Since 2020, many voters have become increasingly accustomed to seeing elections as unfair and potentially fraudulent. Persistent election denialism has fueled distrust in election administration. especially among Republicans. After Donald Trump questioned or rejected the validity of the results both 2016 and 2020 competitionsIt may be especially difficult for fans to accept a potential defeat in such a tight race in 2024.

As rumor and hearsay researchersenglishWe examine how people make sense of what is happening in highly uncertain scenarios such as elections. We expect thousands of rumors to circulate on social media (and beyond) in the coming days. While some are founded on facts, misleading rumors distort reality and context, obscure solutions, and fuel conspiracy theories about a deliberate voter fraud scheme.

What is remarkable about the 2024 election is not the prevalence of rumors, but the maturation of a phenomenon. “evidence production infrastructure” Consisting of political organizations, partisan media, social media, technological platforms, and a growing legal apparatus. The collaboration is loosely organized but also strategic, working to both promote “evidence” of fraud and to motivate political and legal action to challenge the results. New versions of this infrastructure were available in the 2020 and 2022 elections, but now the machines are well oiled and ready for action. It works with the three Cs: convincing the public of election fraud, gathering perceived “evidence” of alleged fraud, and using that “evidence” to challenge election processes and results.

Last week we saw the “three Cs” in action. Pennsylvanians on Tuesday We encountered long lines in Bucks County demanded that the election office register for a mail-in ballot before the afternoon deadline, fueling rumors online.

Law enforcement had told people in line that they would close the lines early; this was against standard protocol, which allows those who lined up before the deadline to remain in line to vote. Prospective voters quickly released videos of their discussions with police and poll watchers. Political actors and influencers packaged these videos and misleadingly promoted them as evidence of Democrats’ larger, nefarious efforts to rig the election. They called on those in line to submit reports to election integrity groups. To counter these claims, several voices on the left baselessly accused the right of hiring actors to portray police officers.

After all, Trump campaign launched and case won This extended the time for those queuing. Influencers celebrated the victory and the work of the scouts who posted the videos and made them go viral.

Like many voting-related rumors, this one was based on a real problem and was eventually resolved. But the misleading narrative that shutting down the lines was a deliberate effort to suppress Republican votes as part of a larger conspiracy? This false story is likely to continue.

To the best of their ability, election integrity monitors can quickly uncover real problems. At worst, they can encourage misleading or unfounded rumors that can increase distrust in election procedures. Self-described election integrity organizations, many sympathetic to Trump, have developed new tools and repurposed existing infrastructure to encourage the capture and digital sharing of “evidence” about perceived election fraud; The evidence was often deliberately mischaracterized to sell a narrative that the election had failed. fraudulent.

Political actors created an infrastructure to recruit poll watchers starting in 2020, encouraging them to suspect mass voter fraud and encouraging them to report even routine procedures and minor problems as conspiracies. We have seen before that this reporting fuels misleading claims that can spread quickly online and support lawsuits, statements, and other actions that escalate into further rumors. Even as individual rumors fade or are debunked, the overall narrative of fraudulent elections persists.

What this has sown is permanent election denialism.”evidence generation infrastructure” In 2020, it changed election administration, voting rights, and electoral confidence, often for the worse. After four years of development, this infrastructure is already exacerbating the cycle of convincing the public of voter fraud, encouraging them to gather evidence, and then mobilizing political and legal action to challenge procedures and results. The Trump campaign and Republican partisans have already begun filing lawsuits alleging voter fraud in swing states; most of thesezombie cases” is likely intended to cast doubt on the election results more generally, rather than aiming to solve a specific problem.

Given this solid infrastructure and the Trump campaign’s significant resources for legal funding and “election integrity” efforts, Hundreds of pre-election cases have already been filed and we expect to see more. In key races, candidates or political groups already espousing “rigged election” theories may begin organizing protests at vote-counting centers or even attempt to overturn the results.

As election day approaches, tensions increase. The situation could get worse depending on the results and margins of key races. Partisan operatives have already succeeded in convincing the public that the elections were fraudulent. We will see these agents collect and disseminate misleading or untrue “evidence” of fraud. And some MAGA partisans are preparing to challenge the results by using this election rejection machine. Let’s hope they don’t go so far as to oppose democracy itself.