Donald Trump recently became the first US president in history to refuse to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event he loses the election. Asked in a recent press conference if he would respect the outcome in light of his casting doubt on the democratic process, Trump brought up the still-unfounded notion of mail-in ballot voter-fraud. He has stated repeatedly that the only way Biden could win is by ‘fixing’ the election.
The idea of Trump and his team committing to staying in the White House whatever the result is a huge deal, if this were to occur, it would mark the end, or at least a pause, in America’s status as a democracy.
Surprisingly little media attention has been given to this historic statement, possibly because- in the minds of voters- it represents too frightening an idea to worry about until absolutely necessary. The New York Times knows its readers don’t really want to think about a sitting president refusing to leave office, and the logical conclusions of such an event, hence why the story featured on page 15 as opposed to the cover.
Of course, if Trump really was concerned about the integrity of the US voting system then, as president, he’s in the best position to make sure it’s legitimate. Yet it is not Trump, but Bernie Sanders who is now calling for an independent commission to oversee the electoral process, in an apparent effort to add legitimacy to the outcome in the minds of voters. Sanders cited several studies debunking Trump’s obsession with mail-in voter fraud, stating:
“Trump’s strategy to delegitimize this election and to stay in office if he loses is not complicated. Finding himself behind in many polls, he is attempting massive voter suppression.”
The scenario Sanders went on to describe was one where, on election night, Trump finds himself ahead in physically-cast ballots, but behind when including mail-in ballots. In this scenario Trump would aim to cast-doubt on the mail-in ballots, arguing they should be discounted, and take it all the way to the supreme court.
The last time a US election was contested was the 2000 race between George Bush and Al Gore, in which the state of Florida’s votes were so close that a recount was ordered, resulting in weeks of confusion and the legal battle Bush vs Gore which ended in a 5-4 decision by the supreme court, stating that Bush had won Florida by 537 votes- a margin of 0.009%. My suspicion is that Trump is laying the groundwork to pull off a Bush-esque stunt in which lawyers are brought in to have the final say over states whose votes are extremely close. Trump himself has already said he expects the election result to end up in the Supreme Court. This is where the newly-vacant seat comes in.
Following the death of liberal superhero Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who’s last verdict was to make it harder for asylum seekers to enter the US, but who also agreed with 'Orange Man Bad', a space has opened up in the highest court in the land, a court which is famously partisan. Convention is to leave the seat vacant until after the election, but Trump has quite brazenly stated his intention of filling that seat ASAP, presumably so they can back him up when he takes the election result to court in November.
The fact is that the US electoral system is already broken. In 2016, Trump became the fifth nominee to win the election by coming in second place, netting 3 million fewer votes than rival Hillary Clinton. Although the rules of US democracy are- to put in bluntly-stupid, they have at least stuck to their own rules in past elections. A failure to do so this time would surely plunge the country into chaos.
Trump has already called for his supporters to act as ‘poll-watchers’ on November 7th, many of whom will no doubt be armed. Again, the idea of armed MAGA militias flanking polling booths in black neighborhoods is- like an incumbent Trump refusing to leave office- a concept many ordinary Americans will not want to think about too much, but a very real possibility in the current political climate.
The fact is, Trump has done this before. He cast doubt on the 2016 election, saying that if he lost he would contest the result. He won, and so we were spared that particular fiasco. This time, however, two major things have changed:
1. Trump would this time be contesting the result not as a celebrity nominated by the GOP, but as the President of the United States.
2. Trump is projected to fully lose this time, meaning a fight over said loss is much more likely.
If Trump is actually serious about this plan, and succeeds in fixing the Supreme Court in his favour, contesting a Biden win to the point where the Supreme Court have to make a ruling on post-ballots, and decide to discount them, resulting in a Trump win, all pretense of US democracy will be lost, if it wasn’t already.
コメント