Reframing the Threat to Democracy
Elections are about the will of the people, ALL of the people.
In Brief:
Voters on both sides of the aisle see the threat to democracy as the biggest problem facing America, but they disagree on where that threat is coming from.
We need to make this debate about what it means for an election to be democratic, not about who wants more people or fewer people to vote, but about who actually cares about the legitimacy of our elections and why.
We oppose putting up barriers to voting because depriving hundreds of citizens of their most fundamental freedom is a greater threat to our democracy and to the legitimacy of our elections than a handful of cases of accidental voting by ineligible people.
Our opponents know this and do not want the will of the people to be expressed, because they serve private interests over the interests of the people.
The Threat to Democracy
The idea that democracy is under threat is pervasive on both sides of the aisle, but for different reasons. Conservatives have been pushing election fraud conspiracies for decades. They claim we stole the presidential election for Biden. Now they say we are flooding the country with illegal immigrants who will vote for Democrats.
Our instinct is to point to what they are doing and say, “Can you believe how awful they are?” and accuse them (accurately) of trying to destroy our democracy. But, as usual, conservatives have inoculated people against our attacks by projecting. If we accuse them of trying to steal elections it just sounds to voters like more “he said, she said.”
One reason conservative messaging is so effective is that they manipulate persuadable voters based on their good intentions, their desire to do what they believe to be morally right.
When conservatives argue for election integrity, they are really appealing to people’s belief in democracy, their deepest gut feeling that elections are supposed to express the will of the people. If fraud, defined as voting by ineligible people, were actually widespread, it would be a threat to democracy.
Their frame sets up a false choice between democracy and convenience. They want people to believe that, if preventing fraud makes it harder for some citizens to vote, that’s a price worth paying for democracy.
Democrats are for democracy.
We are for legitimate elections, those that express the will of the people.
Rather than taking an adversarial position with these voters, we should frame the debate around our shared belief in democracy. If the purpose of democratic elections is to determine the will of the people, it is critically important both that people who are not eligible cannot vote and that people who are eligible can.
We have to persuade the American people that we are the ones fighting to protect their freedom. We can’t just assume that people understand our motivations for wanting to remove obstacles to voting.
Conservatives want people to think that we are trying to steal elections. We need to make it clear to people that we are motivated by our belief in freedom and self-government, and our desire to have elections that accurately represent the will of the people - all of the people.
Adding barriers to voting makes our elections less democratic.
We are opposed to placing additional restrictions on voting because they do significantly more harm to the legitimacy of our elections than the fraud itself. Every time you place an additional obstacle in front of people who are trying to vote, you risk taking away the votes of hundreds of citizens just to prevent one or two ineligible votes. The trade-off isn’t worth it.
They need to cheat. We don’t.
Voters may not know about the disproportionate impact, but Republican leaders certainly do. For them, suppression (like cruelty) is the feature, not the bug. They know that everything they do in the name of integrity will disenfranchise voters or steal their votes on the back end.
There is a motive behind our opponents’ supposed passion for election integrity. They do not want our elections to reflect the will of the voters. Why? Because they don’t do what the voters want them to do, and they are afraid the voters will hold them accountable.
Democrats are not afraid of the will of the people, because we deliver what the majority of the American people want.
As we work to reframe this debate, we have to expand it from the manipulative and narrow language of “fraud” to the purpose of elections, our freedom and our right to self-government, and about legitimate elections determining the will of the people.
Thank you for reading Reframing America! This is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts by email please consider becoming a subscriber. All content is free, but some people choose to become paying subscribers to support this important mission!
Democrats believe in democracy.
We frame ourselves by defining ourselves in terms of what we are for.
Democracy and Self-Governance: Voting is what makes us free.
The right of self-government is our first and most fundamental freedom, tied, perhaps, with our right to rule over our own bodies. Without those rights we are not free. Not just “not free to act as we please” but not free in the state of our existence. We have words for this kind of total lack of freedom, words like “slavery” and “dictatorship.”
SAY THIS:
“Voting is what makes us free.”
“The right to vote is our first and most fundamental freedom.”
“We choose to have laws because we want to live in a society that is safe, functional and fair, but that doesn’t mean we give up our freedom. What makes us free is that we get to choose the people who make those laws.”
“Democrats protect your right to vote because voting is freedom. If they take away your vote, they take away your freedom.”
All authority comes from the consent of the governed.
If you prevent enough eligible people from voting to change the outcome of the election, you don’t just violate the rights of the people whose votes were suppressed, you violate the freedom of that entire community to choose the government under which they live.
SAY THIS:
“Democracy is about self-government.”
“What makes America a free country is the right of our citizens to live under a government of their own choosing.
“The legitimacy of our government depends on the legitimacy of our elections.”
“The purpose of elections is to determine the will of the people, all of the people.”
“For an election to be legitimate, every citizen must have equal access to voting and an equal right to have their vote counted, and the results must reflect the will of the majority.”
“The right to representation is the difference between democracy and dictatorship.”
It’s the freedom that matters. We need people to understand that the freedom to vote and equal access to voting are powerful because voting is what makes us free, both as individuals and as a country.
Barriers to voting are bad for democracy.
They frame us. We defend ourselves by refusing to engage in the debate on their terms.
The cure is worse than the disease.
As we work to reframe this debate, we have to help people see that adding barriers to voting makes our elections less democratic, less likely to reflect the will of the people.
Many voters do not know that there are negative unintended (or intended) consequences. Every law we pass or procedure we create to prevent ineligible people from voting prevents many more eligible American citizens from voting.
The infamous “Crosscheck” program compared names on state voter rolls and removed people with the same, or even similar names. A Harvard and Stanford study of the program revealed that for every case of double voting that may have been prevented, approximately 200 legitimate votes were suppressed.
We need to help people understand the inverse relationship between fraud and suppression, that increasing voting requirements causes suppression and that the impact is wildly disproportionate. Fraud is so rare as to be unlikely to change the outcome of the election. Voter suppression impacts many more people and can definitely change the outcome of elections, posing a much more significant threat to democracy.
WHEN THEY SAY:
“We have to do X to fight fraud and protect the integrity of our elections”
WHAT TO SAY:
Don’t say “integrity.” Say “legitimacy.”
Don’t say “fraud” or “fraudulent vote.” Don’t ever use the word “fraud,” not even to argue against it. People still see fraud as inherently bad and fighting it as a good thing.
Say “innocent mistake,” “paperwork error,” “minor technicality” or, if necessary, “invalid vote.” Most invalid votes actually are innocent mistakes. Sometimes people vote who did not know they were ineligible.
Don’t say “make it easier to vote,” “make it harder to vote,” “removing requirements” or “anti-fraud laws.” Say “removing obstacles to voting” or “creating excessive barriers to voting.”
Don’t say “eligible people.” Eligibility isn’t aboutrights.It’s about paperwork and requirements.I was wrong about this. Eligibility is about whether you have the right to vote in a particular election, such as whether you are a citizen, the right age, and live in the district. It is not about things like whether or not you are registered or have the right kind of ID.Say “citizens” or “American citizens.” It’s okay to talk about citizens in this context. Citizen emphasizes the issues of rights and self-government.
DON’T SAY:
“If you want fewer people to vote, you are against democracy. If you want more people to vote, you are for democracy”
This presumes knowledge about the amount of each actually involved in our elections. If there were a lot more fraud than suppression, the reverse would be true.
DON’T JUST SAY:
“There is a vanishingly small amount of election fraud in this country. It is practically non-existent.”
The amount alone doesn’t make our case, unless we also communicate the unintended negative consequences of fighting fraud and the disproportionate impact.
SAY THIS:
“Silencing the voices of hundreds of American citizens poses a far greater threat to democracy/the legitimacy of our elections than allowing one or two innocent mistakes.”
“The cure is worse than the disease. It’s like amputating a limb to cure a hangnail.”
“Every new obstacle to voting threatens the ability of our elections to accurately express the will of the people.”
“The impact of new barriers to voting is wildly disproportionate. For every invalid vote prevented, 200 American citizens are deprived of their most fundamental freedom.”
“Would you put 200 innocent people in jail to prevent one guilty person from going free?”
They need to cheat. We don’t.
We define our opponents from our moral perspective.
The Fear of Accountability Narrative
Republicans are pushing their own narrative. We have to provide a counter-narrative that explains why we are morally right for wanting to remove barriers for citizens trying to exercise their right to vote, and why Republicans might have less than honorable reasons for engaging in mass voter suppression.
We need to explain our motives and the motives of the opposition in terms of core values that will resonate morally with persuadable voters.
Why don’t Republicans want everybody to be able to vote?
DON’T SAY:
“They’re crazy,” “They are fascists,” “They are suppressing votes,” or “They are a threat to democracy.”
It may be true, but it is not persuasive to swing voters without explanation. Remember the “He said, she said.” problem. You can’t just assign labels. You have to activate our own narratives.
SAY THIS:
“Why do Republicans put up more and more obstacles to voting? They routinely disregard the will of the majority and serve private interests over the public interests. They are afraid voters will hold them accountable for their actions.”
“Republicans try to divide us to draw attention away from the fact that they put the interests of global private interests and the obscenely rich over the interests of most Americans.”
“Democrats want to do things that are supported by the majority of the American people, from protecting our freedoms - such as our freedom to control our own bodies in accordance with our own beliefs and freedom from gun violence - to supporting education for everyone and tackling the climate challenge.”
“Democrats are not afraid of the American voters. We want every citizen to vote, because we know that we are delivering what the American people want.”
Sample Video Script
Imagine an elderly Black woman in Georgia talking right into the camera and saying something like this:
“I had to fight for my freedom. I fought for my right as an American citizen to have my say in our government. But in the last election, I wasn’t able to vote. They took away the drop box in my neighborhood. I tried to vote in person but I couldn’t stand in line for so many hours.
I need you to help me get my freedom back. I need you to vote for me, to vote for Democrats who will clear away these barriers and let me exercise my precious right to vote. Democrats believe in democracy. That’s why they call ‘em Democrats. They aren’t afraid of what the voters will do. They know that our elections are supposed to show the will of the people, and that means all of the people, including citizens like me.”
That’s the type of ad I would like to see.
The Bottom Line
These issues of freedom, democracy and the legitimacy of our elections may be more important than any other we face right now. But how do we get swing voters to see the difference between what Republicans are doing and what Democrats are doing?
What makes America a free country is our right to choose the government under which we live. The legitimacy of our elections depends on how well they express the will of the people. If we create too many barriers to voting, we risk losing our democracy by suppressing too many votes by American citizens.
We are not afraid to have all citizens vote, because we are doing what the majority of the American people want. Republicans fear the will of the majority, because they know they serve powerful private interests over the interest of the American people.
Thanks, as always, for reading. I hope you are able to use this in your work and your activism.
I look forward to your feedback and ideas!
Warmest regards,
Antonia
COMING SOON:
Democracy Can Get Messy
Pre-framing the coming election disputes.
We have to convince people to vote for us, but I fear what will happen if their votes are not counted or if people refuse to accept the results. We must work now to set the criteria by which the legitimacy of our elections will be judged, both in the courts and in the court of public opinion.