There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. – 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
I wanted to start out right at the beginning by acknowledging a simple truth: not everybody can do everything you’re about to read. We’re not good at everything. And we don’t have infinite time.
So think of the strategies below like a potluck. We’re pretty good at potlucks, right? All of these things are good to do, but that doesn’t mean that anybody has to bring all of the pieces. I invite you to read with a wondering mind: which of these things might I be called to do?
The specific eight strategies detailed below come from decades of research through the United States Institute of Peace—and more specifically, from a book called Electing Peace: Violence Prevention and Impact at the Polls—but I wouldn’t pass them on to you wholesale if they didn’t also vibe with what I’ve heard from practitioners, including Friends who’ve done this work on the ground.
Quick definition reminder: “election violence” is a technical term, meaning physical violence, severe psychological violence, or destruction of property of monetary or symbolic value, either triggered by an election cycle or intended to influence an election cycle. It can occur as early as a year before the election and as late as several months afterward. It’s most likely to happen in countries that (1) have experienced election violence before, (2) have populations that doubt the legitimacy of the government, and (3) are in election cycles in which politicians are explicitly encouraging groups of people to blame one another for their problems.
And here are eight ways in which election violence can be prevented, plus two bonus ideas at the end:
1) Security-sector engagement. Police and military forces can discourage election violence and can stop it after it starts, but only under certain conditions. It’s important that individuals serving in these roles are well-trained. When they’re not, they might escalate violence rather than interrupt it. It also helps a lot if there’s trust built ahead of time between police forces and the citizens in the local area.
How can we act on this? Remember the two most essential pieces: training and trust. In local areas, we can initiate or participate in opportunities for citizens and police officers to meet one another. Some communities invite police officers to community events or schools; in other places, the police force initiates coffee-with-a-cop or drop-in breakfasts. Police can also be encouraged to join community forums (more about those below). We can also advocate, on a local or state level as appropriate, for police training that includes violence de-escalation strategies. Have you been part of such trainings, or do you have direct experience in advocating for them? If so, I’d love to hear from you.
2) Election management and administration. This category includes all the legal and technical tasks, such as determining legal eligibility of candidates, registering voters, running election day itself, counting ballots, and certifying elections. It is important that these tasks are done competently and with integrity. It’s also important that they are perceived as being done competently and with integrity, which is not always the same thing.
How can we act on this? We can take on some roles directly by volunteering as poll workers. We can also advocate for high-quality election management and administration. What’s tricky about that is the fundamental disagreement in the United States about what high-quality election management and administration means. I’m looking forward to a report from Braver Angels, due to be released sometime in December, about a series of red-blue community forums in which the groups developed and approved bipartisan election policies that addressed both security (which the reds felt was important) and access (which the blues felt was important). This feels like a potential way forward in our perception problem: if we can make changes in a way that reassures everyone, we might make some strides on our perception-of-government-legitimacy issues.
3) Preventative diplomacy. If election violence is imminent or already occurring, external forces—essentially, other nations—can pressure individual politicians or governments to take actions that will resolve the instigating factors.
How can we act on this? To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. This is the only one of the eight strategies that requires external intervention, and circumstances would have to be pretty extraordinary for other countries to start putting pressure on the U.S. government. I’m including it here only for the sake of transparency. It’s a strategy that often works…but probably not in our case.
4) Peace messaging. Campaigns encouraging peaceful engagement might include community-wide events, posters, social media ads, conversations with community leaders, and use of local media channels. Messages are most effective when developed locally by people within the community itself, and the earlier they get going, the better.
How can we act on this? Friends can work within their local communities with interfaith religious groups, youth organizations, local newspapers, political parties, schools, universities, athletes and coaches, community organizations, and more to develop messages or slogans about peaceful engagement with the political process. The idea is to encourage people to advocate for political policies without violence or the types of dehumanizing language that often encourage violence. How this is done will vary enormously based on the culture of the local area. The questions to consider are, “Who are the strongest messengers in this local community, most likely to influence the most people? What is the strongest, most persuasive message to send?”
5) Civic and voter education. This includes some obvious things, such as helping people know where and how to vote (or register to vote) and how to register a complaint if they feel their rights are being violated. But it also includes publicizing or introducing channels for positive, peaceful engagement.
How can we act on this? One reason people are violent is because they don’t believe there’s any other way to get their point across. We can alleviate this pressure by providing and publicizing as many alternative channels as possible: training in how to run a peaceful protest, resources for writing letters to (or visiting) political representatives, petitions, voter registration campaigns, and more. We can choose an audience within a local community to work with and publicize, invent, or support the invention of positive channels for political expression.
6) Election monitoring and mapping. Election monitoring and election mapping are two very different strategies that are combined in the literature because they follow a similar logic. Both are ways of paying attention to what’s happening in order to prevent events from escalating in a violent manner. Election monitoring is watching the elections themselves to make sure that everything is being done in accordance with the law. Election mapping means running exit polls (to compare against official tallies) and recording election violence events.
How can we act on this? Supporting election monitoring is easy enough. We can volunteer as election monitors and encourage others to do so as well. Election mapping is trickier. Our media already does quite a lot of exit polling, but not everyone takes that as evidence that the election results are legitimate, nor do we have overwhelming trust in our national media. However, creating a separate citizen polling and mapping system is an enormous project. If you have thoughts about this, I’d love to hear them.
7) Voter consultations. Voters who have access to their elected officials, not in the form of campaign rallies but in the form of interactive town halls or livestreams or radio shows, feel more able to hold their elected officials accountable non-violently.
How can we act on this? We can encourage our elected officials at all levels to hold interactive town halls—explaining, if it’s a helpful argument, that this is an election violence prevention technique. We can also publicize opportunities that already exist and encourage young adults and teens, especially, to attend.
8) Youth programming. Generally speaking, though not always, young people are more likely than middle-aged and older people to engage in election violence. This includes both young adults and teens. Providing local alternatives for young people makes them less vulnerable to being pulled into violence.
How can we act on this? In local communities, we can develop youth forums in which young people have the opportunity to work together non-violently to address their political concerns. They can also be encouraged to take leadership in the promotion of non-violence. Sometimes this will mean developing entirely new groups or projects. Other times, pre-existing groups for youth can serve as a starting place. Young people do not need to be the recipients of programming. They can receive support in developing it themselves.
9) Community forums. This first bonus technique doesn’t get mentioned with the eight strategies because it isn’t so much a “what” as a “how.” All of the strategies are more effective when developed and supported by diverse community groups. If you wanted to set up a local community forum, you might consider inviting a combination of formal community leaders, informal community leaders, and secular and religious community leaders. Research points to school board members, coaches and teachers, clergy, librarians, police, local politicians, and representatives from a cross-section of economic classes, young people, and women as good choices to explicitly include. I’ll be writing more on community forums later, but the basic purpose is to gather folks together who agree on the simple statement, “We don’t want violence.” Then, start brainstorming on how best to meet that goal in your own community.
10) Recognize and interrupt the kinds of language that contribute to an environment that might become violent. Here’s another bonus technique. In the United States, we have the Constitutional right to say almost anything. That doesn’t mean all forms of speech are a good idea. There is a difference between criticizing a position and attacking a person (or a whole group of people). When we ascribe motivations to others, use straw man arguments, or dehumanize people—or when we allow our friends and acquaintances to do these things without interruption—we contribute to a general environment that is less resilient to shocks and more likely to become violent. If you’d like some specific training on how to interrupt these patterns, I recommend the Braver Angels Depolarizing Within course, which is free and which you can complete in under an hour online.
Okay—take a breath. It’d be very easy to feel overwhelmed at this point. I certainly feel overwhelmed typing all this. So I’d like to invite you back to the potluck. You don’t have to bring everything. We have lots and lots of allies. Many people in this country would agree with the statement, “We don’t want violence,” probably including almost everyone you know.
Is there one thing you’ve read in this entire post that feels like a doable starting point for you personally? Let me know in the comments.
If you’d like to receive occasional emails from me about election violence prevention, including invitations to Zoom conversations and trainings and recommended resources, you can sign up for those here.
If you’d like to subscribe to this blog and receive a notification each time I post something new, you can do that by clicking the “subscribe” button here:
Turning, Turning 