And Now We Are Having ANOTHER Election that Both Sides Believe They Absolutely, Positively, Must Win!
Newsletter # 492 - Sept. 24, 2026
By Heidi and Guy Burgess
History on Repeat
Six years ago, in 2020, (before we were on Substack) we wrote a newsletter post entitled "What Happens When We Have an Election That Both Sides Absolutely Positively Can't Afford to Lose?" That was the election that Biden won, Trump lost, and we all know what happened on January 6, 2021 — and for the four years that followed. Trump pardoned all the people who illegally stormed the Capitol Building, calling them "patriots" and "hostages." A majority of Republican voters continued throughout Biden’s presidency to believe that his 2020 victory resulted from voter fraud, and many Republican leaders supported that claim as well. This was despite the fact that more than 60 court challenges failed to overturn the result, with judges—including judges appointed by Trump—rejecting key claims for lack of evidence or legal merit. Even Trump's own Attorney General William Barr confirmed that they Department of Justice and FBI investigations did not find fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."
Then two years ago, we wrote a second post entitled "What Happens When We Have ANOTHER Election That Both Sides Absolutely Positively Can't Afford to Lose?" We know what happened then too. Trump won, Harris lost. Many people, particularly on the Left, were expecting it to go the other way, and were certain Donald Trump would again challenge the election results. But this time there was nothing to challenge. The results were clear.
In a few short weeks the U.S. will be facing another election — an election that Democrats, Republicans, and the President all believe they absolutely, positively can't afford to lose. Democrats believe that the Trump administration has inflicted enormous damage on the United States and indeed, the whole world with his always changing and seemingly malicious tariffs, his rejection of traditional U.S. Allies, his frequent embrace of authoritarians, his arbitrary threats and use of military force, and, especially, the still intensifying repercussions of his war with Iran. This combined with his drive to undo pretty much every program or policy favored by Democrats has given them yet another election in which they feel they must do everything within their power to win.
The Republicans are perhaps not quite so desperate, as Trump is in power for another two years. But the incumbent party traditionally loses seats in Congress in off-year elections, and Trump's abysmal approval ratings make the electoral situation indeed desperate for down-ticket Republicans this year. Trump is very worried about that, because the Democrats could sharply diminish his ability to operate freely, should they win control of one or both houses of Congress. There is also the very real possibility that Congressional investigations (backed up with subpoena power) would reveal actions of the Trump administration that swing voters (and potentially even Republicans) would see as truly scandalous. Beyond this, there is the President's long-standing obsession with "winning" and his scorn of all "losers."
Democracies Can't Succeed if Loss isn't Acceptable
Clearly, this is not healthy. As we explained in Newsletter 256, democracies can't succeed if citizens believe that losing an election would be an intolerable catastrophe. Under such circumstances, the grand democratic bargain, upon which the cohesiveness of democratic societies depends, starts to collapse. Individuals, public interest groups, and political parties revert to all-out "I'll fight you for it" rules under which they feel compelled and justified in doing whatever they think will be necessary to win. Taboos against destructive, illegitimate political tactics erode, applicable laws are openly defied, and even more sinister tactics are clandestinely employed This, sadly, is the situation in which the United States now finds itself.
This is evident in the way that Trump has put himself at the center of the 2026 Republican midterm campaign, staging the party’s first-ever midterm convention and urging supporters to “pretend that I’m on the ballot.” Then, on the convention’s closing night, he led the audience in a pledge to vote that included the words, “I don’t care if I’m registered or not” and “I’m gonna try and cheat like hell like they do,” echoing his repeated claims that Democrats cheat in elections.
That was an astounding statement from a man who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He has, of course, made many astounding statements before. But his faithful still support him, because as bad as he is, they think the Democrats are worse.
That's something the Democrats should think long and hard about. How could they possibly look worse? Many assume that Trump supporters just don't have the proper "facts" because they watch Fox News. Or they assume that Trump supporters are dumb. Or they call them "haters" and write them off.
But it is those assumptions that have gotten Trump elected two times. And it is likely why, as low as Trump's approval ratings are, the Democratic Party is not doing much better. (As of Sept. 15, Trump's job approval rating is 35% approval, while the Democratic Party is only 41% favorable.) Most Trump voters don't actually like Trump, but they say he doesn't talk down to them the way the Democrats do. And he doesn't advocate for far-left policies that are anathema to conservative voters. Rather, they support what they see as his strong issues: securing the border, stopping crime, bringing jobs back to the United States, etc. Instead of moving farther left (as the Democratic Socialists of America are doing), it seems to us that the Democrats should be trying much harder to reach out to past Trump supporters. Show them you really are better. It should be possible — it is an extremely low bar!
But Trump's behavior puts Democrats in a very difficult position. His overt call to his supporters to cheat, aggressive gerrymandering and other efforts to rewrite election rules in ways that favor Republicans, combined with his two-year record of immense corruption and destruction of U.S. institutions favored by the left does make this even more of an existential election than the earlier two.
Is Destroying the Legitimacy of American Democracy Really the Way to Save It?
But should the Democrats cheat to win? Is further destroying the legitimacy of American democracy really the way to save it? We think not.
There are many people and organizations working to protect democracy by strengthening it, rather than attacking the other side. As one example of how this might be accomplished, Lorelei Kelly, a frequent contributor to this newsletter, has been encouraging people to take steps that make it harder for their vote to be questioned, should the election be contested.
We're also helped by the fact that voter fraud is both rare and difficult. American election processes were strong before, and fearing problems both in 2024 and now, many jurisdictions have been working hard both to tighten up their procedures, and make them transparent, so the public has faith in the numbers that are reported. In a September 15, 2026 report (entitled "Election Officials Prepare for Chaos as Trump seeks to tilt the midterms to Republicans,") Reuters reported that jurisdictions around the country are strengthening cybersecurity and physical security, while simultaneously expanding public outreach and social-media campaigns intended to counter misinformation and build confidence in the election process. This is happening in both red and blue states: states are turning to paper ballots, audits, equipment testing, cybersecurity, and assuring accuracy of voter roles to prevent fraud. And they are encouraging public observation of the election process, bipartisan administration, publishing audit results and ballot images, explaining procedures, and promptly addressing misinformation to address the trust problem — again, in both red and blue states.
Challenges we Face
Voter fraud, however, is not the only problem. Other problems are potentially much more serious and will require a longer term and (if they are to be successful) bipartisan efforts to address. One serious challenge is mis- and dis-information, coming both from real people and bots, both within the United States, and outside. (Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is shared without an intention to deceive. The person spreading it may sincerely believe it is true, while disinformation is false or misleading information that is deliberately created or spread to deceive or manipulate people.
Much of the disinformation is originating from bad-faith actors in the United States who are spreading falsehoods about "the other side." But these falsehoods are picked and spread by people who do not intend to deceive. They really believe the information they share is true. An MIT study published in Science reports that researchers examined over 100,000 stories tweeted by about 3 million people. False stories, they found, "spread farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly" than true stories, with the difference especially pronounced for political news. Interestingly, removing bots did not eliminate the effect. Real people were also more likely to spread false stories.
Bots do, however, amplify the problem significantly. One study of U.S. election-related activity on Twitter found that, among accounts that researchers could confidently classify as human or automated, bots generated 64% of the traffic and roughly 73% of the traffic linking to untrustworthy news sources. In its transparency report for the second half of 2024, X says it suspended 335.7 million accounts for “platform manipulation and spam.” That does show what percentage of all active accounts or posts were bots, but it demonstrates how enormous the automated/spam-account problem is.
Malevolent international actors are also a serious threat. During the 2024 election, U.S. intelligence agencies publicly warned that Russia, Iran and China were using increasingly sophisticated influence techniques. Russia used targeted social-media operations, covertly supported influencers, fake news sites, and even an AI-enhanced bot network to spread disinformation and amplify divisive narratives. Iran also conducted covert social-media operations using fake personas and AI-generated news articles. China-linked influence operations also used social media to engage Americans on divisive political issues. We have done little, if anything, to stop such behavior this time around. In fact, Trump has substantially reduced the federal election cyber-security operations by cutting back staff and funding that was designed to provide states with real-time intelligence about election cyber threats.
Another significant problem comes from the two major political parties themselves, who manipulate elections in ways that can certainly be described as cheating. Gerrymandering is one approach — that is the redrawing of district lines to create safe seats for their side. Both sides say, "the other side does it, so we have to," which is largely true. This is a big part of the reason why most Congressional seats are not competitive. (The other reason is that U.S. population has also been migrating into more politically homogeneous districts.) In 2026, only about 50 of the 435 House races are expected to be competitive. The other 383 seats—88% of the House—were effectively decided in primaries in which just 9.4% of eligible American voters participated. In 150 districts, representing some 85 million eligible voters, the eventual representative faced no meaningful competition in either the primary or the general election. This gives considerable credence to citizens' lament that "their vote doesn't count," so "why vote?"
So WHAT TO DO?
American citizens, it seems to us, have several responsibilities.
First is to become informed at the issues you care about, using valid sources. Don't get your news from social media — unless you know the source to be credible. Otherwise, go to reputable sources, such as those shown in the green box on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart or the AllSides Media Bias Chart. We like Ad Fontes better because it not only shows left/right bias (as does AllSides), but it also has a "reliability score" which AllSides lacks. And, as we suggested in our recent newsletter on uncertainty clouds, look at lots of sources from different perspectives and use that information to form a more balanced worldview — a view that recognizes the uncertainties and the reasonable differences of opinion that exist.
Second, before you share information, be sure it is true. Beyond that, ask yourself, is sharing this going to be helpful? Or is it going to make people angry unnecessarily? It is important to share stories of real bad actions and bad actors and do what you can to stop them. Still, the time-honored advice of being "gentle on people and hard on the problem" makes sense. You can argue that people (including political leaders) are doing unhelpful things without attacking them personally. As we try to de-escalate things, it is important to remember that people who are caught up in our hyper-polarized politics are often angry enough to say and do things that they probably wouldn't do in normal times.
It is also seldom helpful to share stories of things that people did that meant well but unintentionally, perhaps, came out badly. Or things that made sense to people for reasons that were valid to them but didn't align with your personal values. And resist the temptation to share inflammatory, but likely untrue, content simply because you think it might move a few votes in the right direction. The ends DOES NOT justify the means.
It would also be quite helpful if we'd be more willing to admit to the anti-democratic actions that those on our side have taken and express support for efforts to do better. Some well-placed mea culpas combined with calls for the other side to reciprocate can be a good way to start the de-escalation spiral.
Third, vote! Vote in primaries — where choices really do count — and vote in general elections, even if it seems as if your vote doesn't matter. You might be surprised — and there are probably local ballot issues where your vote really does matter. In her materials we linked to earlier, Lorelei Kelly suggests we all vote in person, or if by mail, early. This will help election officials count ballots sooner, which she says will minimize the risk of disruption.
When more ballots can be counted promptly, election results may be available sooner. Completing voting earlier can also reduce the period in which people might try to interfere with or disrupt the counting process. Voting early or in person supports the best chance for a safe, secure and successful midterm election in 2026.
And we'd argue we can no longer just blindly vote for our side. The two major parties are no longer representing the majority of Americans who are put off with the policies and the antics of both sides. So, look for the candidates who are being sensible and are supporting problem-solving, rather than further polarization. If we keep on voting for our sides, no matter what they do, we are just going to empower the extremes on each side that are digging our hole deeper and deeper. And let your Representatives and Senators know — you want them to work collaboratively with the other side to solve problems. You want them to work for their constituents, and for the good of the country and the world, not just for their own election, their own power, or their own enrichment. Partisan grandstanding makes our problems worse. We cannot afford that any longer!
As Heidi was writing this, she was thinking about our many posts lately on Courageous Citizenship, which argues that democracy needs all of us to become courageous citizens, who don't just vote, but get involved in our communities in lots of other ways. We won't say that again here — we have been saying it a lot recently. If you don't know what I mean, and are curious, go here.
But I also thought back to my conversation with Emma Addams and Jennifer Thomas with Mormon Women for Ethical Government. They said their work was based on three primary principles of ethical government, each of which has many sub-principles. Their three principles are:
- Rule of Law: Every government official and institution has a duty to respect the rule of law, including accepted processes for how the law is to be established, executed, and interpreted.
- Rights: Every human being is endowed with rights that governments are obligated to protect and not violate. These include both universal human rights such as the rights to life and liberty, as well as civil rights such as the rights to equitable political representation and equal protection under the law.
- Responsibilities: All human beings are mutually accountable to their fellow human beings in their local communities, their countries, and the world.
We argue that we should keep all these things in mind as this election approaches, and work, advocate for, and vote for the people who stand for ethical government. If we cheat just because we think (rightly or wrongly) that the other side is cheating, we just demean our democracy, and ourselves. Let's stand up for both, instead.
———————
Lead graphic photo credit: Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6262122778; By: DonkeyHotey; Permission: CC BY 2.0. DEED https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/; Date Required: December 20, 2023
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
Two or three times a week, Guy and Heidi Burgess, the BI Directors, share some of our thoughts on political hyper-polarization and related topics. We also share essays from our colleagues and other contributors, and every week or so, we devote one newsletter to annotated links to outside readings that we found particularly useful relating to U.S. hyper-polarization, threats to peace (and actual violence) in other countries, and related topics of interest. Each Newsletter is posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....
