To test whether our nation's founding principles are still strong enough to survive another 250 years, PBS surprised a group of nine prominent Americans with a worst-case scenario for the midterm elections.
We began by bringing together prominent personalities who were willing to appear on national television to portray a gripping story in which our democracy is put to the test. We found a news content creator with millions of followers (Aaron Parnas). A community activist (Brittany Packnett Cunningham). A billionaire (Mark Cuban). A former governor (Chris Christie), senator (Claire McCaskill) and Secretary of Defense (Mark Esper). A congressman (Dan Crenshaw), an election expert (Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson) and a legal expert (Melissa Murray). Four Republicans, four Democrats and one independent.
We place participants in roles that rhyme with their real-life experiences and then confront them with a series of electoral threats. AI-generated misinformation to confuse voters? Check. Federal efforts to overturn state election procedures? Check. Military in the streets on Election Day, violent protests, efforts by the Department of Justice to confiscate ballots before they can be counted? Check, check, check.
These practical exercises have long been used in the military and in natural disaster planning, areas where split-second decisions can make the difference between avoiding a catastrophe and a crisis. Unfortunately, the stakes in the US election may now very well be high.
Furthermore, depicting the worst-case scenario of democracy on national television can have the added benefit of modeling civic dialogue. If partners like Christie (a Republican) and McCaskill (a Democrat) can show that it's possible to work together during an election crisis, then perhaps Americans will be a little more willing to talk to neighbors who voted differently in November.
So how did Cuban, Esper, Christie and the others respond when faced with difficult dilemmas in the midst of a hotly contested election in which both parties are working desperately (and not always legally) to gain control of Congress?
To begin with, our participants sometimes found surprising agreements on politically contentious issues. McCaskill and Cuban, for example, were open to joining Republicans on the panel to support sensible voter ID requirements. In the wake of President Trump's controversial SAVE Act, Americans may view voter ID as a binary issue, but there is ample middle ground to explore.
Participants also acknowledged, sometimes fearfully, that so much uncertainty is due to our rapidly changing information age. Young people, in particular, do not receive news through traditional media. Therefore, the influence of independent journalists and content creators like Parnas is likely to grow, as is their duty to report responsibly, with democracy at stake.
The group also perceived that current threats to our democracy reflect a deeper problem: growing economic inequality. As Cuban said, if people can't afford health care or put gas in their tanks, they will find it tremendously difficult to care about democracy.
By far the most harrowing chapters of our hypothetical story unfolded when the military was asked to enter a large city in a purple state two days before an election, on the theory that it was necessary to guard against foreign attack.
I put Trump's former Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, in the role of Army general and asked him if he would lead such a troop deployment. Esper appeared distressed by the order and expressed a laudable desire to keep the military out of American cities. But he finally explained that he had no choice but to follow the order if the lawyers assured him of its legality. For anyone hoping the military will save us from democratic erosion, the exchange was a dose of cold reality.
Finally, I asked participants how they would respond if the Department of Justice obtained a search warrant to seize a state's ballots before they could be fully counted. This is a big fear among election observers. If ballots are confiscated before the counting process is complete, it would disrupt the chain of custody and fatally undermine electoral integrity. However, the Trump administration already made a gesture toward this tactic when it confiscated 2020 ballots from Fulton County in Georgia.
In our scenario, state officials (including Christie) decided to file an emergency lawsuit to block the seizure of uncounted votes. But lawsuits take time, and even a few hours can mean the difference between ballots being seized or safe.
So other participants took matters into their own hands and joined a peaceful citizen blockade around the counting facility to buy time for a judge to rule. The ultimate lesson of our exercise may be the importance of ordinary Americans engaging in direct civic action to ensure the survival of our democracy.
Returning to real life, some participants suggested that our scenario would never happen because there are too many barriers in the way. But the most telling moment came from Utah's Republican lieutenant governor, who was responsible for the election. For Henderson, the situations we explore are as real and urgent as they seem. In fact, election officials in his state had already laid out these worst-case scenarios; They even have pre-packaged lawsuits ready to file on Election Day in case of interference.
In other words, the exercise may have been fictional, but it was far from fantastical. And as we approach one of the most consequential midterm elections in recent memory, we can all hope that the democratic dilemmas we raise never come to pass.
Aaron Tang is the host of he PBS series “Break the deadlock” and law professor at UC Davis. The episode described in this essay, “How to Fix an Election,” will air on PBS on Tuesday.AaronTangLaw
