Elections are Pro-Violences

OK, let’s be clear. The headline may be misleading. I’m not saying that elections encourage violence. Clearly, they do not. What I am saying is that elections take place instead of violence. When two or more groups of people within a larger group disagree on how things should be run (i.e. who is the leader, how much each contributes to the group like in taxes, etc.), there are basically two options for resolving differences: they fight it out (quite literally), or they take a vote. We vote instead of killing each other. It seems civilized. In this sense elections are like pronouns. If you recall your grammar, pronouns are words like “it, she, he” that take the place of nouns. Elections take the place of violence. They are “proviolences.”

For those of us who prefer non-violence, myself included, it is very important that elections work. If they do not work to resolve disputes, then naturally violence will result. How do we ensure that elections work? It’s quite simple – all involved (or the overwhelming majority) must believe that the election was legitimate. There are several things that make elections legitimate: transparency, all eligible voters are able to vote ONCE, no non-eligible voters are voting (including dead people and non-citizens), ballots are secure and auditable, and absence of voter intimidation.

If these conditions are not met, the population may not believe the results of the election. This can result in violence. Let’s look at an extreme example. Let’s say a leader (dictator) of a country holds “a vote.” He wins with 97% of the vote; however, the people are impoverished, there is widespread corruption, and personal freedoms are routinely ignored – especially among would be political opponents or any who threaten the regime. Does the population believe that the leader actually has 97% support? Of course not. What they do not know is how many would support an uprising. Once they feel they have the numbers to remove the dictator from power, they will act violently to remove the oppressor. This has happened many times to seemingly invincible strongmen: Ceaușescu of Romania, Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, etc. Were these dictators targeted by the CIA? Maybe, but no one doubts their people despised their rule.

Think of it this way. There are two well-armed groups prepared to fight vigorously for some issue, territory, or dispute. They meet on a battlefield. One side has a clear advantage in numbers, soldiers, and weapons. The weaker side is convinced at that point to concede most points to avoid the rout. The stronger side is also encouraged to concede some small points to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. The more people who show up prepared to fight for either side helps their side win more “points.”

Sometimes surprises occur in these scenarios. If you recall the movie “Braveheart,” there was a scene where the Irish unexpectedly changed sides at the beginning of the Battle of Falkirk. While that scene was fictionalized, the point is that you often do not know the strength of your side until that strength is tested. For this reason, for centuries the leaders of both sides of conflicts would meet on the battlefield before a battle after they sized up the strength of their opponent to decide if they could resolve the dispute without killing off their own populations.

In modern times we have refined this process down to the ballot box. Instead of gathering troops on the battlefield, we simply let people cast a vote for a side in elections. If more people support candidate A, then supporters of candidate B realize that they would lose in battle so why fight. BUT what if supporters of candidate B think the vote was rigged or fraudulent. They THINK that more people actually support their candidate. In that case, the election is not serving its purpose – to demonstrate which side is stronger so as to avoid violence. For this reason, it is PARAMOUNT that all efforts be made to ensure the perception of a free and fair election is maintained. It’s not enough for the election to be fair, all must know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was. The more unfair it seems, the more likely violence will ensue. There are a couple of strong cases where this has happened in the U.S.

The only time the United States has descended into civil war was immediately after the election of 1860. In this case, the election failed in its purpose – as a substitute for violence. While there was no fraud expected in the election, the leaders of the southern states which became the Confederacy believed that the U.S. Congress (led by the Northern states) had treated them unfairly in the assignment of “slave states” and “free states;” therefore, they saw no way of winning a presidential election again after 1860. The election was in November 1860. Seven states left the Union BEFORE Lincoln was sworn into office in March of 1861. The violent U.S. Civil War started due to the failure of the election to replace violence.

More recently we saw violence following an election in McMinn County, Tennessee. In what became known as “The Battle of Athens, 1946,” armed citizens (mostly returning soldiers from World War II) surrounded the jail where the ballot boxes were being held demanding to watch with their own eyes as the votes were counted. The sheriff and his deputies, who had been suspected of voter fraud and stuffing ballot boxes for years, refused to comply with the angry mob, and a fire fight ensued. After using explosives to gain entry to the jail, the veterans were able to count the votes in front of the entire town, and it became clear that the entrenched powers had lost. In fact, they had probably been losing elections for years but were able to maintain power by simply lying about the results.

Elections are important to the peaceful coexistence of varied groups in society. Once elections are no longer trusted, it is natural that people revert to force to secure the well-being of themselves, their family, their friends, and their community. Why should the majority of people sit idly while a cheating, lying minority of the population convinces them that they are actually the majority? For this reason, EVERY EFFORT should be made to ensure that the people KNOW elections are free and fair. Those who support laws that make elections more questionable are promoting violence. This is a very dangerous game, for the people are not stupid. Those who keep a door open for possible cheating likely intend to use it.