Hats off to the politicians who accept defeat — despite Trump’s precedent
Three cheers for the losers. Democracy cannot survive without them. Democracy is, after all, a method to both express and then peacefully resolve debate. Polish-American scholar Adam Przeworski once described it as “a system in which parties lose elections.”
That system starts to break down the moment the losing side fails to graciously, or at least grudgingly, accept defeat.
Acceptance legitimizes the system, reaffirming democracy’s promise that candidates can lose now and carry on to fight another day. Refusing to accept defeat, on the other hand, has dangerous consequences, vividly illustrated by the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters.
BC election
In Canada, October’s provincial election in British Columbia also provided more recent evidence of just how important it is for the loser to accept defeat.
The election was extraordinarily close. The vast majority of ballots were counted by Elections BC’s new electronic tabulators within hours of polls closing.
Even so, results were so close that the final result in multiple districts — and therefore in the election — could not be confirmed until the conclusion of the final count the following weekend.
Scheduled in accordance with provincial law, the final count process happens after each election. Normally, it’s something of a formality, a time to settle any outstanding races and count any ballots missed during the initial count for logistical reasons. But with several ridings so close, and the balance of power in BC still to be determined, the final count took on unusual significance.
While attention was heightened due to the close results, the process itself is not unprecedented. In many ways, 2024 was reminiscent of the province’s 2017 election. In that case, the province had to wait some two weeks after voting day to know the result after the final count, and more than two months for a government to win a confidence vote in the legislature.
Questioning results
What was different, this time, however, was the reaction of some British Columbians — and others outside the province — waiting for the final results. They questioned political institutions, including the resolutely non-partisan and effective elections agencies in BC. Such questioning did not happen seven years ago.
Curiously, some of the earliest and most prominent messages appeared to originate outside the province, in neighbouring Alberta. One YouTube video posted on October 20 from an account called Alberta Report suggested results were being delayed and manipulated to prevent a Conservative Party victory in BC.
David Parker, an Alberta conservative activist, similarly and erroneously suggested the election was being stolen using “Dominion Voting machines,” confusing voting machines and tabulators while also invoking a thoroughly debunked conspiracy in the United States about voting machines made by the Dominion Voting Systems company.
The fact that promoting the conspiracy theory ultimately cost Fox News US$787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit seems to have done little to dampen its appeal.
A message I posted to X (formerly Twitter) on October 27 pointing out that the BC election was free and fair garnered hundreds of retweets and likes, but also more than 200 replies suggesting all manner of reasons not to trust the results.
The objections were all refutable, but the reasons were almost beside the point. For those already convinced the system was rigged, reasons are secondary.
Trump influence migrates north
So what changed in BC from 2017 to 2024 to encourage such doubt about what was accepted without a problem just a few years ago?
Why are those on the fringes of political debate — particularly, though not exclusively, on the right — questioning and even openly challenging political institutions?
In Canada, the COVID-19 pandemic fuelled vocal opposition among a minority of Canadians about mitigation efforts, at odds with the national consensus in support of the country’s political and medical institutions. This opposition gave way to ugly actions that included protests outside hospitals and against health-care workers, and culminated in the weeks-long occupation of downtown Ottawa.
Prior to that, however, we saw Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of his electoral defeat in 2020. Instead, the defeated president engaged in extensive efforts to deny the will of the American people and to have the election results overturned, ultimately leading to the January 6 insurrection aimed at trying to halt the vote ratification.
Lack of consequences
There were consequences, but only some. Trump, after all, just won the 2024 presidential election.
The US House of Representatives impeached Trump a second time for his role in instigating the attack. The Senate, however, ultimately refrained from convicting him.
Trump has also been criminally indicted in an alleged conspiracy to overturn the results, though without a result to date. Given the US Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of presidential immunity in a high-profile case this summer, it is now doubtful whether the case against the former president will succeed.
His supporters have fared less well. The US Department of Justice has successfully brought charges against more than 1,000 involved in the attack on the Capitol, resulting in hundreds of plea deals and convictions.
In the aftermath of January 6, US Congress also passed reforms intended to shore up the weaknesses in the American electoral systems that left congressional ratification of presidential election results open to politicization and disruption.
But in many ways the damage has already been done. The ease with which Trump has avoided consequences, and again won the Republican nomination and the presidency, illustrates how willing many are to overlook or even accept his fraudulent claims of electoral fraud. He continues to allege the 2020 election was stolen, laying bare just how feeble both legal and political responses have been.
Win or lose, Trump’s unpresidential actions — and the tepid overall response to them — have normalized rejecting any unpopular election result as “rigged.”
Rustad gracious in defeat
In BC’s case, the province’s voters were ultimately well-served by both the professionalism of Elections BC in the conduct of the election, as well as the magnanimity of the defeated in acknowledging — and legitimizing — the election result.
BC Conservative Leader John Rustad ultimately affirmed the result, thanking Elections BC for its hard work. The president of the party’s board sent out a similarly supportive statement.
In a late-breaking development, Elections BC has just announced an additional recount in one riding following the discovery of a number of anomalies while it prepared for legally required judicial recounts in the two closest ridings.
While unexpected, this still-unfolding episode illustrates value of open and accountable electoral institutions, as Elections BC itself caught and reported the error.
Just as importantly, it underscores the importance of responsible political leadership, as Rustad quickly reaffirmed his acceptance of the result pending those recounts, even as he called for an inquiry into how such a mistake occurred so that it can be avoided in the future.
Stewart Prest is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
