[ad_1]
While the controversial 2000 election decision focused on formal legal issues, this time it is likely to be about voting by mail.
The US presidential election in November 2000 between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush was finally decided by the Supreme Court of Washington. The Supreme Court stopped counting votes in Florida that could have helped Gore to victory after a long back and forth. In the legal initiatives that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, is taking this year to stay in power, there are some new factors compared to then.
Recounts are a tradition in US political elections. If the winning party’s advantage falls below a certain percentage, many states are even required by law to recount. Usually these counts only marginally change the bottom line. In 2000, however, it was just over 1,000 votes that Bush in Florida, according to the official result of November 8, was ahead of Gore.
A few hundred votes separated Gore and Bush
In percentage terms, their advantage was below 0.5 points, so it was counted. Gore’s deficit was thus reduced to a few hundred votes. The Republican-dominated Supreme Court ultimately decided in Bush’s interest and ended the recount. Gore also admitted his defeat with respect to social peace in the country, and Bush was elected 43rd president by the electorate. Gore had won the election in absolute terms.
Something very similar could happen this year, according to US experts, if Trump loses the election. In this case, however, it would be the Republican candidate who is left behind and has to wait for his share of the votes to grow through recount or other decisions. It is not yet clear which state will take over the Florida role in 2020. At the moment, nowhere is a similar narrow lead in sight for a candidate like the Sunshine State.
Pennsylvania is not enough for Trump
It could be Pennsylvania, where Trump could end up being very thin behind his challenger, Joe Biden. With 20 voters, the state certainly has weight in the electoral college, but that alone will not allow Trump to change the race as it stands. However, cramming the courts with a large number of cases would not be a good plan either. “It would be virtually impossible for the Supreme Court to intervene in six to eight states,” said Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional expert at Yale Law School.
Trump would actually have to wait for the outcome in every state in order to come up with a well thought out strategy. However, the numerous lawsuits that have already been filed show that his team is primarily focused on quantity. It is mainly about the alleged illegitimacy of voting by mail. This clear focus in terms of content is an essential difference from the 2000 incidents. At that time, the main disputes were formal legal issues.
Voting by mail is a tradition, especially because of the military.
Trump’s attorneys will not be able to shake the vote by mail itself. This instrument also has a tradition in the United States, after all, from the middle of the 20th century at the latest, the country always had a large number of soldiers stationed in other countries or in the world’s oceans. Trump himself is also known for casting his vote by mail. However, these are issues such as multiple votes, incorrect electoral rolls, incorrect counting, and whether individual states can independently change electoral rules.
In any case, the Trump camp would have to justify well that this had a decisive influence on the outcome. What judges also need to consider is the background to the 2020 elections. The options for voting by mail have been generously expanded, mostly due to the Covid 19 pandemic. States, especially democratically governed ones, wanted their citizens to could vote safely outside of the voting stations. According to legal experts, Trump’s chances are not particularly high.
(WHAT)
