Good Governance: Too-Close-To-Call Elections and the Test of Legitimacy

With the United States election of 2024 just concluding, questions about the legitimacy of government are especially pressing. As a measure of good governance, democratic legitimacy is one of the core tests of a government’s ability to govern on behalf of a diverse and pluralist society, and of the capacity of the democratic process to deliver acceptable outcomes.

Legitimacy gained through the election process may be tested on many fronts – by regional political polarization; by urban-rural splits in political affinities; by demographic differences, such as generational, racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic differences; and by the size of the prevailing majority. It is this last one that is the focus of this article – what happens to the legitimacy of the electoral process and the ultimate victors in the event of a too-close-to-call election?

In the United States presidential election of 2020, the close election, had a dramatic and deeply divisive effect on the perceived legitimacy of the Biden administration. The small number of votes that divided the two main parties in the swing states was fodder to those who sought to discredit the election. Any mistake or anomaly in the counting of ballots, voter identification, or treatment of ballot boxes, or even the suspicion of such a mistake or anomaly, was magnified by election deniers. A bigger and more definitive majority win in either direction met with little or no challenge. In a too-close-to-call election, counts and recounts, scrutiny of every ballot, questions about the legitimacy of each voter, these can all present the possibility of overturning the result.

Close elections present unique challenges for good governance, particularly in three critical areas: legitimacy, smooth transitions of power, and the public’s acceptance of election outcomes. All three demand on the ‘rational-legal’ measures of legitimacy – the counting of votes, the scrutiny of voters, the protection of ballots, the declaration and certification of results – rather than populist, charismatic legitimacy of a political candidate.

The recent provincial election in British Columbia in October 2024 offers an example of a too-close-to-call election that shows how a healthy democracy can absorb these challenges. The conduct of party candidates and leaders can lead the electorate to an accepted result, even when the election was extremely close. In the provincial election that was held on October 19, the final result and the declaration of a winner were not announced until October 28, a full 9 days later. In several constituencies, the difference in votes between the first place and second place candidates numbered as few as 23 votes. Recounts were triggered according to election rules, and in the end the NDP was declared the winner, with 47 seats, compared to the Conservatives with 44 seats and the Green Party with 2 seats.

So, what made the difference in terms of the legitimacy of the election result? Despite the frustrations and divisions evident in the BC election, there was an overall acceptance of the elections process and the outcome. The rational-legal democratic process was seen as legitimate and the recounts as fair. On October 28, the leader of the BC Conservative Party conceded the election publicly, following one of the core processes of the transition of power to the new government. In what might have been taken for granted in less contentious or polarized elections or in more accepting times, the concession was a crucial step in acknowledging and accepting the result, and in building public confidence in government.

Another significant factor in Canadian elections, in comparison with US elections, has been the role of independent and empowered electoral commissions at both the federal and provincial levels. Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, who heads Elections Canada, is an Agent of Parliament with secure tenure and extensive statutory authority to manage elections and ensure their integrity without interference from parties or governments. The effectiveness of such an office in safeguarding legitimacy depends on both its credibility as a non-partisan actor and the demonstrated effectiveness with which it has conducted elections in the past. This credibility extends to public confidence in elections, even in knife-edge ones.

In contrast to the non-partisan approach of the Canadian parliamentary system, the United States Federal Electoral Commission, established in 1974, has a bipartisan structure, reflecting the congressional system of working ‘across the aisle’. The Federal Electoral Commission has three of its six Commissioners appointed by the Republican Party, and three by the Democratic Party. Its mandate is therefore shaped by this, and the perceptions of its work drawn into the polarization of the current political climate.

As political polarization and social tensions continue to test our democratic principles and processes, the credibility of institutions and the conduct of the players are all the more important. Apparently small acts of acknowledgement and acceptance – including thanking election workers following the vote count, congratulating one’s opponents, recognizing the legitimacy of democratic processes, acknowledging the election outcome – take on very significant importance in furthering the good governance of our society.

Catherine Waters is Director, Learning Design and Evaluation at the Institute on Governance.