Electoral Crisis Communications: Combatting Disinformation & the Contest for Electoral Legitimacy

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X231184440
• Author: Gregory Winger,Brian Calfano,Jelena Vićić,Richard Harknett
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

American Politics Research

2023, Vol. 51(5) 608–618

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X231184440

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Electoral Crisis Communications: Combatting

Disinformation & the Contest for Electoral

Legitimacy

Gregory Winger

1

, Brian Calfano

1

, Jelena Vi´

ci´

c

2

, and Richard Harknett

1

Abstract

In the age of weaponized disinformation, the question for democracies is not merely who will win an election, but whether the

outcome will be accepted as legitimate. To assess the challenge faced by U.S. electoral off‌icials in convincing the public of the

security of election procedure we conducted a survey experiment on a national sample of 4987 U.S. adults in the lead-up to the

2020 election. Subjects were exposed to claims about voter fraud as well as crisis communicati on counter-messaging attributed

to election off‌icials. We f‌ind that regardless of the messaging strategy, subjects were unmoved by the counter-messaging with

partisanship being a clear predictor of increased skepticism towards election security. Our f‌indings illustrate the diff‌iculties

election off‌icials face in convincing the publics about election legitimacy and highlight the systemic dangers posed by electoral

disinformation.

Keywords

election security, election legitimacy, disinformation, social media, crisis communications

Introduction

Democracies survive not because elections are held, but

because candidates, parties, and populations accept their

results (Anderson et al., 2005). The spread of false or mis-

leading information about election procedures can enf‌lame

concerns about the fairness of elections and undermine

popular belief in the legitimacy of an election’s outcome (e.g.

Berlinski et al., 2021;Clayton et al., 2021;Zimmermann &

Kohring, 2020). But the corrosive impact of stories about

electoral malpractice may have wider implications for citi-

zens’faith in democracy itself (Norris, 2019). Anticipating

this problem, during the 2020 Presidential election, U.S.

election off‌icials adopted a strategy of publicly refuting

electoral disinformation.

1

This marked a key evolution in the

role of election off‌icials like Secretaries of State (SoS) from

simple election administrators to public defenders of the

democratic process.

But did these interventions actually matter? Against this

real-world exercise in electoral legitimacy, we assess the

effects of messaging from election off‌icials in boosting public

conf‌idence in election procedures. This research builds on

the study of crisis communications and attempts to leverage

best practices in political arenas like election security (Berger

et al., 2018). In particular, we gauge how effective strategies

like message-transparency (Holland et al., 2018) are in

mitigating electoral apprehensions fueled by disinformation

within the context of partisan polarization and competing

cues about electoral integrity. Unfortunately, we f‌ind that

messaging from election off‌icials has no signif‌icant effects at

assuaging the electoral anxieties stoked by disinformation

regardless of transparency level.

Countering Disinformation

Countering disinformation is inherently diff‌icult in the digital

age (e.g. Brashier et al., 2021). Not only is there no magic

messaging bullet to mitigate disinformation, but corrective

efforts may actually produce unintended and harmful con-

sequences. Preemptive countermeasures, such as attaching a

“questionable”or “false”warning to disinformation, may

actually lessen trust in the warning itself (e.g. Clayton et al.,

2020;Freeze et al., 2021;Pennycook et al., 2020). And,

1

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

2

Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Gregory Winger, School of Public & International Affairs, University of

Cincinnati, Crosley Tower, Off‌ice 1202, 301 Clifton Court, Cincinnati,

OH 45221, USA.

Email: Gregory.Winger@uc.edu