Land of the free, home of the brave, country of voter suppression! Not allowing certain groups of people to vote seems almost comically antiquated, but fret not, we are still on that train! With the 2024 presidential election, it seems crucial to dive into the necessities of voting, as well as the history of voting being taken away from people, specifically minorities. While things are not as bad as they used to be, in fact really far from that, there are still patterns of racial discrimination within the voting system.

Here is a little crash course on the landscape of voting after the civil war and during the reconstruction period. Before the civil war, black men in the south were allowed to vote but their vote only counted as three thirds of a vote, and truth be told, they did not have a right to vote, they had the obligation to vote for whoever their enslavers were voting for. This is much more complex and difficult then the long sentence I have just written about it, but we will go off of this information for now. After the civil war, in 1870, black men were finally given the right to vote in the south. While this is in theory nice, as one can expect, it is not actually what happened. Many obstacles were set in place to prevent freed black men from voting, such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and straight up terrorism from the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, during the election of 1870, President Johnson of the democratic party (party of the recently succeeded then returned states), attempted, very lightly, to get the southern states to protect the vote of the newly freed black men. As history shows us, this failed miserably, almost as miserably as reconstruction. Klan attacks were numerous, and people were terrorized, sometimes even killed. This led to a hundred more years of black people fighting their way to equality, especially when it came to voting.

Excerpt from the West-Jersey Pioneer, published on October 26^th, 1876. Retrieved from the Newspaper archives of the Library of Congress.

It is easy to believe, or even expect, that such things would not be happening today. How could our progressed society show signs of such antiquated bigotry. But no, this problem, while manifesting differently, still exists. Latosha Brown, a community organizer, political strategist, and consultant, admitted on NPR to being worried about the way votes were going to be counted due to new rules which might be purposely disenfranchising certain groups. This poses a significant threat to our Democracy. If minorities are having their right to vote purposefully taken away, how can we possibly say we have evolved from the era of the 1870’s?

The presidential election of 1876 was contested between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York. Tilden won more electoral votes, but the ballots in several states, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon, were disputed. An Electoral Commission established by Congress confirmed Rutherford B. Hayes as the winner, despite not having won a plurality of the national popular vote. The election was influenced by electoral fraud, voter intimidation, and disenfranchisement of Black voters. The contest was only resolved by the Compromise of 1877, where Hayes promised to end Reconstruction in exchange for his election as president.

Since the very first presidential election, music has been an important part of campaigning and American political culture. Songs written specifically for a campaign might extol the virtues of the candidate or attack the vices of an opponent. Supporters of Samuel J. Tilden and his running mate Thomas A. Hendricks promoted their candidacy with a song called the “Grand March.” Usage of the music was not restricted to the campaign or its supporters—its sheet music was made available to military bands, orchestras, and choruses. Although some campaign music named candidates or opponents specifically and by name, others, including the “Grand March,” had a broader, less partisan, and more patriotic appeal. A song called “Adams and Liberty,” written to celebrate President John Adams, is sung to a melody that is now know as “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

In modern politics, campaign music continues to be influential. Sometimes a particular song becomes strongly associated with a candidate, such as Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” and former President Bill Clinton. Music can also serve to subtly (or less so) hint at the values of a campaign and party. For example, Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris using Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” in her campaign advertising, the Republican National Convention featuring a performance by Kid Rock, and the Democratic National Convention including a musical roll call. Lee Greenwood’s song “God Bless the U.S.A” was originally not used in campaigning, with Greenwood saying that he wrote it for all Americans. However, he agreed to sing it for Ronald Reagan, turning it into a song that is seen as primarily Republican. In fact, Republicans are often seen to have a monopoly on patriotism in modern political culture. However, the Democratic Party is currently pushing back against that idea. In addition to their music-based show of state pride, the 2024 Democratic National Convention placed a heavy emphasis on patriotism, including chants of “USA” and intense use of the American flag. Since the party system first developed, both have seen themselves as the true protector of American democracy and the other as a threat. This competition over which side is more truly American can be seen throughout modern politics and historical elections, including in the fight over campaign songs.

Sources

A political playlist: The fight over campaign songs

At convention, Democrats claim patriotism, American flag as their own

Democrats try to take patriotism back from GOP

Disputed Election of 1876

Early Rally Songs – Voices, Votes, Victory: Presidential Campaign Songs

How the Democrats reclaimed patriotism

Voices, Votes, Victory: Presidential Campaign Songs Forgotten Candidates

Donald Trump and the modern Republican party love to accuse the Democrats of “election fraud” Oooooh scarry! And yet, fact check website Snopes writes “There’s Still No Evidence of Systematic Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election.” But hey, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt maybe they are just still thinking about the election of 1876. The election of 1876 was also contested due to republican accusations of democrat election fraud in several key states. The big difference between 2020 and 1876 is that the election fraud was only real in 1876.

The election of 1876 was between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican and man who just has a real “president name”, Rutherford B. Hayes. Votes were disputed in Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina. In these states, Democrats had intimidated Black voters and white Republicans, and their families through violence or the threat of violence. In some precincts, some Democrats stuffed ballot boxes with extra votes or printed Democratic ballots with the Republican logo to trick recently emancipated Black people who were often illiterate. With the falsified results, technically Tilden could seem like the winner, but the election ultimately went for Hayes. Hayes in turn agreed to end reconstruction through a “policy of conciliation”. The rest of Hayes’ career was haunted by the election as his contemporaries referred to him as “his Fraudulency” and Hayes’ legacy was soiled as “the man who ended reconstruction”.

One thing that the 1876 election, 2020, and almost certainly 2024 do have in common is that there was an organized effort to stop people from voting. As Ari Goldberg writes, a study by the Bipartisan Policy Center, found, “…precincts with a high percentage of minority voters, renters, and lower incomes saw significantly longer wait times.” Additionally, as the League of Women Voters argues, contemporary voter ID laws are part of an effort to “promote voter suppression”. While the voter fraud Donald trump loves to scream about a problem that doesn’t exist, there are still certainly efforts to deter some people from voting.

Throughout election history, corruption has functioned as a fear mongering tool that uses justice (imagined or realized) as a bargaining chip. However, it is impossible to ignore the hypocritical nature of most corruption accusations, which set a strange precedent regarding “acceptable” corruption and raises questions about the broader implications of corruption.

Weaponizing Corruption

The election of 1876 saw how Republicans and Democrats used actualized corruption as leverage in bargaining with each other. Southern states had recently re-joined the union, albeit reluctantly, post-Civil War. In the wake of the battle between the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, Republicans contested the vote count, leading Democrats to decry corruption.

Up to and during the election, Democrats in the South targeted the remaining Republican-controlled Southern states—South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana—using intimidation towards voters and their state government to relinquish control. South Carolina Democrats organized and deployed armies to declare war on Reconstruction, blatantly using militaristic violence against Southern black voters (such as in the Hamburg Riot) to influence the election of state and federal officials. During the election, they used flagrant voter-fraud tactics like simply throwing ballot boxes out or violent voter intimidation.

In response to corruption allegations, Republicans devised a compromise and created a seemingly bipartisan election ratification committee. By strategizing with filibustering, Democrats attempted to build power & rapport in the contested states and drag out the election. However, the prolongation of the hearings worked against them when Republicans certified election results through a newly appointed Republican member of the committee, swinging the votes in Hayes’ favor. The Democrats may have lost the election, but their protest against corruption combined with Hayes’ anxiety around reunification allowed the South to gain a hand in negotiating Reconstruction. As a result, Hayes withdrew Union troops in the South and stopped Reconstruction efforts, expecting Democrats to create and enforce laws to protect Black Southern voters, which they in fact, did not.

Revenge Against the Rule of Law

On the surface, it appears that one would require great mental disconnect to engage in such hypocritical behavior. But what if the Democrats weren’t adhering to the same rule of law as the Republicans? From the beginning, they had undermined the Constitution in their attempts to thwart Black voting and civil rights. They operated on their own terms post-secession, reinforced by 1) the loss of the Civil War and 2) Republican corruption (intervention) that threatened white Southerners’ economic, social, and political control if Black voters gained power. In that warped sense, if the election, and by extension government, were deemed corrupt, why should they be taken seriously?

In 2023, a legitimacy crisis regarding the judicial system gained prominence from President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his infamous trial(s). Details about his alcohol and drug-fueled escapades, possession of firearms, tax evasion, and questionable foreign collaboration were brought to light and subsequently used to attack Joe Biden’s character. Public eye shifted the spotlight to Trump as his faction chastised Hunter Biden for offenses Trump had committed several times over. Trump’s connection to tax evasion and civil fraud, controversial Trump family foreign profits, and numerous (alleged) sex-crimes should have compromised Trump as much, if not more, than Hunter Biden—but they didn’t. Instead, Republicans (including Trump) claimed that the courts were “unfair” and partial to Democrats, rendering their deliberation and judgement illegitimate to Republicans. By eroding trust in the judicial system and casting them as a corrupt institution, Republicans created a justification that, in good conscience, allows them to disregard all accusations directed at Trump from Hunter Biden’s trial to the present-day Trump indictments. The implications of said self-imposed legitimacy are grim in the face of a tense political climate where many of America’s foundational principles are at risk and executive power seems to have no bounds. If the judicial system is able to be so loosely adhered to at convenience, who’s to say what else that logical framework applies to? As U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland puts it,

“The Justice Department will continue to uphold its obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions, beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for our democracy. They are normal.

But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.

Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice Department’s employees are dangerous for people’s safety. They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop.”

Sources

David Jackson & Inge Amundsen (March 29, 2022): The flipside of corruption: when anti-corruption becomes politicised

Ella Lee (June 13, 2024): Trump, Hunter Biden convictions lead to starkly different political narratives

Jonathan Allen (June 11, 2024): Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict upends a top Trump talking point

Kate Côté Gillin, Shrill Hurrahs: Women, Gender, and Racial Violence in South Carolina, 1865-1900, Chapter 4 (2013): Sin and Redemption: The Election of 1876

Merrick Garland (June 11, 2024): Merrick Garland: Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end

Michael A. Ross, The Presidents and the Constitution: A Living History, Chapter 19 (2016): Rutherford B. Hayes

Peter Stone (June 11, 2024): Claims of rigged system by convict Trump and allies ‘threaten rule of law’

Sheilla Blackford: Disputed Election of 1876 | Miller Center

In 2020 Republicans argued that the election was stolen and won only through fraudulent votes by Democrats. In 1876, Republicans said the same thing. The difference? In 1876, Democrats actually committed voter fraud and voter suppression. The election of 1876 was a race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden. In many ways, it was also a race between continued Northern control over the South during Reconstruction and allowing the South to independently govern again. Though the election of 1876 happened almost 150 years before the election of 2020 there are many parallels.

 As we know, the election of 2020 wasn’t actually stolen and claims of voter suppression, fraud, and corruption by Democrats were dismissed. In 1876 those claims were a reality. There is proof of ballot boxes being stolen, fake ballots being voted, fraud committed by election officials, and extreme voter suppression by Southern Democrats. Despite the corruption, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden came within one electoral vote of becoming president, but through compromise and months of deliberation Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President.

Democrats were so opposed to another Republican Presidency that they did everything in their power to prevent it, but in doing so invalidated 20 of their electoral votes, more than enough for Rutherford B. Hayes to win.

What exactly did they do to invalidate 20 electoral votes? Many of the things that Donald Trump accused Democrats of doing in 2020. Direct intimidation took place and there were reports of hundreds of men on horseback blocking voting sites, armed militias intimidating Black voters. Fraudulent ballots were also cast by people who voted more than once or illiterate voters were told that they were voting for a different person than their ballot was cast for. Democrats even went so far as stealing ballot boxes.

The good news is that democracy prevailed, and Democrats didn’t get away with fraud. After two conflicting sets of Electoral results were sent to Congress the election needed to be decided by the House and Senate, but when they couldn’t come to a decision an Electoral Commission deliberated on how to solve the race. Eventually, the fraud was investigated and the commission concluded that enough votes had been stolen from Hayes to argue that he was the rightful winner of the election. Two days before the inauguration, Filibusters in the House were called off and the election was certified, finally leading to Rutherford B. Hayes winning the election.

Even after the election was decided and it was concluded that democrats engaged in fraud, many democrats refused to accept the results. Eventually, Rutherford B. Hayes became known as His Fraudulency and Rutherfraud because of Democrats who rejected the results of the election.  Although democracy prevailed through the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to maintain a working relationship with southern Democrats, Hayes was forced to make compromises that weakened reconstruction in the south.

In 2020, just as in 1876, compromises had to be made due to the election being contested. In 2020 many people said they were voting for the lesser of two evils, but just as in 1876, compromise led to at least slight stability. All in all, forced compromise is not ideal, but it is important to keep in mind what the outcome may be if you don’t vote.

The Election of 1876 was a wake up call for the recently freed Black population in America. The symbolism of the election also shed light on what was to come in the next century. When looking at the time period 1850-1950, the period of Reconstruction clearly wasn’t the norm for African Americans. Reconstruction had its ups and downs, but overall the opportunities allotted to these people were exponential when considering that they legally didn’t count as a full person in the years prior. Some new citizens of the United States even made it to government positions in the military occupied South. The tokenism fallacy was clearly in play as Southern whites figured out how to restore the old order. Their first true opportunity was through this vital election. 

The Southern Democrats tried to return to this order by suppressing the black vote through incredible measures of violence. It was obvious this was the case, and the tampering did not go unnoticed. Although it appeared Samuel Tilden won the electoral and popular vote, the contentions about the validity for the result were brought up by many of the state legislatures. Because of this, an unprecedented solution came in the form of the Electoral Commission. Rutherford B. Hayes ended up winning the election, but on the condition enforced by the Democrats that the military was to be removed from Southern States.  

The legacy of Rutherford B. Hayes will always be attached to this election and the end of Reconstruction. This might even be a little unfair, as he was partially ahead of his time before the Civil War. It wasn’t popular to be an abolitionist around the 1850’s, but Hayes was a strong defender of African American Rights. The fact that someone who’s morals were incredible at a time they didn’t need to be was impressive. Hayes didn’t even think that the removal of troops would have such an effect and that the Black population might even continue to thrive. At this time, Black rights in America needed to be actively fought for and this theme has repeated throughout the history of the country. This was impossible with the lame duck Senate at the time which stunted Hayes’ ability to create change. The change that did end up happening was the return of African Americans being sub-citizen. It seems as incrementally as more and more progress happens for African Americans in the United States, there are always reminders that their identity is one of the most vulnerable and needs to be fought for.

We all know how the old fable goes. The shepherd boy cries for the villagers, claiming his flock of sheep is under attack by a wolf. Each time, the villagers rush to defend his flock. And each time, it turns out the boy is lying about the wolf. When a wolf finally attacks the boy’s herd and he cries for help, the villagers assume he is lying. The sheep die a merciless death.

Now, this fable may not map plainly onto claims of election fraud, but the moral may help us understand the threat they pose.

The elections of 1876 and 2020 are frequently compared in discussions of contested election results. But comparing the two paints a misleading picture. In 1876, the election was undeniably rigged, as Shiela Blackford explains, in the form of stuffed ballot boxes, tricking voters, and blatant intimidation tactics. The use of these tactics led to a justified challenge of the results.

In 2020, no comparable corruption was found. Yet Donald Trump challenged the results anyways.

By most accounts, the 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden was a chaotic mess of genuine electoral fraud. Tilden won the popular vote, but only because of rampant voter manipulation in key Southern states, as Michael Fitzgerald and Mark Bohnhorst detail. Ballots were stuffed. Illiterate voters were deceived. Violence was used to keep Black voters away from the polls. The contested results in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana were far from hearsay — they were based on documented fraud. 

Hayes cried fraud, and as it turns out, he was telling the truth. The villagers, in the form of the Election Commission, stepped in to defend the country from the voter fraud, delivering Hayes his rightful victory.

Fast forward to 2020. Despite a pile of allegations, there was no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud. Every lawsuit alleging rigged voting machines or fake ballots was thrown out, often with judges — including Trump appointees — pointing to a clear lack of proof behind any of Trump’s claims. But the myth persists, and Trump and his supporters only double down on the claim.

This is where the real danger lies. In 1876, challenging the results was a legitimate response to a rigged election. In 2020, it was a reaction to unfounded conspiracy theories. 

Because the claims of voter fraud were real in 1876, it made Trump’s claims seem — at least to some — like they could have legitimacy. After all, we are told that history is bound to repeat itself. Why not in the form of another fraudulent election?

As it turns out, though, Trump was just a boy to cry wolf, alleging voter fraud and riling up voters against a contrived threat. But while Trump cried wolf and “villagers” swarmed to verify or disprove his claims, the real issue of voter suppression continues to be ignored. Voter suppression tactics continue to quietly disenfranchise voters across the country. Laws are restricting access to the polls for millions of Americans, disproportionately harming marginalized groups, yet the national conversation remains fixated on debunked fraud theories.

False claims of voter fraud aren’t just distractions — they’re dangerous. They erode the foundation of democratic participation, making it harder to address the real problems. If we want to strengthen our elections, we need to strengthen voting access. That’s the lesson we should take away from 2020, not that it was anything like 1876.

In 1876 both parties would claim victory in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. Hayes or Tilden? It was an unprecedented crisis to resolve. It is no surprise that reading through the allegations of fraud, contestation of results, and attempts to overturn the election in 2020 invoke parallels to 1876. 

How would they resolve this crisis? The Constitution states the President of the Senate (the Republican Vice President T.W. Ferry) should count votes. Still, Democrats would disagree and call for votes to only be valid if both the Senate and House concurred to their validity (citing historical precedence). 

Congress would pass a law to create an electoral commission, consisting of five members of the Senate, five Supreme Court Justices, and five members of the House, in response to the crisis. The commission, evenly split along party lines until a compromise fifth Supreme Court Justice was added, ultimately gave a one-vote edge to Hayes, securing the Republican victory. Showcased in a newspaper at the time (accessed here) the committee was seen as adequate for the present but likely inadequate for the future. As played out in 2020, the future would have its own set of challenges to deal with and would rely on formal institutions to combat diverging views of the election. 

What creates an environment where elections are contested? The 1876 election was a product of the resulting ideological divide after the Civil War. A polarized nation had two conflicting sides with disparate ideas about race, culture, and gender. The conflicting ideas culminated in delays in voting, real and alleged fraud, and an increasing role of outside institutions. 

The 2020 election can be examined in a similar, although less polarized, light. The backdrop of the pandemic led to increasing social costs as political ideas became intertwined with public health. Debates about race permeated throughout the Black Lives Matter protests and similarly had a partisan divide. This growing distrust in institutions was spearheaded by a leader who voters felt represented an outsider to the political institution. Likewise, Tilden appealed to Southern Democrats who viewed the government as fundamentally opposed to their state-centric and pro-slavery viewpoint. 

Like the 1876 election, the 2020 one was increasingly reliant on the courts. President Trump would challenge the results in courts around the country and attempt to take his fraud case to the Supreme Court. 147 Republicans would vote against certifying the results of the election. 2020 saw an increase in public officials willing to break democratic norms.

The challenges of 2020 still appear relevant to the upcoming election. JD Vance, the VP candidate, says he would not have certified the electoral votes like Mike Pence did in 2020. Again, the 1876 election and considerations on whether the President of the Senate has a ceremonious or pivotal role in the certification of the votes become relevant. 

In both 1876, 2020, and likely 2024, contested elections revealed a fundamental truth: democracy relies not only on the processes and institutions but also on public trust in those systems. When that trust erodes, challenges to election results appear.

Sources:

“JD Vance says he wouldn’t have certified 2020 race until states submitted pro-Trump electors” 4 February 2024. ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jd-vance-defends-trump-claims-invoking-jean-carroll/story?id=106925954

“The morning star and Catholic messenger”. 04 Feb. 1877. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86086284/1877-02-04/ed-1/seq-1/>

“The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results” 6 Jan 2021. New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html 

The election of 1876 saw claims of mass fraud, leading to four states sending two separate slates of electors to Congress to decide between. In fact, without considering these states with conflicting slates of electors, no candidate received the necessary majority of electoral votes to win the presidency. Therefore, Congress had been passed the responsibility to decide the election, though in a different way than in 1824. Specifically, Congress had to in some way form a consensus around which slate of electors was legitimate. In doing so, they formed a commission which decided in favor of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. However, the gridlock that led to this commission was partially centered around disputes over whether the president of the Senate could himself choose which electors should be counted.

In the election of 2020, many similar dynamics were also at play. As in 1876, allies of Donald Trump, one of the candidates for president, submitted alternate slates of electors to Congress from states that had very close electoral results. Then, also as in 1876, the Republicans tried to use the president of the senate, the vice president, of their party to certify the electoral slates that supported their candidate. However, unlike in 1876, there was no actual evidence of fraud that could impact the result of the election in 2020, with 2020 not having masses of votes thrown out in a way that changed the outcome of the election, as happened in favor of Hayes in 1876.

The presidential election of 1876 can be used as a comparison point for the 2020 election, for both good and bad. The Hayes team’s claims of fraud, leading to their throwing out ballots, were based on intimidation and violence in post-Civil War southern states, backed up by electoral returning boards. However, in 2020, there were no credible allegations of widespread fraud, with such claims being shot down by officials at all levels of government. Further, many of those involved in this scheme have been criminally charged and are awaiting trial for their involvement, due to the illegitimacy of the slates. This illustrates that, while there is precedent for having alternate slates of electors and attempting to change the results of an election, that precedent relies on facts of irregularities and fraud that did not exist in 2020.

The election of 1876 was characterized by uncertainty and how close it was. The race was between Republican Rutherford B Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden. Tilden did win the majority popular vote, however he did not win the presidency due to the electoral college. Hayes won the college by only one vote, making this election incredibly close and controversial. This election draws parallels to the anticipated 2024 election between Vice President Harris and former President Trump. The upcoming election is anticipated to be a close race. 

The election of 1876 was somewhat concerned with legitimacy, which is an issue we face right now in the fallout of the 2020 election and widespread fear over voter fraud. In 1876, Rutherford B Hayes had 20 contested electoral votes and 165 certified votes, while Tilden had 184. According to the webpage “Disputed Election of 1876” by Sheila Blackford, a commission was created to combat this issue. The commission was a compromise as the Constitution dictated that the then President of the Senate, Republican Thomas W. Ferry. However, the Democrats argued that Congress, which had a Democratic majority, should decide instead. The commission was made through the Electoral Commission Act, which made a commission of two Democratic senators, three Republican senators, two Republicans representatives, three Democratic representatives and five Supreme Court justices. The job of the commission was to handle the election votes. What’s very interesting about this election though, is that Hayes was initially against the commission but later came around to support it because it would bring greater legitimacy to the election. 

This parallels many of the fears people have about the upcoming 2024 election, especially following the 2020 election which was marred with issues about legitimacy. The Washington Post article, “American Democracy is in Trouble–Even If Harris Wins” by Perry Bacon Jr. lays out some anticipated outcomes of the election. Even in the best case scenario for Harris, Bacon Jr. is concerned that conservatives won’t see her, a “liberal Black woman from California”, as a legitimate president. 

All of these outcomes are concerned with legitimacy as the immediate election following the January 6th insurrection, which was a crisis of legitimacy so great it caused people to storm the Capitol building to stop the counting of the votes. As this election looms closer and closer, we can only wonder if we’ll be facing a similar crisis of legitimacy for the 2024 election, and, if so, what we can do to fix it.