Chaos in Georgia bodes ill for US presidential election

The greatest nightmare of Trump’s political opponents in the US, other than Trump being re-elected, is that, even if he loses, he might simply refuse to concede. There is ample reason to believe this might be the case. Even after he won in 2016, thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College system, Trump has repeatedly sought to discredit the fact that he lost the popular vote.

If the defeat is resounding enough, and the Republican party finally finds the will to break with Trump, the potential crisis might be weathered. It will be exponentially more dangerous if the election is won narrowly, and if the results in key states are contested.

Doubts about the integrity of elections have grown in US political discourse in recent years. Republicans allege, with no evidence, massive voter fraud in Democrat leaning areas. Democrats, more justifiably, accuse Republicans of voter suppression via various pieces of legal and technical chicanery.

This year already, the very first Democratic primary in Iowa was marred by technical issues which led to delays and inconsistencies in reporting. Angry accusations of an establishment stitch-up by vocal supporters of Bernie Sanders, who came second by the narrowest of margins, followed.

On Tuesday the Georgia primary elections also descended into chaos as problems with the state’s new $104 million voting system and shortage of backup paper ballots saw voters, mainly in black neighbourhoods, queuing for hours to vote. Notably, since a 2013 Supreme Court ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act, Georgia has closed 214 polling places, mainly in minority areas. Democrats are claiming voter suppression. The process echoes the state’s 2018 gubernatorial election which the Democratic candidate, Stacey Abrams, refused to concede calling the process “rotten and rigged”. The chaos in Georgia bodes particularly ill as some ambitious Democratic strategists see it as a potential battleground state.

Further adding to the potential chaos in a general election is the fact that states certify their own electoral results. In an interview with Vox Lawrence Douglas, a law professor who has looked in-depth at the issue, points out how a state controlled by one party could certify a set of results that favours that party’s candidate, or that a state where both parties control key offices might submit competing sets of results. In that case it would be up to Congress, which is half controlled by Democrats half by Republicans, to decide. Conceivably the Supreme Court might step in, but the institution is more nakedly politicised than it has ever been before.

In 1876 three states did in fact submit competing electoral certificates and Congress split. That the Supreme Court was able to broker a solution was in part as the Democratic nominee, Samuel Tilden, agreed to concede – in return for the end of Reconstruction in the South. The lack of a clear system for adjudicating a split election, and the possibility of stalemate, meant that a resolution was only possible as key political actors agreed to dubious compromises in the name of national unity.

Indeed, in a country which is no stranger to disputed, or perhaps crooked, elections even at the highest level it has often fallen on America’s political leaders to act with discretion in the name of keeping the country together. The most recent case was of course in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost Florida, and thus the Electoral College, by the narrowest of margins amid vicious disputes about the vote count and a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that fell along partisan lines. That further turmoil was avoided owed a great deal to the fact that Gore decided to concede rather than further contest results.

Back in 1960 rumours swirled that ballot stuffing in Illinois and Texas tipped the election to John F. Kennedy. While historians view the claim dubiously Richard Nixon seems to have believed them, but decided not to pursue the matter, telling a friend “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” Eight years later in 1968 President Lyndon B. Johnson decided in the name of national unity not to reveal that Nixon was covertly encouraging the South Vietnamese government to sabotage peace negotiations with the North, partly in order to help his own election campaign, despite viewing Nixon’s actions as treasonous.

However, in 2020 there is no sign of the elite cohesion that might allow these sorts of decisions. Trump’s interests begin and end with himself, and almost no Republicans have shown any inclination to challenge even his most egregious abuses. Meanwhile, if Democrats face a narrow loss, the fear that four more years of Trump might destroy the US could push them into refusing to accept the results.

Worryingly the one time that elite consensus failed to settle a disputed presidential election was in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln triumphed despite not being in the ballot in ten southern states. Lincoln’s victory, and the South’s refusal to accept it, would prove the vital event that lit the fuse of the American Civil War.