Ken Herman: The post-Election Day dangers to come,

Good for the candidates. Good for moderator Chris Wallace. We had a 90-minute debate with many of those minutes devoted to policy. Good for us.

In this oddest of elections, we had a debate largely highlighted by standard differences of opinion between a Democrat and a Republican on perpetual issues such as abortion, guns, immigration and the economy. The differences remain real. Nothing wrong with that. That’s why we have elections.

And that’s why the most chilling moments of the debate were the ones devoted to what happens after this election. Wallace, referring to Trump’s drumbeat about a “rigged” election, noted the pride our nation takes in our peaceful, post-election transfers of power.

Wallace prefaced his question to Trump by noting that the candidate’s daughter Ivanka and his running mate Mike Pence have said they will accept the results of the election. How about you, Donald? “I will look at it at the time,” he said. “I’m not looking at it now.”

But he certainly is talking about it, just about every day at rallies where he is dangerously convincing his followers that the only possible reason for a Trump loss would be cheating by somebody. Trump further pumped up the lock-her-up crowd by saying at the debate that Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” because “she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime.”

Wallace again pushed Trump about whether he’d concede if he loses.

“What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time,” Trump said. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” No, it’s not OK. “That’s horrifying,” Clinton said. It is. In a Thursday speech in Ohio, Trump said he “will totally accept the results of this great and historic election.” And then, after a pause, he added “If I win.”

Joke? If no, not funny. Then, perhaps chastened by a loved one after the debate, he added the only thing he should have been saying all along: “Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.”

If the third and final debate of this presidential campaign between two deeply flawed candidates hammered home anything, it’s this: We’re headed for the most important day after Election Day of our lifetimes.

What happens Nov. 9 could be more important than what happens Nov. 8. That’s because it’s possible that Trump, ever me-above-all-else, could do more damage in a few months after losing than he might do in four or eight years after winning.

Can anybody picture Trump, in defeat, making the traditional gracious congratulatory call to the winner and following up with the concession speech that calls for unity after a tough, divisive campaign?

And if he doesn’t? Does Trump launch a post-campaign tour in which he keeps talking about a rigged election won by somebody who should not have been allowed to run? Would he continue drawing large, raucous crowds who buy into evidence-free, lots-of-people-are-saying claims about a rigged election?

I hope I’m wrong and that all that Trump does post-defeat is try to monetize this, either by way of some kind of media outlet (Trump TV?) or high-dollar speaking fees.

Can an election be rigged? Sure, small ones. We had an in-depth story in this past Sunday’s paper detailing how elections are compromised in our Texas border counties. Messing with a small-town school board election is one thing (a bad thing). Rigging a presidential election is another thing (close to an impossible thing).

Tens of millions of people will vote for Trump. Many are reasonable people reasonably calling for needed change in Washington. Some are delusional zealots.

Most of us lived through a presidential election that produced an uncertain outcome. We watched the Bush vs. Gore election become the Bush vs. Gore litigation that lingered for a month and divided the nation until the U.S. Supreme Court sorted it out. The outcome was not to everyone’s satisfaction, but — thanks in no small part to Gore’s willingness to concede after the high court ruled — we survived that contentious period in a way that many countries can only dream about.

In an era where the greatest threat to our democracy might be coming from within — lack of trust in critical institutions such as government, banks, big business, the news media and even, in some quarters, religion — the last thing we need is an unsubstantiated, fact-free, post-Election Day attack on our electoral system, perhaps the most important institution of all.