If we are patient, election will deliver peaceful transfer of power
Speculation is rampant that election night this November could well bring chaos and even violence. If ballots early in the evening favor President Donald Trump, it is said he will declare victory and treat the later votes as fake. But if the early evening goes for former Vice President Joe Biden, critics worry that Trump will refuse to concede, file numerous lawsuits and perhaps put troops on the streets. Even though Republican leaders have now promised a peaceful transfer of power, who knows whether Trump will really bend to their will?
The night is sure to be contentious, but it need not be chaotic. The news media, politicians and voters across the country could make it much more orderly by embracing three simple rules: Stick to the Constitution. Be patient. And most important, wait for the count.
Throughout our history, Americans have waited for the count, respecting democratic norms. Indeed, federal law allows for up to 35 days after the presidential election for resolution on all votes. And the winner is not official until Jan. 6, when the Electoral College meets and casts their votes.
Beyond the law, our history clearly counsels patience, calm and a commitment to the Constitution. George Washington had to wait over two months before it was final that he had beaten John Adams. In 1800, the third presidential election, each state chose its own voting day, so that voting lasted from April to October. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr wound up in a tie, sending the race to the House of Representatives. There, as theatergoers all know, Alexander Hamilton swung the House behind Jefferson and ensured a peaceful transfer of power months after the voting started.
Many of our early elections were hard-fought battles but were resolved peacefully. In 1824, four candidates were in contention in an election that went from Oct. 26 through Dec. 1, before John Quincy Adams finally won on Feb. 9. Andrew Jackson thought he had been cheated out of victory, but instead of trying to create chaos, he crushed Adams in a rerun four years later.
One of the most divisive moments in presidential history came in 1876, when the country was still recovering from the Civil War. Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote against Republican Rutherford Hayes but fell one vote short of an electoral majority. Tensions ran so high that Congress created a commission of senators, congressmen and Supreme Court justices to decide the winner. In a controversial compromise, the Democrats conceded, but conditioned on Hayes withdrawing remaining federal troops who were protecting Black office holders in the South. That ended Reconstruction and also paved the way for Jim Crow.
Television changed everything
Early elections, of course, did not have to contend with television, mass media or social media. Newspapers in early days were not always a daily occurrence. Most political junkies can well remember 1948, when the Chicago Daily Tribune banner headline the morning after the vote declared Thomas Dewey the victor. Hours later, celebrating a historic comeback, a jubilant Harry Truman held up a copy of the Trib as cameras flashed. Dewey graciously conceded and, again, power passed peacefully.
Television changed everything. We began to wait for election night, screens filled with projections and the drama of the moment. The Associated Press became the early standard bearer for election calling, using a 50-state network of local reporters. Over time, television became our go-to source of news.
Nonetheless, modern history is also replete with elections in which the country had to wait for the count. In 1960, about midnight, The New York Times declared John F. Kennedy the winner against Richard Nixon, even though its managing editor later revealed that the decision was based on a hope and a prayer. Nixon spoke at 3 a.m., saying he might not win but refused to concede. Strong supporters insisted that a couple of states had a corrupted count — Chicago graveyards in those days were known to vote twice. It turned out to be one of Nixon’s finest moments: He withdrew the next afternoon, arguing that a long court case would be bad for the country. After a wait of nearly 24 hours, the torch was finally passed to a new generation of Americans.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan notably opened his inaugural address praising the nation’s tradition: For almost two centuries, he said, “the transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place. … In the eyes of many in the world, this every four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” To applause, Reagan then thanked President Jimmy Carter, the loser, for gracefully turning over the reins.
An election that feels like no other
More recently, who can forget the long, drawn out election counts of 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote, but Florida remained undecided and key to an Electoral College win. On “election night," every network and cable channel called the race for Gore. Networks began to reconsider after Karl Rove reportedly called on Fox News to change its prediction.
Although Gore initially conceded, he decided a recount was in order, and lawyers descended on Florida to determine the winner. Debate simmered over “hanging chads” — ballots that were open to conflicting interpretations. Democrats sued for a recount in specific counties, lost in the state circuit court, eventually leading to a highly controversial Supreme Court 5-4 decision for Bush that Dec. 12, five weeks after the election. Gore could have chosen to take his case to the House, but in an act of patriotism and a belief in the peaceful transition of power envisioned by the Constitution, he conceded the election.
We are now approaching an election that feels like no other but in truth is really a version of days past. It is, of course, possible that one candidate will have a landslide in hand on election night, but given the pandemic and the likely avalanche of mail -in ballots — ballots that inevitably will require time to process — it may be more likely we will have to wait for the count.
We have already experienced a similar wait during the primaries this year. Incumbent Congressman Eliot Engel did not know he had lost to Jamaal Bowman in New York until nearly a month after a June primary. And in 2018, Congressman David Valadao of California conceded to TJ Cox an entire month after the election. In both cases, losing candidates peacefully conceded.
In our general election on Nov. 3, there will no doubt be voices calling ballots into question and perhaps early predictions to be reconsidered. But at the end of the day or week or month, we will have a winner. True public leadership requires adherence to our Constitution, to a civic patience and to a memory of our history — ensuring that after we wait for the count, we can and should have a peaceful transfer of power.
Wendy R. Sherman (@WendyRSherman), a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is a professor of practice at Harvard Kennedy School, director of its Center for Public Leadership and author of “Not for the Faint of Heart: Lessons in Courage, Power and Persistence." She was undersecretary of State for political affairs from 2011-15 and led U.S. negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal. David Gergen (@David_Gergen) is a professor of public service at Harvard Kennedy School and co-founder of its Center for Public Leadership. He has served as a White House adviser to four presidents and is now a senior political analyst at CNN.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: History shows patience will deliver peaceful election results
