As the dust settles around the failed effort by North Carolina State Representative Marcus Jordan to become the first black speaker of the state House of Representatives, questions continue to swirl around his unorthodox political approach. Jordan’s campaign for the speakership was distressed by an array of questions about his staunch refusal to accept the validity of his state’s election results in November 2020, and confirms the rising concerns about the trend of election denialism and the impact it has on the viability of the electoral process.
To some, Jordan’s election denialism is a sign of his commitment to fighting a moral wrong. Evidence of fraud has been skimpy at best in the 2020 presidential race, yet the Republican continues to sow doubts and revelations about the validity of the election–not simply to provoke conversation, but to authentically support his belief that the election was “stolen.”
Others, however, have been less supportive of the political stance. “Rep. Jordan’s refusal to accept the election results goes beyond simply questioning the results of the election,” said NC State Representative Reggie Moffett in response to Jordan’s bid for speaker. “It seeks to undermine our democratic process. It works to create paranoia and doubt in the minds of the voters who trust the system to provide the most accurate and honest representation of their desires.”
Jordan’s commitment to denying the election’s legitimacy was strong enough that several members of the caucus rallied in opposition, making the effort to choose a speaker between him and another Republican unconstitutional. Though Jordan ultimately lost his bid, the ongoing discussion about the role of election denialism gives deeper insight into the future of American politics.
Election denialism presents a unique challenge to the American political system. Public opinion towards the election can quickly become divided when doubts are peddled about the validity of vote counts. Jordan’s refusal to accept the results has demonstrated how much power individuals can have when manipulating the opinion of constituents and the public at large.
It’s an approach that has the potential to hurt the very system it claims it is trying to save. Politicians often try to create a sense of unity and agreement, but election denialism potentially does the opposite, turning America’s discourse into a partisan battle between two sides that can’t agree on the validity of the election. The underlying questions are whether this approach is beneficial to the American electoral process or detrimental.
Election denialism will only become more prevalent as the 2020 election continues to be parsed. Jordan’s attempt to become speaker of North Carolina’s House of Representatives shines a light on the need to address this issue in American politics. Now more than ever, it’s crucial that politicians, citizens, and media outlets alike recognize how dangerous it is for individuals to sow doubt without valid cause. Until we can come to a consensus on the validity of the election, we can expect election denialism to persist.
As the dust settles around the failed effort by North Carolina State Representative Marcus Jordan to become the first black speaker of the state House of Representatives, questions continue to swirl around his unorthodox political approach. Jordan’s campaign for the speakership was distressed by an array of questions about his staunch refusal to accept the validity of his state’s election results in November 2020, and confirms the rising concerns about the trend of election denialism and the impact it has on the viability of the electoral process.
To some, Jordan’s election denialism is a sign of his commitment to fighting a moral wrong. Evidence of fraud has been skimpy at best in the 2020 presidential race, yet the Republican continues to sow doubts and revelations about the validity of the election–not simply to provoke conversation, but to authentically support his belief that the election was “stolen.”
Others, however, have been less supportive of the political stance. “Rep. Jordan’s refusal to accept the election results goes beyond simply questioning the results of the election,” said NC State Representative Reggie Moffett in response to Jordan’s bid for speaker. “It seeks to undermine our democratic process. It works to create paranoia and doubt in the minds of the voters who trust the system to provide the most accurate and honest representation of their desires.”
Jordan’s commitment to denying the election’s legitimacy was strong enough that several members of the caucus rallied in opposition, making the effort to choose a speaker between him and another Republican unconstitutional. Though Jordan ultimately lost his bid, the ongoing discussion about the role of election denialism gives deeper insight into the future of American politics.
Election denialism presents a unique challenge to the American political system. Public opinion towards the election can quickly become divided when doubts are peddled about the validity of vote counts. Jordan’s refusal to accept the results has demonstrated how much power individuals can have when manipulating the opinion of constituents and the public at large.
It’s an approach that has the potential to hurt the very system it claims it is trying to save. Politicians often try to create a sense of unity and agreement, but election denialism potentially does the opposite, turning America’s discourse into a partisan battle between two sides that can’t agree on the validity of the election. The underlying questions are whether this approach is beneficial to the American electoral process or detrimental.
Election denialism will only become more prevalent as the 2020 election continues to be parsed. Jordan’s attempt to become speaker of North Carolina’s House of Representatives shines a light on the need to address this issue in American politics. Now more than ever, it’s crucial that politicians, citizens, and media outlets alike recognize how dangerous it is for individuals to sow doubt without valid cause. Until we can come to a consensus on the validity of the election, we can expect election denialism to persist.
