The Deep State Declares the 2024 Election a National Security Threat
September 14, 2024.png)
Key Takeaways
- Around 37% of Americans are skeptical of DHS and the Secret Service designating the Electoral Vote Count as a national security event.
- Some support the decision as necessary for election security, many of these still express unease about its broader implications.
- Smaller but significant portions of the public express confusion and outrage, highlighting desires for greater transparency.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
4,500
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Secret Service designated the 2025 Electoral Vote Count as a national security event, sparking widespread and intense debate. This move, unprecedented in U.S. electoral history, has triggered a variety of responses from different segments of the American public.
Voters are grappling with concerns over democracy, transparency, and security. Reactions and sentiments around domestic policy, voting issues, and election integrity vary. Analysis of these differences provides insight into how Americans are processing this complex issue.
.png)
Sentiment Analysis
MIG Reports analysis shows a marked division in public opinion. The reactions can be grouped into four broad categories:
- Skepticism and concern (37%)
- Support for the decision (32%)
- Uncertainty (17%)
- Outrage or frustration (13%)
Each perspective offers its own unique breakdown of public sentiment, revealing the various underlying motivations, concerns, and narratives that shape these discussions.
.png)
Domestic Policy
Designating the vote count as a national security event has spurred conversations about government overreach and power. Analysis of discussions show 42% of Americans are skeptical, expressing concern that this move is an unnecessary overreach of executive power. Many fear the designation could set a precedent for future manipulation of the electoral process under the guise of national security.
Meanwhile, 27% support the decision, believing increased security is necessary to protect the electoral process from potential threats. However, even within this group, there is a sense of caution regarding the broader implications.
Another 21% of the conversation calls for greater transparency and accountability from the government, demanding more information about why this designation was made and how it will impact the voting process. The remaining 10% expresses outrage, viewing the designation as an affront to democracy and an attempt to suppress dissent.
.png)
Voting Issues
Discussions about voting issues show similar sentiments of deep skepticism and division. Around 42% express outrage and indignation, often using strong language to condemn the government’s decision. Many in this group view the move as an attempt to undermine the democratic process, with concerns about voter suppression and the militarization of the election. This group is largely composed of liberal and progressive voters who feel the integrity of the election is under threat.
The 27% who support the designation believe it is a necessary measure to secure the election from potential threats. This group, predominantly made up of conservative and Republican voters who view the measure as safeguard against fraud and external interference.
Additionally, 15% express confusion and uncertainty, seeking more clarity about what this designation entails. Another 16% demonstrate cynicism and apathy, questioning the effectiveness of any governmental action in securing elections and feeling disillusioned with the electoral process overall.
Election Integrity
Conversation about election integrity shifts slightly, with 42% supporting the move as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the vote and prevent potential voter fraud. This group feels safeguarding the electoral process is paramount. They view the designation as an appropriate and necessary measure.
Conversely, 27% believe the measure is an overreach of power, echoing concerns about executive authority and its potential abuse. Another 15% express uncertainty, reflecting the need for more information before forming a definitive opinion on the matter. Finally, 12% see this move as a partisan attempt to undermine the electoral process and discredit the outcome, with 4% specifically concerned about the potential for foreign interference.
_.png){kind=spacer}
_.png){kind=spacer}
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)