“Will we even have future elections?”
It comes up regularly in meetings and zoom calls I’ve participated in. Sometimes as a throwaway line. Sometimes more seriously.
And it’s a dangerous question.
Not because we won’t have elections.
But because if enough people start to believe that the answer is “no,” then they won’t engage. They won’t prepare. They won’t bother. And the loss in the elections that do take place becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Trump sparked this precise effect in the Georgia run-offs for US Senate in January 2021).
Of course….we can’t know for sure what will happen in the coming years, let alone days and weeks. And we should be prepared for a continued parade of terrible actions by Trump and his henchmen.
But we do know the model that Republicans have been following for years.
And that model tells us that we will have elections.
That today’s autocrats and autocrat-wannabes need to have elections.
So what’s the real risk?
It’s that while their model includes elections, it also incorporates inappropriate and anti-democratic tactics that tilt those elections in their favor even when they’re in the minority.
Which means that openly bemoaning that we won’t have elections at all is a trap. It risks self-defeating under-engagement, when we must do the opposite.
We must fiercely engage….now and going forward…and do everything in our power to assure that fair and meaningful elections take place, and that we win them!
The Model: “Competitive Autocracy”
The American right-wing is following a specific model of governance, which I summarized in Laboratories of Autocracy:
Political scientists call it “competitive” autocracy or authoritarianism, and it’s a system that locks a minority into power without the brute force of police states or apartheid regimes. It’s alive and well in numerous countries today.
And in one way, it’s even more dangerous. Because on the surface it looks legitimate. The formal process of elections takes place. Millions vote. Results are generally covered as legitimate, and celebrated or bemoaned accordingly. The losers concede. The winner takes or stays in power, thanking the voters for their support.
But it fails to reflect the will of the people, because the rules are so rigged in one side’s favor that the other side had no chance at victory from the start.
Two scholars, Lucan Way and Steven Levitsky, described the phenomenon back in 2002, citing numerous examples at the time: Russia, Ukraine, Serbia and others. In those countries:
“formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy.”
And as Zack Beauchamp explains, despite the undemocratic reality, a key to these systems’ survival is to “[convinc[e] citizens that they are living in a democracy. That’s how they maintain their legitimacy and prevent popular uprisings.” Maintaining a formal election process remains critical, even if in many states, the “political systems [] no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections.” To talk brass tacks, you don’t de-register everyone like they did in the South by 1904. You don’t run an election that’s a sham on its face. But you change enough rules, eliminate enough voters through voter ID and purging, rig enough districts, and systematically target your opponent’s favored mode of voting (e.g., early in-person, dropboxes, etc.) that the outcome is still guaranteed, and you never lose control, in election after election. At the state level in places like Ohio, at least, where decades of elections were pre-determined in rooms in 2011, politics already feels eerily close to this description.
One of the most prominent examples of an autocracy founded on competitive authoritarianism is Hungary, led by prime minister Viktor Orbán. Over a decade, Orbán and his party have locked out the opposition with a variety of tools: gerrymandering—his party enjoyed a two-thirds supermajority in parliament even after winning less than half of the vote; attacks on the courts; attacks on an independent media; and takeover of other institutions such as the country’s electoral commission. Still, since Orbán has not used the tactics seen in more aggressive autocracies, Hungary is treated as a peer by Western nations even though it no longer functions as a viable democracy. So, the fact that Tucker Carlson, the most watched right-wing commentator on cable TV, spent early August 2021 fawning over Hungary and Orbán’s leadership is no fluke. As Beauchamp writes: “Many conservative intellectuals in America have come to see the Orbán regime as a model for America.””
What We Do
So if Orban-style “competitive autocracy” is their model—and that’s only become more clear since I wrote the words above—then what it tells us is that we will have elections. Like Orban, they actually want and need elections so they can assert legitimacy and claim mandates for their actions. They can tell the people—“what we are doing is what you voted for.”
Our challenge is to fight like hell to make sure that, to use Beauchamp’s words above, those elections “meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections.” Because again, following the Orban model and those of other competitive autocracies, their goal is to do the opposite.
And that means, rather than assuming we won't have elections, that we must gear up for future elections in every way—both to protect them, and to win them politically.
First, we must overcome the many obstacles they’ve already put in the way of fair and free elections.
Second, we must rally to stop them from further hollowing out our elections.
Third, we must recruit and run effectively for upcoming elections far more broadly than we typically do—with the goal of removing them from power wherever possible, and building a mandate and margins so one-sided that they can’t overcome them through future suppression or rushing to the courts (as they are still doing in North Carolina).
Specifically, then, what does this mean we should do?
Here are a few thoughts:
Appreciate that the SAVE Act, an egregious voter suppression bill before Congress, presents a true threat to free and fair elections. It’s the exact type of tactic that “competitive autocracies” enact so they can secure election victories without securing majority support. So, when House and Senate Republicans push forward on it, we must mount as much protest and opposition as possible.
Secure wins in elections for posts that impact the rules and laws of democracy. That’s one reason the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court race is so important—because that court will make decisions about everything from election rules to gerrymandering in a crucial swing state. Same story in other states.
Help voters overcome obstacles to voting. Even if the SAVE Act doesn’t pass, there are so many ways that voters are already being suppressed by GOP state-level laws. In addition to fighting against their passage, we also must combat their effects by engaging Americans impacted by these laws. How?
Use your footprint, network and organizations to register and engage voters wherever you are. I provide a lot more detail on how to do so HERE
Organize every precinct we can—it’s the single most effective way to register and engage voters, and mobilize folks to show up in future elections. Far more on how to to this HERE.
Support organizations such as VoteRiders (working to furnish voters with IDs now required to vote) and the Civics Center (working to ensure young people are registered to vote) who are doing yeoman’s work.
To assure that elections are run freely and fairly, we must ensure that pro-democracy Americans occupy the positions that operate the internal plumbing of elections. As I write about in Saving Democracy, this includes positions such as poll workers, canvassing boards, election boards; local or county election administrators, supervisors, and clerks (in 2021 in Pennsylvania, where some of these posts are elected, many of these seats went unopposed, allowing election-deniers to win just by running, or as write-in candidates); ballot adjuticators, and so on. Of these formal election roles across the country, approximately 60 percent are partisan (political parties fill the roles); the rest nonpartisan. In most states, it’s a combination of the two.
We need champions of democracy—and a new generation—to sign up for these roles for the long haul. We need trained and experienced advocates performing these functions every year, confident enough to stand for fair elections and stand up to whatever nonsense—planned or non-planned—may be thrown their way. If we don’t step up and serve, an election-denier will—or, just as concerning, the job won’t get done, which may lead to poll closures or disruptions to counting votes and certifying elections.
So if you are passionate for democracy and interested in serving in any of these roles, check with your local political party and/or election board to see how various roles are filled where you live. (See the resources listed below.)
I’ve provided far more information on these roles and how you can step up HERE.
As I write about often, we must contest offices everywhere, at all levels. The biggest risk of elections being cancelled in America is in the places where we choose not to run—allowing anti-democracy extremists to return to power (and continue to do damage) simply by paying a filing fee and appearing alone on the ballot, as we’ve let happen for years. Trust me, the far right loves when we let this happen all over the country.
No more! Gear up now for 2025 and 2026 races.
Much more to say, but you get it.
Bottom line: Don’t fall for the “we won’t have elections” trap. If someone suggests it at a meeting you attend, push back civilly but robustly. Trump and the far right win if we allow that mindset to take hold at any scale.
Our fight is to use our power, from this moment forward, to ensure upcoming elections are as fair and free as possible, and that we go out and win them.
Day 111 — March 22, 2025
Another day, another institution caves to the threats and shakedowns of Donald Trump. And the pattern is clear: the more powerful institutions are, the more likely they are to comply.
My law school classmate and friend David Lat shared on his substack an email from the chairman of the firm Paul Weiss (Brad Karp), where he described the situation the firm faced:
“Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.”
Karp then described how the firm had been prepared to fight this unlawful treatment out in court—but instead, they struck a deal with Trump.
The chair acknowledges that many are questioning the private firm’s giving in to government demands: “But no one in the wider world can appreciate how stressful it is to confront an executive order like this until one is directed at you.”
The words from the chair speak for themselves. The decision, and his justification, have been harshly and appropriately criticized.
I have little to add, except this perspective:
Donald Trump will absolutely love his email. The way it walks through the chairman’s justification for caving is precisely the effect Trump wants to have.
And once Trump reads it, there will be no reason in the world for him not to do the exact same thing to every law firm in America. And any other institution he wants to extort.
Mr. Karp, you not only failed your profession and the rule of law—you failed the country. Your explanation about how caving was the best choice only feeds the beast.
I have an alternative suggestion to everyone else, be they law firms or universities: rather than every institution caving one at a time, creating damaging precedents that will lead to a long, steady domino fall, take a step back, band together and resist as one.
Share this post