“

Have you registered to vote?” 
is an impossible question 
to escape. I’ve found that I 

can’t walk through the Diag, scroll 
through Instagram or even order 
a pizza without encountering 
some iteration of this question. 
Dominating nearly every space, 
it certainly is a pertinent question 
given our current environment. 
Assuming the answer to this 
question is yes, as we transition 
into this election and prepare for 
electoral outcomes, we need to 
ask ourselves a different question: 
What is our role in making this 
nation a functioning and healthy 
democracy? 

A healthy democracy requires 

far more than just electoral 
participation, 
including 
the 

ongoing intellectual and physical 
engagement 
of 
an 
informed 

citizenry. Think of it this way 
— as students, we need to do 
more than just register for the 
semester and pick our preferred 
classes; participation like staying 
informed, having discussions and 
completing other course tasks 
are essential to succeed both in a 
course and in democratic society. 
While voting is essential, using 
our voices through other means of 
engagement can further progress 
our country toward justice and 
equality — the highest ideals of 
democracy.

Simply put, voting is a civic 

duty: something we should see as 
a first step or baseline of political 
participation if we have the 
privilege to vote. In particular, as 
a white, cisgender man, I believe 
it is my duty to vote, as voting 
is one of many tools to amplify 
and represent the voices of those 
who are otherwise silenced in 
government and the electoral 
process 
by 
gerrymandering, 

iterations 
of 
poll 
taxes 
for 

the 
formerly 
incarcerated, 

racially targeted polling station 
closures, other forms of voter 
suppression and more. I can use 
my privilege to support and vote 
for candidates who commit to 
expanding the franchise. I can 
have conversations with those 
who can’t vote and consider 
their perspective on ballot issues 
and candidates. I can vote for 
candidates who I believe will 
enact systemic change.

Voting 
has 
the 
potential 

to make change through the 
electoral process. At the very least, 
it can publicly signal approval 
or disapproval of a candidate or 
set of ideas. While a candidate or 
party may not satisfy all or even 
most of my policy preferences, 
I don’t believe it’s fair to let my 
ideals blind me from the reality 
others may face as a consequence 
of my non-voting. 

That being said, voter shaming, 

or bullying people into voting, 
does little to motivate non-
voters, often fails to recognize 
the 
difficulties 
and 
barriers 

that exist for many and can turn 
off people, even usual voters, 
from voting in the future. Voter 
shaming has taken many forms 
over the years, from callout posts 
on Instagram to postcards with 
voting records attached. This 
unproductive behavior should 
be modified. Recognizing any 
inherent privilege we may have 
and 
refocusing 
on 
positive 

motivations 
for 
voting 
will 

bring more people into the 
fold of electoral politics and 
democratic society.

While voting in national 

elections is a necessary civic 
duty, a functional democracy 
needs 
more 
than 
people 

showing up to vote once every 
four years. In our democratic 
republic, 
we 
elect 
officials 

who 
theoretically 
represent 

us in federal politics. After an 
election, we are left to consider 
members of Congress relatively 
unaccountable until their next 

election cycle. While we can’t 
recall members of Congress 
via election, contacting them 
about issues you care about by 
calling or writing their offices, 
sending emails or using services 
like ResistBot can actually have 
a significant effect on the way 
elected officials vote. I urge 
everyone to find issues they 
care about —whether they be 
racial justice in the United 
States, solidarity with Armenia, 
the environmental crisis or 
practically anything else — 
and call your congressional 
representatives daily or weekly. 

An action as simple as leaving 

a message for a staffer to pass 
along or having a conversation 
with a college intern, while 
both fun and frustrating, can 
ultimately push our Congress 
and democracy to listen more 
closely to the people it claims 
to represent. If we all took 
the four to six minutes of our 
day to make these calls, public 
officials would have no choice 
but to rethink some of their 
less favorable positions and be 
more representative of their 
constituents. 

In addition to conventional 

politics, 
activist 
work 
is 

imperative to steer our country 
and government to be one that 
is truly functional, healthy and 
just. Silence on issues that do 
not affect us directly is what 

created our current situation: a 
system that only supports those 
already in privileged groups. 
While I am not suggesting people 
spend the entirety of their free 
time taking to the streets to 
protest in person, it is crucial 
to consider the reality of those 
who have no choice but to do so 
to survive, like those targeted for 
their race or gender identity or 
those evicted from housing.

A multitude of options exist 

besides 
protesting: 
providing 

mutual aid, writing awareness 
pieces, 
having 
difficult 

discussions with friends and 
family, standing up for classmates 
and many other methods. I 
urge everyone to find ways 
to get involved in protesting, 
organizing 
or 
supporting 

the work of others. Work we 
do 
outside 
the 
conventional 

electoral norms, especially in 
terms of independent impact, is 
equally if not more important 
than what happens at the polls.

Looking for ways to get 

involved? 
There 
are 
plenty 

of 
brilliant 
initiatives 
and 

organizations at the University 
of Michigan and beyond that are 
working to create a more just 
and functional democracy, both 
through electoral politics and 
other means. The Prison Birth 
Project, a student organization 
that “aims to inspire students 
and community members to 
advocate 
for 
incarcerated 

mothers and birthing people,” 
is an example of a student 
organization 
working 
to 

better the community through 
participation. The PBP uses tools 
like pressuring elected officials 
into action and providing direct 
aid to help make the justice 
system actually judicial and 
aid incarcerated mothers and 
birthing people. Other advocacy 
groups like Students Demand 
Action and Students Demand 
Representation 
use 
similar 

methods to make their voices 
heard. These groups and efforts 
are what make democracy work 
beyond the use of the ballot.

Overall, 
participation 
in 

electoral processes and other 
avenues of engagement is vital 
to the health of our democracy. 
When we use our voice to help 
our peers in whatever capacity 
we can, we take another step 
toward creating a government 
by the people and for the people, 
and a society that truly values 
and respects all of its members. 
Like with our education, our 
democratic society will reap 
the benefits we sow. We need 
a student mindset of growth, 
change and constant learning 
to put our society on the right 
track. Get ready to vote, and get 
ready for what comes next.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, October 21, 2020 — 10

Banana Republicans

MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN

Respect American institutions

LYDIA STORELLA | COLUMN

Andrew Gerace can be reached at 

agerace@umich.edu.

Vote if you can, use your voice for those who can’t

ANDREW GERACE | COLUMN

D

uring the 12 years that 
followed the adoption 
of the Constitution, the 

two men who served as president 
were the nominally independent 
but Federalist-inclined George 
Washington, followed by his 
vice 
president, 
Federalist 

John 
Adams. 
During 
these 

administrations, 
an 
opposing 

party 
— 
the 
Democratic-

Republicans — solidified under 
the 
leadership 
of 
Thomas 

Jefferson and James Madison. 

In 
1800, 
the 
Democratic-

Republicans fielded Jefferson 
as 
their 
standard-bearer 
to 

oppose President Adams. The 
1800 presidential campaign was 
a notorious mudsling — perhaps 
one of the dirtiest presidential 
elections our republic has seen — 
and resulted in Jefferson’s victory 
over the incumbent Adams. The 
eyes of Americans, and the world, 
fell upon the capital. Would 
Adams and his Federalist allies 
cede their power? 

Adams 
and 
Jefferson, 
at 

this time, had a bitter personal 
rivalry, and it was matched by 
the political chasm between the 
Federalists 
and 
Democratic-

Republicans. But on March 4, 
1801, Jefferson was inaugurated 
as the third president of the 
United States without delay.

The 1800 presidential election 

is sometimes referred to as 
the “Revolution of 1800.” It is 
called this because it was the 
first time that power exchanged 
hands between parties at the 
national level, and crucially, it 
exchanged 
hands 
peacefully. 

The Federalists knew they had 

lost, and they respected the 

democratic process. It proved 
that the American Revolution’s 
republican drive — to this point 
untested — was realizable. The 
American 
experiment 
could 

work. 

220 
years 
and 
20 
such 

exchanges later, it appears that 
tradition could be in danger. 

President Trump has, on many 

occasions now, insinuated that 
the presidential election will be 
fraught with voter fraud from 
mail-in ballots. He has repeatedly 
claimed “the ballots are out of 
control,” called the ballots a 
“scam” and accused Democrats 
of harboring this knowledge. 

The president has even flirted 

with 
rejecting 
the 
electoral 

outcome should Joe Biden win 

on Nov. 3. When asked point 
blank during a White House 
press briefing in late September 
whether 
he’d 
commit 
to 
a 

peaceful transition of power, 
Trump 
gave 
an 
astounding 

answer: “Well, we’re going to 
have to see what happens.”

There is a right way, and 

only one right way, for a sitting 
U.S. president to respond to 
that question. “Of course, I 
am committed to a peaceful 
transition of power, just as every 
president before me. That’s the 
bedrock of American democracy. 
What a ridiculous question.”

Unfortunately for our nation’s 

proud republican legacy, that 
an American president may not 
concede defeat and voluntarily 
give up his power is a legitimate 
concern in 2020. Since 1800, 
with 
the 
exception 
of 
the 

outbreak of the Civil War, our 
government has always accepted 
election results and willingly 
transferred power when defeated 
by an opposing party. Trump’s 
repeated failure to respect this 
legacy ought to shock and disgust 
every American.

The vast majority of what 

comes out of Trump’s mouth is 
bluster and nonsense. There is a 
real and frightening possibility, 
however, that he truly means 
what he’s saying here. But how 
would Trump’s rejection of a 
Biden victory theoretically work? 
And more importantly, could he 
actually pull it off?

Trump is already laying the 

groundwork for this sort of power 
grab. He’s started by discrediting 
mail-in voting, suggesting that it 
will lead to voter fraud of massive 
proportions (even though mail-in 
voting is one of the safest ways 
to vote right now.) We know 
that Biden voters are more likely 
than Trump voters to use mail-in 
voting for the upcoming general 
election. Trump knows this too, 
and should he lose, will likely use 
it to fuel the narrative that many 
mail-in votes were fraudulent. 
As such, Trump’s pre-planned 
narrative appears to be that a 
hypothetical Biden victory, the 
product of mail-in fraud, will be 
illegitimate. 

So, how exactly would Trump 

go about stealing the election? 
The answer is tied to our terribly 
flawed mechanism of electing 
presidents: the electoral college. 
According to the Constitution, 

individual 
state 
legislatures 

are charged with appointing 
electors to the electoral college. 
Historically, 
the 
winner 
of 

the popular vote in each state 
receives that state’s electoral 
votes. But — and this is the big 
but — state legislatures still 
reserve the right to select their 
own electors, regardless of the 
popular vote outcome. 

So, if Trump screams on Nov. 

4 that rampant voter fraud cost 
him the popular vote in key 
battleground states, it could 
potentially be followed by a 
recommendation 
that 
state 

legislatures appoint pro-Trump 
electors, so as to deliver the 
“correct” electoral result. In 
Michigan, 
Pennsylvania 
and 

Wisconsin 
— 
blue-leaning 

states that could deliver the 
decisive 
electoral 
votes 
for 

a Biden victory — both the 
State Houses and Senates are 
controlled by Republicans. If 
they “determine” that Biden 
won through fraudulent mail-
in votes and decide to “correct” 
the situation themselves, there’s 
a real scenario where they try to 
bypass election day results and 
deliver their electors to Donald 
Trump.

What is most disturbing about 

all of this is that massive voter 
fraud is absolute fiction. The 
apocalyptic 
scenario 
(already 

being peddled by Republican 
soothsayers) of rampant mail-
in fraud tainting the election 
in Biden’s favor is a design to 
mar a fair Trump loss. Don’t 
take my word for it. Take Ellen 
Weintraub’s word for it: As the 
commissioner of the Federal 
Election 
Commission 
said, 

“There’s simply no basis for the 
conspiracy theory that voting by 
mail causes fraud.”

That’s all this is. A conspiracy 

theory, peddled by Trump and 
promoted by Republicans, aimed 
at preemptively discrediting a 
legitimate Biden victory and 
stealing the election. At the 
end of the day, Trump and his 
minions don’t give a damn about 
our democracy. These folks are 
willing to lie — and in doing so, 
soil the democratic tradition 
America has had since 1800 — if 
it means keeping power. There’s a 
word for that: treason.

A

fter news broke that an 
anti-government militia 
had plotted to kidnap 

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, I was 
sent a clip of an interview with 
Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf 
regarding the news of the arrest 
of Michael and William Null, two 
of the suspects in this case. Leaf 
knows William Null through a 
rally protesting Whitmer’s stay-
at-home order, which became a 
topic of conversation when Leaf 
was interviewed by Fox 17. 

When 
asked 
whether 
he 

regrets sharing a stage with 
someone charged in a plot to 
kidnap 
Whitmer, 
Leaf 
said, 

“It’s just a charge, and they say 
a ‘plot to kidnap’ and you got to 
remember that. Are they trying 
to kidnap … Because you can still 
in Michigan if it’s a felony, make a 
felony arrest.”

Leaf 
diminished 
the 

kidnapping attempt on Whitmer 
as an attempt of arrest. In 
the same interview, he uses 
a Michigan law that states 
that private persons can make 
arrests in certain situations to 
make this case. Leaf believes 
this kidnapping plot could be 
reasonable, 
and 
even 
legal, 

because of the anger towards 
Whitmer 
and 
her 
executive 

orders concerning COVID-19. 

This mindset in excusing a 

kidnapping attempt as a citizen’s 
arrest is the same mindset that led 
to the plot in the first place. There 
is a lack of faith in institutions 
that has led to a lack of trust in 
government. This distrust of 
American 
institutions 
comes 

from the severe polarization 
that exists in the United States 
today. People see the actions of 
members of the opposite party 
as illegitimate, which leads to 
suspicion of the institutions that 
allowed those actions to occur. 
Whitmer is a Democrat, while the 
people involved in the attempt to 
kidnap her are linked to a right-
wing militia group. 

The plot to kidnap Whitmer 

stems from a belief that the 
actions she took to prevent 
the spread of COVID-19 made 
her a tyrant and in violation 
of the Constitution. Because 
Whitmer was committing a 
crime, the men accused in 
this kidnapping plot believe 
they were taking legal action 
to arrest and try her for 
the crimes she committed. 
The 
view 
certain 
citizens 

have — that the institutions 
allowing Whitmer to make 
these executive orders are 
illegitimate — have created 
backlash 
against 
these 

institutions as we know them 
to exist. 

On May 6, the Michigan 

Legislature filed suit against 
Whitmer 
challenging 
her 

emergency orders regarding 
COVID-19 as “improper and 
invalid”; the plot to kidnap 
Whitmer began to take shape 
June 20, about a month and 
a half after. People who have 
faith in institutions do not 
subvert legal processes with 
illegal action. 

Not 
everyone 
defines 

legality the same way. The 
U.S. government and I do not 
believe that this attempt to 
kidnap the governor is legal. 
But others, such as Leaf, 
believe that rather than kidnap 
Whitmer, the accused might 
have been trying to arrest 
her for felony charges. This 
is not to say that Leaf’s views 
are valid, but because he is a 
sheriff and therefore someone 
in a position of authority, they 
cannot be dismissed. As law 
enforcement, sheriffs must be 
accountable to the law as it is 
interpreted by legal systems, 
not personal definition. 

This is why a lack of faith 

in 
our 
institutions 
is 
so 

dangerous. If people are not 
in agreement that we must 
respect our basic institutions, 

we live in a state of ambiguity 
about our laws. The role of the 
citizen is not to interpret the 
laws, but to change the laws 
they find unjust through other 
democratic functions. But what 
do we do when people disagree 
about 
what 
democratic 

functions are?

The suspects in the plot 

to 
kidnap 
Whitmer 
had 

previously expressed dissent in 
a constitutional and democratic 
way; the Null brothers were 
involved in protests in Lansing 
against Whitmer’s executive 
orders. Unfortunately for the 
Null brothers, concrete plans 
to kidnap a U.S. governor, or 
anyone, are not included in the 
right to protest. 

Our country will not be able 

to withstand a citizenry that 
does not respect its institutions. 
Intolerance 
encourages 
and 

enables people to engage in 
whatever activity they see fit 
because they do not believe 
in the legitimacy of American 
institutions. The motivation 
to behave in accordance with 
what our institutions mandate 
disappears when respect for 
them disappears. 

Belief that the government is 

illegitimate leads to dangerous 
ways of thinking. It allows 
people to think that illegal 
action they take is acceptable 
because the law itself is wrong. 
In the case of Whitmer, the 
suspects believe they could 
enforce the law, and define 
what terms in the law mean, 
because they disagree with the 
actions Whitmer took. 

In 
order 
for 
American 

society to remain stable, both 
citizens 
and 
government 

officials 
must 
respect 
our 

institutions and express our 
grievances through accepted 
means of dissent.

Lydia Storella can be reached at 

storella@umich.edu.

ANNA GETZINGER | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT GETZINGA@UMICH.EDU

Silence on issues 
that do not affect 

us directly is 

what created our 
current situation.

Max Steinbaum can be reached at 

maxst@umich.edu.

