The Slow Creep of Democratic Erosion
Democracy doesn’t collapse suddenly – it deteriorates gradually from within. The 2024 U.S. presidential election revealed significant divisions in American democracy. Larry Diamond (2002) argues that this was characterized by legal disputes surrounding vote certification, efforts to reverse outcomes, and unfounded fraud allegations. According to political scientist Nancy Bermeo (2016), partisan representatives in various states attempted to dismiss valid ballots and substitute electors, jeopardizing electoral integrity. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018) contend that the rise of election denialism and the unwillingness to acknowledge results mirrored early indicators of democratic decline observed worldwide.
Political scientists have traditionally cautioned that democracy diminishes slowly – not via coups, but through the manipulation of institutions and the decline of trust, as stated by Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg (2017). The 2024 election demonstrates that even established democracies can be susceptible. Amid attempts to undermine results and distort voting regulations, the U.S. finds itself at a pivotal moment. The issue is no longer if democracy is declining, but rather how much it has deteriorated – and what measures can be taken to stop its regression.
Strategic Election Manipulation and Backsliding
Nancy Bermeo (2016) describes democratic backsliding as the slow weakening of democratic institutions through legal methods instead of outright coups. The 2024 election showed a continuation of troubling trends: lawsuits that questioned valid results, pressure on election officials to postpone certification and false claims of voter fraud. Although none of these actions alone lead to the collapse of democracy, when combined, they show a worrying strategy – one where democracy is technically kept intact, but its core values are subtly eroded.
Amanda Taub (2024) presents democracy as a game where political players can either support institutions or take advantage of their weaknesses. In this election cycle, it became evident that many political leaders chose immediate electoral success over the long-term health of democracy. By attacking the legitimacy of results even before votes were counted, they created doubt not only in this election but also in the whole democratic system. Because once the belief spreads that elections cannot be trusted, the effects can be deep and enduring.
When Elections Exist but Democracy Falters
Joseph Schumpeter (1943) notably defined democracy as a system in which leaders compete in fair elections; nevertheless, Robert Dahl (1972) emphasized that participation and opposition are equally important. An election’s integrity is determined not only by the number of votes cast, but also by whether the process is free, fair, and broadly acknowledged. The 2024 election prompted substantial worries about all three of these issues.
In a few states, severe voting laws were implemented in the pretext of preventing fraud, despite the absence of any evidence of large irregularities in previous elections. These new regulations negatively impacted vulnerable communities, raising questions about whether they were enacted in good faith or to deter opposition voting. Meanwhile, partisan state legislatures sought greater control over election results certification, a move that, if left unchecked, has the potential to shift power from voters to politicians.
Even more disturbing was political leaders’ rhetoric, which asserted that without evidence, the election was stolen. This behavior sets a dangerous precedent: if candidates refuse to accept defeat and actively urge their supporters to doubt the system, how can democracy work? The ability to transfer power peacefully is a key feature of democracy. If that standard erodes, so will the legitimacy of the entire system.
The Collapse of Democratic Norms
The biggest meaningful threat to democracy is not necessarily one election, but the decline of the ideals that support it. Democratic survival, as argued by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018), relies on two implicit rules: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. These conditions have been evidently tested in recent years.
Mutual toleration, the belief that political opponents are respectable actors rather than existential dangers, has nearly vanished. Instead, political leaders are increasingly portraying their opponents as dangerous foes. This has created a cycle of radicalization in which both sides believe they must take extraordinary measures to prevent the other from obtaining power.
Institutional forbearance, which prohibits politicians from abusing legal loopholes, has also declined. The 2024 election witnessed attempts to weaponize state legislatures, legal challenges to the certification process, and the exploitation of procedural delays to undermine outcomes. These are examples of what political scientists refer to as “constitutional hardball” – actions that legally meet the law but contradict the democratic spirit. When politicians act without constraint, institutions intended to serve the public interest become just tools for party conflict.
Populism and the Delegitimization of Elections
Populism has aggravated these problems. According to Jan-Werner Müller (2016), populism is an ideology that depicts political rivalry as a battle between virtuous “people” and a corrupt elite. This phrase has been a defining feature of the 2024 election, with leaders arguing that only their victory is legitimate, and that any loss is fraudulent.
This narrative is dangerous as it undermines trust in the elections itself. If voters are informed that the system is manipulated, they may withdraw entirely – or worse, take extralegal action to reverse the results. History provides severe warnings: in Hungary and Turkey, populist politicians used similar language to consolidate power, eventually destroying free elections completely. While the United States has solid institutions, democracy will fail if its leaders and population lose faith in the system.
A Path Forward: Rebuilding Trust in Democracy
The 2024 election demonstrated that democracy in the United States is not self-sustaining. If democratic backsliding is to be stopped, major steps must be taken to rebuild faith in institutions. Political leaders must recommit to respecting election results, even if they lose. Election laws should be designed to encourage participation rather than limit it. Most importantly, the public must remain active, because democracy is ultimately dependent on those who protect it.
A healthy democracy is more than simply institutions; it is a collective conviction in the legitimacy of the system. If trust is gone, democracy becomes a mere facade that can be manipulated by those who want power at any cost. The test of American democracy is not just whether elections are held, but also whether the outcomes are accepted. The key question is not whether democracy is under threat, but whether Americans are willing to fight for it.
Hi Sanishka! I really enjoyed reading your post, as it honed in on very relevant issues today. I feel like your post really addressed the idea that politicians set the tone for society in various ways. How they act, and the feelings they possess for certain aspects of government or other people are very important. I especially agree when it comes down elections. We saw it with Trump, there was no power sharing it was simply Trump building himself up while trying to illegitimize Biden, thus harming threatening peoples views of Biden and his capabilities to control the country if elected. While you don’t specifically address Trump, it seems clear that the dig at “conspiracies” surrounding the election are aimed at him. I completely agree, it is unsettling for a potential President to express distrust in the voting system and give into ideas surrounding rigged elections. Furthermore, like you stated, it makes people not trust the voting systems and can lead to less voters and thus the gradually decline of a democratic institution. Overall, I agree, if the leader of our country cannot be democratic and abuses systems set in place to govern fairly, then the rest of the nation will follow suit.