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