The U.S. presidential elections of 2016, 2020, and 2024 have produced a paradoxical democratic condition: record-high voter turnout alongside historically low institutional trust and systematic challenges to democratic norms. Rather than concluding that democracy has simply strengthened or weakened, this analysis argues that these elections have split democratic health along two axes simultaneously — measurable participation gains coexisting with normative damage that cannot be captured in turnout statistics alone. Drawing on Levitsky and Ziblatt's framework of democratic backsliding, Dahl's theory of mutual guarantees, and Pew Research Center trust data, the essay shows that American institutions held not because of structural robustness but because of individual decisions made under pressure — a critical distinction. Undergraduate students in political science, American government, and civic studies courses will find this paper a useful model for constructing interpretive arguments about electoral politics and democratic theory.
American democracy has never been a stable achievement — it has always been a contested project. But the three presidential elections spanning 2016 to 2024 subjected that project to pressures that earlier generations of analysts would have considered theoretical rather than immediate: the systematic questioning of electoral integrity, the erosion of peaceful-transfer norms, the weaponization of social media against shared epistemic ground, and the paradoxical surge in voter participation alongside collapsing institutional trust. Scholars who study democratic backsliding typically distinguish between sudden ruptures — coups, constitutional suspensions — and the slower corrosion that comes when democratic actors exploit legal rules to delegitimize the process from within (Levitsky and Ziblatt 8). The United States after 2016 has been a case study in the latter. The argument here is not that American democracy has simply weakened or simply strengthened across this period; that framing is too binary for what has actually happened. Rather, the elections of 2016, 2020, and 2024 have collectively produced a bifurcated democratic condition: a measurably more participatory electorate operating inside an institutional framework whose legitimacy is now radically contested among a substantial minority. The health of the system, in other words, has split along two axes simultaneously — and that split is more dangerous than simple decline precisely because it forecloses easy diagnosis and easy remedy.
The 2016 election did not invent distrust of institutions, but it operationalized that distrust as an explicit electoral strategy in ways that permanently altered the terrain. Donald Trump's campaign ran not merely against Hillary Clinton but against the category of expert authority itself — against the administrative state, against polling organizations, against mainstream journalism, and against the intelligence community. When he won, two things happened simultaneously. His supporters interpreted the outcome as proof that elite institutions had been systematically lying about public opinion, and his opponents interpreted the same outcome as proof that Russian interference and media distortion had corrupted the process (Sides, Tesler, and Vavreck 4). Neither side, in other words, accepted the 2016 result as a straightforward expression of democratic will — they simply disagreed about who had distorted it. The Pew Research Center's tracking of institutional confidence shows a pronounced acceleration of partisan divergence in trust beginning precisely in 2017: Republicans' confidence in the presidency surged while their trust in the press, universities, and scientific agencies dropped sharply, while Democrats moved in the mirror-image direction. This sorting of institutional trust along partisan lines is, as political scientist Brookings scholars have documented, a structural vulnerability unique to the current period — earlier partisan divisions involved disagreements about what institutions should do, not whether they deserved to exist (Galston and Kamarck 12).
The 2020 election intensified both sides of this bifurcated condition. On the participation dimension, it produced the highest voter turnout rate since 1900 — roughly two-thirds of the eligible population casting ballots — a figure that, taken alone, would be a strong indicator of democratic vitality (McDonald). The expansion of mail-in voting, driven by pandemic necessity, reached millions of voters who had previously faced structural barriers: irregular work schedules, limited transportation, long lines at polling places. These gains were real and consequential. Yet the 2020 election simultaneously produced the most sustained assault on a certified election result in the nation's history. The campaign led by Trump and allied attorneys — filing over sixty legal challenges, pressuring state election officials, and ultimately assembling a scheme to submit fraudulent slates of electors — represented exactly what Levitsky and Ziblatt call "norm breaking," the decision by a political actor to treat guardrails that had previously been observed by convention as merely optional (Levitsky and Ziblatt 102). The distinction matters enormously. When democratic norms are broken by one side, the structural response of healthy democracies is for institutions to hold. And to a significant degree, American institutions did hold in 2020: courts dismissed unsupported claims, state officials certified accurate results, and the electoral count proceeded. But the test revealed something troubling about the durability of norm observance when it is sustained not by shared belief in democratic legitimacy but by the individual decisions of officials who happened, in this instance, to choose correctly.
"One-third of Americans rejected certified results"
"Institutions held — but only through individual virtue"
"Larger electorate, actively contested access"
The cumulative picture that emerges from analyzing 2016, 2020, and 2024 together is one of a democracy that has demonstrated genuine structural durability while sustaining significant normative damage. The durability is not in dispute: the constitutional machinery functioned, transitions of power occurred, and courts operated independently. But democratic health is not reducible to the absence of breakdown; it also includes the texture of shared belief that makes self-governance coherent. When a third of the electorate operates under the belief that elections are routinely stolen, when institutional trust has become almost entirely a function of partisan identity rather than performance, and when the question of whether to accept electoral results has become a position rather than a premise, something has been lost that cannot be fully measured in turnout statistics or court decisions. Pew Research Center data tracking public trust in government since 1958 shows that the current period, despite its elevated turnout, is marked by some of the lowest aggregate trust scores ever recorded. High participation driven by fear and grievance is not the same democratic achievement as high participation driven by civic confidence. The elections of 2016 through 2024 have not destroyed American democracy — but they have demonstrated that it can be seriously stressed without being obviously broken, and that condition may be the most difficult one of all to repair.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.