This is a kind of a weird topic, so please read what I’m actually asking before you start responding. In particular, I’m NOT talking about any actual real world election, past or present. And while some examples in this post are obviously inspired by some real life incidents and thus could be thought of as partisan one way or the other, I’m trying to discuss things here in a purely theoretical sense.
So… in various debates about campaign finance reform, voter fraud and registration laws, gerrymandering, and other such issues, I’ve wanted to stick my nose into the thread and say “ahh, yes, well, that is (or is not) a good idea because it does (or does not) change what the ‘proper’ result of the election is”. But I haven’t actually posted that, because of course “the ‘proper’ result of the election” is a pretty darn meaningless phrase. So I figured I’d start a thread about the topic.
So… let’s imagine they hypothetical city of Anytown, USA. It has a population of 100,000 generally civic-minded individuals, it usually has a voter turnout rate of around 60%. It’s divided roughly 40/40/20 between registered Republicans, Democrats and independents. In general, most Dems live on the north side of town, and most Republicans live on the south side.
So there’s a race for mayor going on in this particular hypothetical year, and the two main candidates are Debby Democrat and Rachel Republican. So they’ve each raised some money from their respective constituencies, run some ads, there’s been a debate or two, and all the polls show that it’s going to be a close race.
Then something happens. And one of the candidates wins, with the thing that happened likely having affected the outcome. And the question is, did it (and here’s where it’s a bit hard to define precisely what I mean) subvert the democratic process? Did it operate contrary to the will of the people?
So I’m going to list a bunch of possible “something happensed”, and I guess for each one there are three questions:
(A) If this happened in the US today, would it invalidate the results of the election? And did anyone violate any laws?
(B) In an “ideal” democratic society, should it invalidate the results of the election?
© Do you think that it potentially subverted the democratic process, in some holistic sense?
(Feel free to comment on as many or as few of these as you like, or on the overall topic… there’s a LOT of stuff to talk about here.)
So… here we go (I’m making the Democrats the “bad guys” in all these examples just because my natural instinct, being a liberal, would be the opposite… but they could obviously be the other way just as easily):
(1) Democratic operatives bribe the election officials who take several thousand Republican votes (without counting them) and throw them in the trash (obviously not an interesting example, I’m mainly tossing it in so there’s an example which unambiguously DOES subvert the democratic process)
(2) Democratic operatives invent a totally fabricated story about a scandal in Rachel’s past and “leak” it, with fabricated supporting documents, to the media a few days before the election… and the forgery isn’t discovered until after the election
(3) Democratic operatives find an incident in Rachel’s past which, when taken grossly out of context, seems horribly scandalous. The “leak” a story about it which is all technically true, but grossly misrepresents the overall situation, and the full story doesn’t come out until after the election. (For instance… “Rachel was once accused of molesting a junior high school student”, when the full story is that the student was mentally unbalanced and had accused dozens of random adults of molesting him.)
(4) On election day, there are 5 separate really bad traffic incidents on the south side of town, causing massive gridlock, and voter turnout is much lower than expected. An investigation comes up with no evidence that this was anything other than freakish bad (or good) luck
(4a) Same as (4), but an investigation finds that all the accidents were orchestrated by a single rich and unscrupulous supporter of Debbie, but one with no actual connection to her campaign
(4b) Same as (4), but an investigation finds that all the accidents were arranged by democratic party operatives
(5) The elections board decides that based on changing population and lack of funds and so forth, they should reassess where the polling places are. Under the old plan, the polling places were spread equally around town. Under the new plan, there are far more polling places per capita in the north side of town than in the south. They offer no particular justification for this.
(6) The elections board announces that the new ID policy is that anyone showing up at a polling place to vote must present a valid library card. Library cards are issued free of charge to anyone producing 3 different pieces of paperwork demonstrating their legal residence in Anytown. This must happen at the main library, which is in the north side of town, between 3 and 4 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, plus the Democrats of Anytown, being elitist chablis-sippers, have library cards in larger numbers to begin with. The justification for this is to reduce voter fraud, but no substantial number of cases of voter fraud are known to have ever actually occurred in Anytown.
(6a) Same as (6), but in fact there have been lots of cases of voter fraud, and everyone agrees that this is bad (but the election board offers no particular justification for why they chose library cards as the required type of ID)
(7) A big liberal company based in another state (Amalgamated Soros) has plans to open a big factory in town, which Debbie supports but Rachel opposes. They buy $5,000,000 worth of ads supporting Debbie and attacking Rachel (previously the campaign budgets had been $50,000 or so for each candidate0
(7a) Same as (7), but it’s a foreign company
(8) Debbie’s rich uncle dies, leaving her $5,000,000, all of which she spends on campaign ads
(8a) Same as (8), but it’s not Debbie who has a rich uncle die, but a random friend of hers (who doesn’t mind spending $5,000,000 to get her friend elected)
(9) Despite the fact that Anytown has been electing its mayor by direct popular vote for over a century, the election board finds an obscure clause in the town charter that lets them change the election to an electoral-college-style affair in which the town is divided into 7 districts, each districts’ voters elect a single elector, and the electors then vote for mayor. They invoke this clause, and come up with some savagely gerrymandered disctricts pretty much guaranteeing that Debbie will win
(9a) Same as (9), but the town charter specifies the boundaries of the 7 districts. They do some math and figure that the districts are drawn in a way that favors Debbie, and thus invoke this clause.