[ad_1]
These are the fantasies of D. Trump and his followers and the greatest horror of his opponents. Is such a scenario possible and plausible? In general, no. This is not the case with George W. Bush and Al Gore of 2000. Let’s look at the case of D. Trump.
Technically, Biden has yet to win elections in any state. The results in each individual state are not yet official. In American elections, there is a period during which the last calculations and adjustments are made. This is normal. It is not surprising during this period that minor adjustments are made to the vote count.
Reuters / Photo by Scanpix / Donald Trump
Approximately two weeks after the elections, a special election observation commission in each state meets to approve the final election results and issue electoral certificates identifying the winners of the elections. Only then are the official winners considered to have been announced. Until then, candidates can file complaints. Vote conversion is also possible. Going to court is usually only possible at the end of this stage.
Technically, Biden has yet to win elections in any state. The results in each individual state are not yet official.
All specified processes have deadlines. Under federal law, all vote counting disputes in the states must be resolved by Dec. 8. If the voting results are controversial in Congress, the presumption of validity of the votes applies. This is the so-called “safe harbor” provision. Federal law requires voters to cast their ballots on December 14.
The Constitution requires that the votes of the electorate be passed in a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, while also settling disputes over votes in Congress. Finally, the Constitution establishes that the term of the current president expires in 2021. January 20 at noon when the new president takes office. These deadlines must be respected in any legal dispute. In light of this, court disputes must also be resolved by December 8.
“Scanpix” / AP nuotr./Joe Bidenas
November 9 According to the data, J. Biden has potentially 279 votes from the voters, it takes nine more than 270 votes for victory. This figure includes votes from Michigan (16), Nevada (6), Pennsylvania (20), and Wisconsin (10) and excludes votes from Arizona (11) and Georgia (16). Biden is also a leader in these states, and the winner is likely to have a total of 306 votes. In that case, Trump would need an additional 36 votes to win. He could only achieve this by changing electoral dominance in at least two or more states.
One way to do this is to recalculate the votes. You can most likely do this by recalculating the votes in various states. However, this is highly unlikely, especially in more than one state. The counting of votes in American elections, especially at the national level, is very accurate. When the votes are recalculated, the results generally change by a few hundred votes. Biden’s victorious gap is large enough to change the outcome after the votes are counted.
The second alternative is to challenge the legitimacy of the election. People can go to court just out of anger. They may want to expose the alleged injustice. D. Trump uses several legally dubious arguments in this case.
The counting of votes in American elections, especially at the national level, is very accurate.
First, Trump will try to prove widespread electoral irregularities. He says those violations have been around for many years, but no one is willing to prove it. Trump tried to prove it even before the election, saying that the postal voting system was rife with potential irregularities. He and his followers tried to show that large numbers of dead, unregistered immigrants or others were “voting.”
Reuters / Photo by Scanpix / Americans vote in presidential elections
If Trump has evidence to back this up, he will have to prove it in court. So far, their appeals have been dismissed by lower courts. Furthermore, there is more than enough evidence that there are no large-scale electoral irregularities in the United States. The belief in this legend of electoral irregularities is unique to many Republicans. Even if there are irregularities, the president must show that the scale of these irregularities is so great that the credibility of the election results may be questioned and new elections may be necessary. The judges can hardly come to such conclusions, as it is impossible to hold new elections, especially given the strict deadlines already mentioned.
Trump is more likely to try to prove that many votes are supposed to be declared invalid, which will ultimately change the outcome of elections in various states. However, this is a matter of proof and votes are not invalidated solely on the basis of speculation and assumption. In most cases, it must be demonstrated why each individual vote should be declared invalid. Again, this is unlikely.
There is more than enough evidence that there are no large-scale electoral irregularities in the United States. The belief in this legend of electoral irregularities is unique to many Republicans.
One of D. Trump’s arguments, that the votes of people who voted in the pre-elections received before Election Day but not counted should not be counted after the elections should not be counted. He bases this allegation on the violation of the Federal Electoral Law, which establishes that elections are held on a specific day (November 3 of this year) and that the votes subsequently counted violate this federal law.
And this argument of yours will fail: States often count votes in advance at the end of Election Day. Federal law does not prohibit this. Receiving votes in advance on Election Day is different from counting them on Election Day. The legitimacy of votes received late may raise doubts, but these votes do not affect Biden’s victory.
AFP / Scanpix Photo / Americans vote in presidential elections
Trump also complains that his election observers were not allowed to observe the counting process. The lower courts also rejected these arguments, arguing that the observers must keep their distance and cannot remain leaning on the heads of the counters. Such intimidation will fail and law enforcement will be ensured. Even if irregularities were identified that required a vote count in certain areas, this would certainly not change the outcome of the elections.
Finally, Trump seeks to demonstrate that irregularities have been committed, as in the electoral campaign of George W. Bush and Al Gore. In the case of the 2000 elections, a violation of the constitutional right to vote was found in one state. Then, in that state, both candidates were nominated by several hundred votes. The court then refused to recount the votes, claiming that the presumption of validity of the votes could be violated.
Even if irregularities were identified that required a vote recount in certain areas, this would certainly not change the outcome of the elections.
In this year’s elections, it would be difficult to find similar characteristics of the violation as in the case of the George W. Bush and Al Gore elections. It would be particularly difficult to prove such violations even in multiple states. It would take a lot of legal maneuvering for the case to reach the Supreme Court. It would be even more difficult to get tens or even hundreds of thousands of votes declared invalid. From a legal point of view, this is impossible.
Perhaps, as some believe, Trump’s true ambition is to delay the voter election process in many states, then disputes over voter delegation would move to a joint session of Congress, as required by the Constitution. In this case, the analogy of the George W. Bush and Al Gore case could be used. The Supreme Court would then decide the matter before December 8, that is, before the presumption of validity of the votes takes effect. Despite the fantasies and fears of Republicans and Democrats, the situation should not be expected to change until Trump is named president in Congress. In general, the president cannot judge victory. Both mathematics and the law are against it.
David Schultz is a professor at Hamline University (USA), visiting professor at Mykolas Romeris University (MRU) and a member of the MRU LAB Justice Research Laboratory.
[ad_2]
