
signs 

were ripped out of the ground 
and tossed in the air by the 
crowd, small fires in the street 
were started, several street lights 
were damaged and one vehicle 
was vandalized.” To disperse the 
crowd, police unleashed pepper 
spray and smoke in a method they 
described as “30 to 45 minutes 
of pain,” as opposed to getting 
“hands-on with the individuals.”

When the dust settled after 

hours of rioting, no one was 
detained overnight. Police did, 
however, visit a fraternity house 
after following a particularly 
raucous rioter, but they left 
without making any arrests, 
deciding to call it “even.” 

One commenter, remarking 

on the demonstrations, said, 
“As long as no kids got raped, 
I’d say it was a good day.” While 
his comment was particularly 
insensitive, the general gist of 
most responses seemed to be that 
Saturday was a night of youthful 
fun, not a night of violence.

Similar scenes over the past 

few years — from Baltimore 
to 
Ferguson, 
Oakland 
to 

Raleigh — have not been met 

with such a warm 
reception. Instead of 
characterizing rioters 
as excited youngsters 
simply 
expressing 

their elation in an 
interesting 
way, 

these protesters were 
often called “thugs” 
and 
“animals.” 

Consequently, 
the 
same 
crimes 

(disturbing the peace, 

larceny, etc.) were met with much 
harsher punishments. In my 
opinion, this dichotomy between 
reactions is overwhelmingly due 
to the different demographics 
between 
State 
College 
and 

the cities where many similar 
demonstrations have occurred.

According 
to 
city-data.com, 

State College is almost 80-percent 
white and less than 5-percent 
Black. On the other hand, Ferguson, 
Mo. — perhaps the most famous 
case of the recent unrests — is over 
63-percent Black. Yet, only about 5 
percent of Ferguson’s police force is 
Black. This suggests some obvious 
problems, stemming from the 
fact that the police force does 
not represent the community it 
serves. Additionally, this suggests 
that the different reactions from 
the police could have had been 
rooted in the racial makeup of the 
force and its constituents.

Studies 
have 
shown 
that 

Americans 
harbor 
inherent 

racial 
biases 
toward 
certain 

demographic 
groups 
(in 
this 

case, Black people). Among these, 
white people have the highest bias 
scores against Black people, while 
Black people were the only group 
that held a favorable view toward 
Black people. Obviously, I’m not 
calling all white people racist. In 
fact, I know next to no overtly 
racist people of any race. However, 
inherent biases come out in times 
of high stress. When groups of 
African Americans congregate 

and it’s the task of an almost 
entirely white police force to quell 
the unrest, slight prejudices among 
individual police officers add up to 
make a big difference. Officers saw 
African Americans protesting in 
Ferguson as hostile actors, while 
white students in State College 
weren’t seen as “thugs.” Most 
likely, the officers in State College 
could more easily see themselves 
in the protesters, prompting much 
nicer reactions.

Finally, a comparison wouldn’t 

be complete without evaluating the 
different motives for the protests. 
In cities like Ferguson, people 
protested because of what they — 
and I — felt were the unjust killings 
of defenseless Black people: a 
protest that had the sole mission 
of granting equality to millions 
of discriminated Americans. The 
riots at Penn State, however, had no 
end goal. Students and fans simply 
took out their emotions on the 
town around them. The outcomes 
were the same (destroyed property 
and people hurt), yet only one 
group was labeled as “thugs.” 
Ironically, that group was the one 
that was protesting for legitimate 
reasons, not the one that protested 
for no real reason. Perhaps, sadly, 
the irony dissipates when we 
realize the “thugs” were primarily 
Black, who were characterized that 
way not because of their actions 
(if that were case, more people 
would be calling the Penn State 
protesters thugs) but because of 
the color of their skin.

While you can be for or against 

any form of rioting, it doesn’t seem 
right to give certain groups a pass 
while others are condemned for 
the same action. When different 
groups are guilty of the same 
crime, they should all be handed 
the same punishment. And any 
deviation 
from 
this 
standard 

is a recipe for, or more likely a 
revelation of, discrimination.

Jason Rowland can be reached at 

jerow@umich.edu. 

A celebration or a riot?

JASON ROWLAND | COLUMN

Jeff Brooks can be reached at 

brooksjs@umich.edu. 

JEFF BROOKS | COLUMN

Brett Graham can be reached at 

btgraham@umich.edu.

JASON 

ROWLAND

JEFF 

BROOKS

