Trump’s refusal to concede defeat has precedents
Is Donald Trump threatening democracy when he refuses to say if he’ll accept the results of next month’s U.S. presidential election? Perhaps. But he won’t be the first.
The topic came up Wednesday night during the final debate between the Republican presidential candidate and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.
Asked if he would accept the result of the Nov. 8 vote, Trump said “I will look at it at the time … I will keep you in suspense.”
Clinton called his comments “horrifying.” Pundits lambasted him for refusing to abide by the basic rule of democratic elections — that losers publicly accept the fact that they have lost.
And in most U.S. elections, the losers do quickly concede.
But sometimes they don’t — at least not immediately.
In the 2000 presidential contest, for instance, Democratic candidate Al Gore famously conceded defeat on election night after the television networks predicted that his rival, Republican candidate George W. Bush, had won.
Then Gore just as famously withdrew that concession when it appeared there had been some hanky-panky at crucial Florida polls.
He conceded defeat for good only after the Supreme Court ruled in Bush’s favour, a full month after the election.
In short, Gore kept his country in suspense for a month — and for good reason. The race was close (indeed Gore won the popular vote) and there was evidence that the Florida results were flawed.
A much more serious refusal to accept defeat occurred after the 1876 presidential election, when both Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden and his Republican rival Rutherford Hayes claimed to have won the vote in four disputed states.
That standoff ended only after the Republicans agreed to remove all federal troops from the South and allow state governments there to disenfranchise blacks. In return, the Democrats conceded the presidency.
So will Trump call on his supporters to march on Washington if he loses? He says no.
“I will accept a clear election result,” Trump said in Ohio on Thursday. “But I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.” Trump’s right. It is rigged. When Trump says the American political system is rigged, he’s right — but for the wrong reasons.
Trump and his supporters argue that the rigging occurs on election day, when those who have no right to vote cast ballots multiple times.
Political scientists say there is little evidence of this. Rather, the real rigging occurs well before — particularly when state legislators draw the boundaries for congressional voting districts.
In many states, these boundaries are gerrymandered to ensure the ruling party (usually the Republican Party) is favoured in any national election.
In the 2012 federal election, this meant the Democrats, who won just over 50 per cent of the vote nation-wide, ended up with 33 fewer seats in the House of Representatives than their rival Republicans.
More broadly, the U.S. system is rigged by money. The vast sums required to mount successful races, particularly in the senate and presidential contests, mean politicians are at the mercy of lobbyists, billionaires and well-funded interest groups.
For instance, polls suggest most Americans favour some restrictions on guns. Yet Congressional politicians, fearful of offending the well-funded gun lobby, refuse to act.
In presidential races, the only candidates who need not pander to outside big-money interests are those, like Trump, who are already rich — which is weirdly ironic. It’s the Supreme Court, stupid. This election is often pitched as a contest over who is morally fit to become president.
Polls suggest that neither candidate is particularly well-regarded here but Trump, because of his outrageous behaviour towards women, is particularly vulnerable.
But there are substantive interests at play as well. And the one that has received little attention (although it was raised Wednesday night) is the Supreme Court.
In the U.S., presidents nominate Supreme Court justices. Both Clinton and Trump freely acknowledged Wednesday that they aim to stack the top court with judges sympathetic to their respective ideologies.
Trump wants a Supreme Court that will overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that allows women to choose abortion.
Clinton wants the court to overturn the 2010 Citizens United decision that allows unrestricted corporate spending on elections.
If Trump defies the pollsters and wins, it will not be because Americans suddenly view him as a moral paragon. It will be because reluctant Republicans decide to embrace the only candidate willing to remove constitutional protection for abortion. Thomas Walkom’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.