Of course, neither Clinton nor Abrams nor anyone else in modern American history
has sought to overturn the Electoral College. No one else has encouraged
officials to create alternate slates of so-called fake electors. No one else has
asked the governor of a state to “find 11,780 votes.” No one else pressured a
vice president to intervene in the electoral vote count. And no one else
encouraged his supporters to come to Washington the day of the count and then
sat on his hands for hours after they invaded the Capitol. Other than those and
many other differences, though, it’s “the same thing.”
American history since 1800 of refusing to concede election results, seeking to
overturn the Electoral College, creating alternate slates of electors, asking a
governor to find more votes, pressuring a President or VP to intervene, and
encouraging supporters to protest in Washington, DC - same accusations against
President Trump.
Accusations against President Trump
Contested Elections in USA History
Photo
refused to concede the election results
Hillary Clinton contests the election to this day.
In 1800, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number
of votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority
of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives followed
the Constitution and convened a special session to resolve the impasse
by a vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was
widely accepted.
Democrat Al Gore contested the election
in 2000 against Republican George Bush and sought to overturn the Electoral
College he lost 271 - 266.
There was a "hanging chad" dispute on the ballot cards in Florida.
Governor Jeb Bush stopped the recount, giving his brother George the win.
The Supreme Court terminated a recount effort and Gore
publicly conceded,
“While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”
create alternate slates of electors.
Republicans for Nixon in 1960, created an alternate slate of
electors against Kennedy
The contest between Democrat John F Kennedy and Republican
Richard Nixon in 1960 was
rife with allegations of voter fraud, and Nixon supporters pressed for
aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted
the decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the
intense US-Soviet tensions of the Cold
War.
Democrats for Al Gore against Bush in
2000
asked the governor of a state to “find 11,780 votes.”
Stacy accused Governor Kemp of stealing
the election
She pressured the same Governor to "find my votes"
Contested elections
and continuity
In 1800, both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of
votes in the Electoral College. Because no candidate won a clear majority of
Electoral votes, the House of Representatives followed
the Constitution and convened a special session to resolve the impasse by a
vote. It took 36 ballots to give Jefferson the victory, which was widely
accepted.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote
against John Quincy Adams and two other candidates, but failed to win the
necessary majority in the Electoral College. The House, again following the
procedure set in the Constitution, selected
Adams as the winner over Jackson.
The 1876 election between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested
because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was
resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission
established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were
given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.
The contest between Democrat John F Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon in
1960 was
rife with allegations of voter fraud, and Nixon supporters pressed for
aggressive recounts in many states. In the end, Nixon begrudgingly accepted the
decision rather than drag the country through civil discord during the intense
US-Soviet tensions of the Cold
War.
Finally, in 2000, GOP candidate George W Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore
tangled over disputed ballots in Florida. The Supreme Court terminated a recount
effort and Gore
publicly conceded, recognising the legitimacy of Bush’s victory by saying,
“While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”
In each case, the losing side was unhappy with the result of the election. But
in each case, the loser accepted the legally derived result, and the American
democratic political system persisted.
The system collapses
The election
of 1860 was a different story.
After Abraham Lincoln defeated three other candidates, Southern states simply
refused to accept the results. They viewed the selection of a president who
would not protect slavery as illegitimate and ignored the election’s results.
It was only through the profoundly bloody Civil War that the United States
remained intact. The dispute over the legitimacy of this election, based in
fundamental differences between the North and South, cost 600,000
American lives.
What is the difference between the political collapse of 1860 and the continuity
of other contested elections? In all cases, citizens were politically divided
and elections were hotly contested.
While the America of today is certainly divided, the distribution of political
beliefs is far more dispersed
and complex than the ideological cohesion of the Confederacy.
Rule of law
History suggests, then, that even if Trump or Biden contest the election, the
results would not be catastrophic.
The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot
simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be
investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of
their electoral
processes. This seems unlikely to change any reported results, as voter
fraud is extraordinarily
rare.
The next step could be an appeal to the Supreme Court or suits against the
states. To overturn any state’s initial selection, evidence of a miscount or
voter fraud would have to be strongly established.
If these attempts to contest the election fail, on Inauguration
Day, the elected president would lawfully assume the office. Any remaining
ongoing contestation would be moot after this point, as the president would have
full legal authority to exercise the powers of his office, and could not be
removed short of impeachment.
While the result of the 2020 election is sure to make many citizens unhappy, I
believe rule of law will endure. The powerful historical, social and geographic
forces that produced the total failure of 1860 simply are not present.
"The Constitution is clear on what would happen: First, the president cannot
simply declare an election invalid. Second, voting irregularities could be
investigated by the states, who are responsible for managing the integrity of
their electoral processes. This seems unlikely to change any reported results,
as voter fraud is extraordinarily rare."
