The 76 dangerous days between the election and the inauguration

The most dangerous period America faces in terms of election violence is not now through Election Day, but in the 76 days between Election Day on Nov. 5 and Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.

According to the logic of some, desperate times justify desperate measures. Many Americans vow they will not accept the results of this election if their candidate loses. A significant number believe violence is warranted to save the country.

Threats of violence against public officials at all levels have increased. So have acts of domestic political violence. This will not suddenly end on Election Day, no matter the outcome.

Instead, the danger level may rise on Nov. 5 when the polls close and the counting begins.

Predictably, suspicions that voting has been unfairly suppressed or that the counting is rigged will intensify. Rumors and fake news will flood social media, with some posts undoubtedly the products of agents of foreign governments trying to foment discord and chaos.

There could be delays in the count, challenges, recounts, disputes and litigation. Battle lines may sharpen as the contest proceeds to certification by the states and then by Congress on Jan. 6.

Clashes can occur simultaneously on several levels. Legislative intrigues at state and local levels could encourage street battles. Propelled by reckless exhortations and mass disinformation campaigns, partisan vigilantes may try to undermine the vote count, intimidate the vote counters, drive their enemies from office or launch local campaigns to further promote political and social agendas.

Not surprisingly, many Americans feel that the outcome of this election threatens their own personal safety. This is new territory.

The threat could arise from any number of actors in response to a complex array of potential motivators.

On Election Day, political partisans may take extreme steps to ensure a victory for their candidate. They may flood polling places and vote-counting centers with self-appointed observers (possibly armed) to watch for fraud, counter rival observers, intimidate certain classes of voters, protect ballots and take charge of the count.
Afterward, those who oppose the election’s apparent outcome could seek to disrupt the counting of ballots or prevent the result from being confirmed by local authorities or state legislatures.
There may be large-scale protests and disruptions by activists, not connected with a particular candidate, but rather aimed at flexing political muscle or drawing attention to contentious domestic or foreign policy issues.
Extreme left and right-wing extremists, anarchists, accelerationists and others may view post-election turmoil as an opportunity to provoke greater violence in pursuit of other objectives.
Radicalized by foreign ideologies and animated by recent events in the Middle East, individuals and small groups may seek to take advantage of the situation to carry out mass casualty terror attacks.
Disturbed individuals, agitated by political tensions and bellicose rhetoric, could pursue personal grievances or simply seek notoriety for themselves through violence.

The catalog of potential actions is equally diverse.

Since 2020, there has been a surge in violent threats against public officials at all levels, violent protests by far-left and far-right extremists, a nationwide rise in domestic terrorist incidents, the armed occupation of a state capitol, a mob assault on the nation’s Capitol, a plot to kidnap a governor, two attempted assassinations of former President Trump, intelligence indicating an Iranian plot to assassinate the former president and a plot by an Islamic State-inspired individual to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day.

Law enforcement has been vigilant. And the country has been lucky. Had these plots not been thwarted, the effects on the nation would have been profound and could have resulted in even more violence.

Apart from potential violence connected with the process of counting and certifying votes, the country could witness unsettling developments in anticipation of either candidate taking office.

Friends and foes of the U.S. will not wait until the inauguration to adjust their policies or exploit America’s disarray. There may be distracting international crises and provocations.

Voting will not end America’s deeply embedded political and cultural differences. Whoever wins, partisans on either side could use the result as an excuse for violent transformation and violent resistance.

That may be the new normal.

Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of RAND. He is the editor of the recent report: "Addressing the Threat of Political Violence in the 2024 Elections."