Donald Trump has changed his tune. After telling the moderator at the final primary debate that he would keep the suspense on whether he would accept an adverse verdict after the elections, he toned down and said that he would be happy with the result -- be it win, lose or draw. At a campaign in North Carolina, one of the crucial swing states, Trump said he was giving his best and did not want to have any regrets.
Political scientists and observers must have heaved a sigh of relief at this statement, because were Trump to cry foul after the results were declared, it would create a constitutional crisis. “A candidate is well within his rights to seek legal recourse if he does not agree with the verdict,” explains Milan Vaishnav, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington. “But he must have a water tight case with enough evidence of foul play for the case to be admitted.”
But the matter is not as simple as going to the Supreme Court with a complaint, explains John Tuman, chair and professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The election is federal, which means voters in each state cast votes for the president and vice president, and then officials certify the outcome state-by-state. Any legal challenge would have to be brought in any state where the candidate thinks election laws have been violated. The legal challenge would be litigated in state courts, but depending on the specific issues at hand, the cases might also work their way into federal courts -- and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court'' he elaborates.
There has been much comparision of Trump's statement that he might not agree with the verdict with the Bush vs Gore case of 2000. However, the circumstances were quite different then. Gore lost to Bush in Florida by a very narrow margin and requested a recount in areas which were traditional Democrat strongholds. However, even as the recount began the Florida, the court ordered a stay, saying a recount was unconstitutional under existing rules of the Constitution.
Since there is a winner takes all system in converting popular votes to electoral college votes, all of Florida's electoral college votes went to Bush. He won the election by getting 271 electoral college votes (winner needs to cross the 270 mark) while Gore got 266. However, in terms of popular votes, Gore would surpass Bush by 540,000.
There is simply no comparison, says Vaishnav. "If Trump doesn't respect the tradition, he'll land the country in a constitutional mess. That is, if his case isn't thrown out of the courts.''
Incidentally, there have been three other occasions in American history when the popular vote was for one candidate by the electoral college voted in the other. These were in 1824, 1876 and 1888.
Trump has been changing his stance of the elections being rigged, too. First he alluded that the rival party was getting unauthorised people to vote, later at the debate he changed it to saying that Hillary as presidential nominee is itself an indication of rigging.
"A recent study by Loyola law school professor Justin Levit points to just 31 cases of fraud in over a billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014. This is such a slender figure that it's almost inconsequential," points out Vaishnav.
American elections have had their share of drama and observers who take a long term view of things say that the 2016 polls may be tamer than they seem. Take, for instance, the year 1972 when Democrat nominee George Wallace was shot during a rally by a 21 year old. The incident paralysed him waist down and he had to subsequently retire from the race.
