After a grueling campaign and an incredible win by Donald Trump, one would have hoped that the election could be put behind us as Mr. Trump’s task of governing begins. Unfortunately, such is not the case – at least not yet. We still seem to be plagued by unfinished business with regard to the election, with various theories being hatched and spread suggesting how Donald Trump could still be denied the presidency.
We’ll look at some of them here.
We have the bizarre spectacle of the recount effort in three states that was initiated by the Green Party candidate who earned so few votes that she has zero chance of winning anything. The facts involving this effort have been repeated so many times in the media that we’ll not waste your time rehearsing them here. Instead we’ll just put this effort to rest by saying that it will go nowhere.
More interesting, and possibly more plausible, are three scenarios proposed by a writer at ZeroHedge named Jake Anderson that he suggests could cause Trump to lose the election. These surround the idea of “faithless electors” – those who are pledged to vote for a particular candidate in the Electoral College as determined by the popular vote in their states, but who chose to vote otherwise. It’s been a very rare event, but it can happen.
Here are these three scenarios Anderson has proposed in which Trump could be denied the presidency. Interestingly, this author dismisses his first two scenarios as virtually impossible, choosing to focus on his third theory. In fact, the first two are so ridiculous that one wonders why he ever proposed them in the first place.
First, Anderson suggests that Trump’s nominees for cabinet positions reveal him to be an “establishment” figure. As a result, he suggests that there could be rebellion in the Electoral College resulting in Trump failing to get the required 270 electoral votes. Mr. Anderson dismisses this by asking, “Will this alone cause Trump to end up losing the vaunted Electoral College? No. Of course not! That’s why there are two more reasons.” Okay, next.
Anderson’s second theory proposes that Hillary’s 2.5 million popular vote lead could cause enough Republican electors to jump ship. The very idea of Republican electors voting for Hillary is utterly absurd. Fortunately, Anderson agrees saying, “Will this alone — or in conjunction with reason one — cause Trump to lose? No. Of course not!”
Time for an intermission.
Without desiring to seem ungracious, one is forced to wonder why Mr. Anderson chose to waste his readers’ time on such preposterous theories. His third one had better be an enormous improvement over the first two, or we’re going to be left scratching out heads, and recalling that popular internet meme, “What did I just read???”
Here is number three in all its glory:
“Elections can be stolen.
“This happens. It happens more than you think. Usually, it happens before the popular vote – you know, when the votes are actually coming in, in the form of vote flipping and “magic fractions.” The 2000 election was stolen for Bush, the 2004 election was stolen again for Bush, and the Obama elections probably would have been stolen except that he won by such huge margins it would have been obvious. And many, many elections have been rigged or gerrymandered in some way.”
Mr. Anderson makes some very controversial assertions there. Any one of them would require considerable research before being accepted at face value. In fairness to Mr. Anderson, he does provide links to sources that he claims support these assertions.
In his original article, he links to DemocracyNow! as a source of some of his theories. It is not clear why someone who suggests he is a Trump supporter would gather insight from a leftist website such as that one.
So, after having been lead through the political analysis provided by Mr. Anderson, what are we to conclude? Well, one thing is for sure: It will be a joy and a relief to see Mr. Trump inaugurated in January.