Category: Final Projects (Page 1 of 2)

The Electoral College has long been controversial in its role in determining elections, but this is not necessarily a new or isolated idea. US elections throughout history have often put emphasis on the importance of different voting systems in response to election results. However, there has never been a presidential candidate with enough potential to threaten both the popular vote, electoral vote, and voting entirely—until now. Donald Trump’s influence on local and state governments to do his dirty work has raised serious issues regarding the upcoming 2024 election & subsequent certification.

Leveraging Electoral Votes

In 1824, Andrew Jackson became the first president to lose an election despite gaining the popular vote and most electoral votes. Electoral votes were split between the four candidates: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford and none had the majority necessary to win. To deal with this hiccup, the decision was sent to the House of Representatives, of which candidate Henry Clay was the Speaker of the House. While the House deliberated, Adams negotiated enough states’ electoral votes to reach the majority to win the election. The emphasis placed on electoral votes over popular votes jaded the growing non-property-owning white male voters, who didn’t feel represented by wealthy property-owning white men like Adams. Although Jackson may have lost in 1824, he made sure to exploit his loss to the fullest until his election in 1828, campaigning as a “man of the people” and victim of corruption.

Election Interference

When Trump lost the 2020 election, he resorted to election fraud claims to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Electoral College. Citing a litany of nonexistent voter fraud cases as proof, Trump has left lasting damage to how voters view voting and vote counting.

Like Andrew Jackson’s strategy of playing the long (but still technically legal) game, Donald Trump has chosen a similar, but illegal, route. Since 2020, Trump has consistently worked to underhandedly influence the 2024 election. Taking the Jackson approach, Trump has spared no effort in politically astroturfing 2024 election with claims of Democratic intervention. Through this, he aims to further weaken Republican voters’ confidence in the electoral process, allowing him to easily sneak in and manipulate the results in the chaos of it all. Delegating tasks to his  cronies implanted in swing states, Trump’s fellow Republicans work to interfere in vote counting  by any means necessary, including various attempts to alter voting laws and criteria to vote. An instance of this coordinated effort was exposed recently when three Georgia election officials by the names of Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares, and Janelle King voted to give county boards the power to overrule election officials’ ballot decisions, which could create a loophole to deny election results. Accordingly, the Georgia courts reversed this illegal move, but the source of the threat continues to propagate not just in Georgia, but also in other key swing states where the same sentiment is held. Trump brain rot spans a large area of the U.S. and while there may be countermeasures in place to safeguard the voting rights and hinder bad faith actors, the issues will continue to persist until they are properly uprooted.

Sources

Andrew Garber and Wendy Weiser (August 14, 2024): Donald Trump’s Latest Plan to Mess With Georgia’s Election Is Not Some Clever Loophole

Cate Cadell (January 6^th, 2024): Trump skips Illinois loyalty oath promising not to overthrow government

Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgery (August 10^th, 2024): Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos

The advent of social media has revolutionized how we interact with one another; you’re able to form connections with people you would have never been able to and reach countless others due to the curated and fast-paced nature of their algorithms. However, this culture has sprouted some peculiar societal shifts, with countless online goers engaging in para-social relationships with public figures. While generally regarded as unhealthy behavior, this trend has paved the way for a new form of political influence through posting.

Ragebaiting

Ragebaiting has seemingly become a mainstream political tactic in U.S. politics, thanks largely in part to Donald Trump. The strategy stems from the larger bubble of disinformation seen throughout election history but deviates due to the online facet, which plays a crucial role in the virulent spread of ragebait; Trump’s use of Twitter (and now TruthSocial) as the medium in which he communicates with the public, exemplifies this. He uses a combination of emotional appeals, volatile rhetoric, and audacious displays of bravado to insert himself into the public sphere and general conscious, regardless of the public’s disdain.

Paternal…Guidance?

Emotional appeal has long been a core campaign tactic with its roots in the 1824 election. Responding to his own loss, Andrew Jackson utilized the media to implant the idea of a corrupt bargain into the public’s minds. This spread of misinformation, in conjunction with populist rhetoric targeting newly enfranchised white male voters, ultimately paved the way for his election in 1828. Trump follows in Jackson’s footsteps, employing similar emotionally tinged rhetoric to target his core base of conservative white male voters. In addition, Trump’s carefully curated para-social relationships with his followers adds nuance to the misinformation he spreads. For example, in his speech to calm down insurrectionists on January 6^th, 2021:

It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.

Trump makes outright claims of election fraud, but he intersperses it between the larger, repeated mentions of his supporters as if they are closely related, almost family. He knows they are going “through a tough time” and notes that he “loves [them],” as if insurgency is something as insignificant as puberty. He strategically feeds these para-social relationships to quell his displeased supporters, acting as some larger paternal father-figure to the rioter coalition. Using these relationships, he continues to propagate the belief that he cares about these people, emboldening his supporters in the process.

Humble Brag

Intrinsically, tweet communication has limited capabilities that make it a good medium to fire off quippy, thoughtless remarks. These limiting factors, however, are usually observed in random’s shitposts, not the president’s shitposting.

Donald Trump’s choice to mindlessly fire off tweets has worked astronomically well to garner supporters. It is an understated populist approach, with the functionality of streamlining “relatable,” plainspoken communication that appeals to the public, who otherwise may not be all that knowledgeable about governmental affairs. Moreover, his disregard for stature plays into the public’s perception of his direct, and by extension honest, character, increasing his likeability independent of his politics. Furthermore, Trump often uses rhetoric that fuses his supporters and himself as one, which helps contextualize comments such as these:

With me, 60 Minutes does the exact opposite! They take everything I say, realize how totally BRILLIANT it is, and take it out. So, with Kamala they add, with “TRUMP,” they delete. Like the Democrat Party, THEY ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!

BETA MALE Howard Stern made a fool of himself on his low rated radio show when he “interviewed” Lyin’ Kamala Harris, and hit her with so many SOFTBALL questions that even she was embarrassed. He looked like a real fool, working so hard to make a totally incompetent and ill-equipped person look as good as possible, which wasn’t very good. I dropped Howard a long time ago, like most others, and have since been credited with very good judgment! MAGA2024

He goes after groups or individuals, calling them offensive names in the process, all the while bragging about why he, or the larger Trump faction, is holier than thou despite what others may say. By combining all their identities into one Trump amalgamation, Trump strengthens his supporters’ para-social inclination; a slight to Trump is a slight to the whole Trump amalgam, which is certainly worthy of attack. On top of that, his brisk comments such as “MAGA2024” and “THEY ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY” are subtle but aim to tie these attacks back to the cause they fight for: a corrupt government predicated on the fall of Donald Trump, and at large, the American people.

More Calls for Insurrection

If one insurrection wasn’t bad enough, how about justification for another one? Para-social relationships with Donald Trump have reached peak heights, and it is unlikely any one of his disciples will choose to jump ship now. His influence over his people is strong, and reality only drifts further away from the group with every passing day. Amid this, Trump’s recent repeated calls for the liberation of Colorado are concerning  regarding post-election violence:

We are now known, all throughout the world, as OCCUPIED AMERICA…But to everyone here in Colorado and all across our nation, I make you this vow: November 5th, 2024 will be LIBERATION DAY in America. I will rescue Aurora and every town that has been invaded and conquered—and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or kick them the hell OUT OF OUR COUNTRY… I am announcing today that upon taking office, we will have an OPERATION AURORA at the Federal Level…  I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American Soil. No person who has inflicted the violence and terror that Kamala Harris has inflicted on this community can EVER be allowed to become POTUS!

His supporters, along with him himself, do not seem to have the intention of accepting a Trump loss; it is simply unfathomable. Trump’s inclusion of loaded phrases like “OCCUPIED AMERICA” and the “[invasion] and [conquering]” of Aurora, CO aim to stir up sensationalist news, further stoking the flames of violence against immigrants and provoking his fan-base to act not just against the aforementioned “bloodthirsty criminals,” but putting a target on Kamala Harris as well.

Sources

Adriana Gomez Licon and Jesse Bedayn (October 11, 2024): Trump drives his anti-immigration message in Aurora, Colorado

Ken Bensinger (December 13, 2023): Inside the Troll Army Waging Trump’s Online Campaign

Susan B. Glasser (March 23, 2023): Trolled by Trump, Again

Archive of Donald Trump’s Posts: Trump Twitter Archive

(January 6^th, 2021): President Trump Video Statement on Capitol Protestors

Margaret A. Hogan: Contested Presidential Elections: Corrupt Bargain

In recent American elections, it appears that only a few states matter in the grand scheme of things. In such a vast country, the privilege and attention given to the few swing states might upset the majority. The road that America traveled down to get to this point was long and tumultuous. To fully understand the American system of the electoral college, it is necessary to understand the history that led to this process. Many characteristics of modern American politics weren’t even thought of at the birth of the country. Things currently required like candidates campaigning were completely foreign centuries ago. The system itself was also completely dysfunctional because political parties emerged. 

When the colonists finally gained their independence from Britain, they had a perfect start to their nation. How could they not rally behind the noble figure of George Washington. Washington unanimously won the Presidency, but this utopia would not continue to be the reality and he could sense it. Washington was a brave man and although he had many motivations to not pursue a third term, one of his main reasons was that he didn’t want to set a power hungry precedent. Another reason was the development of political parties and the stark polarization that was present between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Originally, first place in the Presidential Elections became President and second place became Vice-President. The College was created before political parties were present and aimed to get the two most qualified candidates from the country into the Oval Office.  Washington was extremely fearful of what political parties would become and how they would divide the Nation. With the political scene set by the Elections of 1796 and 1800, it was clear there needed to be change. None of the four candidates could reach the majority in 1800 to become President and the House of Representatives had to decide the Presidency. A big change had to be made and that came in the form of the 12th Amendment. 

Even with this change to the Constitution which designated votes for Presidents and Vice Presidents, the Election of 1824 found problems with the system as well. Even though Andrew Jackson had the most electoral votes, he couldn’t reach the majority to be elected for President. This election was resolved by the House of Representatives and Jackson lost to what he thought was a Corrupt Bargain. After this election, there were certainly more bumps in the road but for the most part the Electoral College did its job.

At the end of the day, we are a part of a Democratic Republic and the Electoral College enables both aspects of this system to be true. The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from being ignored by candidates. If it was just a popular vote these states would be completely neglected and only high population cities would be targeted by candidates. Although it might not seem the most ideal or fair at times it has been tried and tested. After the Election of 1824, problems with the Electoral College doing what it was supposed to do were rare. There is a recent phenomenon of candidates winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral vote. This is not super common, but it makes sense to a certain extent. There are high population states that end up in a landslide while some lower population states that have a decent amount of Electoral votes and are extremely tight. The nature of the winner-takes-all system allows the Electoral College to be a Democratic-Republic. Instead of the Electoral College, the biggest problem our country faces is the extremely polarizing nature of political parties as Washington warned.

The sentiment that your vote doesn’t count has long been building in the United States of America. This type of thinking is especially dangerous in a democracy when it’s been proven that one vote can be the difference between victory and defeat. This reason alone might not be enough to convince someone to vote, so hopefully the issue of autonomy can convince them. In the past, marginalized groups in this country didn’t even have the chance to vote and were actively prevented from it. To disregard your own privilege in the current day is a disservice to everyone who fought for the right to vote. In the Elections of 1860 and 1876, it was evident that this country wasn’t ready for African Americans to be near society, let alone part of the voting block. 

A modern day misconception of the Election of 1860 is that Abraham Lincoln was a staunch anti-slavery candidate. However, this was not the case; he merely opposed the expansion of slavery into newly admitted states. This small threat to the institution of slavery showed how important the suppression of black rights was to southern people. The only time Southerners showed concern for black voting rights was when they were determining how much their population should count toward representation in the House of Representatives. The South seceded from the Union because of the slight threat that they found to their own voting power. 

Published by Currier & Ives, c1860.

Their perceptions of how extreme and radical the other side were is evident in cartoons like this. They attempted to paint the Republican party as completely anti-slavery and extremely sympathetic to blacks which simply wasn’t the case. Anything besides the enslavement of black people in this country was unacceptable to the white population. These viewpoints were carried on into the Civil War and throughout Reconstruction. The Election of 1876 was another controversy that proved the nation was not ready for egalitarian voting. As the black population became involved in voting and even getting to some public offices, there was disproportionate blowback soon after the Civil War. Autonomy for blacks wasn’t as important to Rutherford B. Hayes as securing his election victory. Even though the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed in the previous decade, the Ku Klux Klan and many others committed horrible violence to keep the newly enfranchised blacks out. This didn’t completely prevent their involvement in politics because many were willing to fight for their constitutional right. The election of Hayes, however, was the nail in the coffin for this population and their autonomy wasn’t fully realized until around a century later.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Rowland Scherman and Jordan J. Lloyd.

The fact that many had to fight their whole lives to attempt to overcome adversity to even get the legal right to vote should inspire you to cast your ballot without hardship. 

Many moving into the 2024 election have been worried about the outcome being contested. Elsewhere   I have looked at some potential structural challenges to the election – via Congress and via the Judiciary – but there is still one element of the electoral process that could majorly play a role in the election, which is the voting process itself.  Under the umbrella of the voting process there are two major areas, one of which has been more resistant to challenges in recent history than the other.  The first is who votes and how, and the second is how the votes are counted.

In the last 50 years (until 2020) the public consciousness has not placed much importance on the issue of who votes.  The assumption is that any 18-year-old citizen has the right to vote, regardless of race or gender.  While who does vote was considered, the ability to vote was assumed.  This has not always been the case, and it is very important to remember that a potential contributor to a contested election is who gets their vote counted.  This is a precedent set by 1876, where massive voter suppression campaigns in the form of violence and regulations designed to prevent black people from voting caused the votes cast to be suspect, forming the basis for the disputes over the election in 1876.  Based on the example of 1876, it is very important to focus on who is allowed to vote, and it is not a solved problem.  For example, many states have started to pass laws that are considered by some to be voter suppression, and the consent decrees created by the Civil Rights Act have started to be weakened.  The campaign to reduce the power of mail in and absentee ballots, when combined with the weakened enforcement of the Civil Rights Act indicates the possibility of a slide back towards a time where universal suffrage was not assumed, which could contribute heavily to a contested election in 2024, just as it did in 1876.

In addition to who votes, the method of counting votes is another potential way to challenge the results of an election.  The clearest example of this was in 2000 in Florida, where frequently changing and unclear voting laws resulted in the judicial challenges to the election and were the grounds on which the Supreme Court decided the election for George W. Bush.  The debate over how a vote is counted is not one that is confined to the 2000 election.  In 2020 there was a lot of noise (and court cases) put forward about voter fraud, which was the underlying concept that caused the election to be considered “contested.”  Combining the continued rhetoric over voter fraud with states like Georgia and elsewhere, where the vote counting process is in flux and changing frequently, the conditions that precipitated a contested election in 2000 and 2020 appear to be present heading into 2024.

While suffrage and the vote counting process is something that, after the Civil Rights movement, many Americans had accepted as automatic, the 2000 and 2020 elections demonstrate just how important paying attention to these processes are in ensuring uncontested elections.  In the extreme case, the election of 1876 serves as a reminder of what can happen when these areas are ignored, meaning that heading into 2024 the rights to vote and have your vote counted need to be defended in order to avoid destabilizing contested elections, and are strong candidates for pathways to a contested election this year.

Another potential path to contesting the 2024 election is through the judiciary, a concept that has been increasing in prevalence in the 21^st century.  There are two major ways that the judiciary could be used to contest the election in 2024: through state courts and through the Supreme Court.  Based on both the elections of 2000 and 2024, both have a strong history of being used to contest an election, and some current signs point to their use in the upcoming election.

To begin with, the state courts are extremely likely to play a role in the election.  That a court case about the election will be brought in a state court somewhere seems likely, but the effect these potential cases could have on the outcome of the election cannot be predicted.  Historically, however, state courts have played a major role in plans to contest an election.  In 2000, for example, the challenges to the Florida vote count which eventually were resolved before the Supreme Court were initially brought up in State courts, and in local Federal courts.  Additionally, in 2020 Donald Trump’s campaign filed a number of lawsuits in more than seven states challenging vote counts in those states. Based on these trends, it would not be unexpected to see more local challenges in the 2024 election.  In fact, many states are gearing up to deal with these challenges.  While the cases Trump brought before the courts in 2020 did not substantially affect the outcome of the election, the cases brought in 2000 caused the issue to go before the Supreme Court to be ultimately decided, meaning that local cases in 2024 could have a huge effect on the outcome of the election.  Also, the 2020 lower court cases may not have changed the electoral results, but they did add to the mistrust of the electoral process that fueled other components of the 2020 election, such as challenges in Congress, and violence on January 6^th.

The other component of a judicial challenge to the 2024 election could involve the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court had the final word on the election in 2000, and many consider that a possibility today.  While the court claims to have created zero precedent by deciding Bush v. Gore, the realty is they have set a procedural precedent, leading many Americans to view the court as the natural decider of contested elections.  While this is a departure from previous historical trends, where contested elections were decided in the legislature, it is important to recognize the new trend set up by the 2000 election.  One potential complication to deciding the election in front of the Supreme Court is that the Court is unlikely to want to hear the case, as no decision that the Court makes can satisfy large parts of the country, which could further damage the legitimacy of a court who is already facing a crisis of legitimacy in the public view.

So, while some sort of judicial challenge is likely, it is hard to know what effect court cases could have on the election.  The election of 2000 tells us that cases, both local and before the Supreme Court, can fundamentally alter the outcome of an election, while 2020 tells us how cases in the lower courts (that do not end up having an effect on electoral returns) can contribute to electoral mistrust and other avenues of contestation.  There may not be a silver lining to judicial challenges, but the overall message remains the same: watch what happens in the courts after the 2024 election closely, as it is very possible for it to play a major role in the outcome of the election.

The potential outcomes of the 2024 election are a prospect of the utmost importance to many Americans right now.  Many people are feeling as if a contestation of the results is automatic, after what happened in 2020.  Using history as a way of predicting these outcomes, however, is not the answer.  The pressing nature is not a reason to engage in prediction, in fact it probably makes the reasons for avoiding prediction even stronger.  But lessons from the past can still help us to contextualize potential futures.  One of the major ways we can use historical lessons is to take stock of potential options should the election be contested, which is what I will do here.

There are three broad ways of contesting an election, as the past tells us.  To overturn the results, one can attack the electoral count in Congress, in the Courts, or one can attack the voting process itself.  In this post, I will focus on the relevant parts of a Congressional challenge to the electoral count, as seen in previous elections.

One avenue that appears to be a difficult one after the 2020 election is the certification of votes by the Senate itself.  In the 2020 election, Trump placed pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to approve an alternate slate of electors that would elect Trump instead of Biden.  Pence resisted this pressure, reaffirming the pastoral role of the Vice President in the electoral count.  The same pressure is unlikely to exist in 2024, as Kamala Harris will still be the Vice President, making the Vice Presidential avenue of Congressional contestation unlikely, although potentially still possible.  The avenue from 2020 that is likely still on the table is objections to certain state’s electoral slates by individual congresspeople.  In 2020 this failed because most congresspeople did not support rejecting the electoral slates, but this resistance may have changed based on recent rhetoric from many congresspeople.  Still, the amount of support in Congress required to make this avenue successfully challenge an election is worth keeping in mind moving into 2024.

A second possible path to contestation involving Congress is the standard set in 1876.  In 1876 a committee was created to resolve the competition between slates of alternate electors sent in by some states.  This bipartisan committee included members of the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court (but not in their capacity as justices).  This was considered one of the better compromises that could be put together on short notice and was effective in deciding the election before the inauguration deadline.  It seems possible that some congresspeople would (and did in 2020) favor this solution in the event of a contested election, as state submission of alternate states is a potential concern in the upcoming election, since it has happened before in 1876.  The thing that makes this solution unlikely is that it requires agreement in the legislature, as it is not a procedure that is laid out in any law.  In 1876 it was the solution chosen under the authority of Congress to resolve the electoral dispute, but today the challenge system that was employed in 2020 (dual sponsorship of a resolution to debate a slate of electors) is a procedure written into the Electoral Count Act of 1887, making that the more likely system of resolution in the legislature.

Of course, there is always the possibility that neither candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, leading to the election being decided in the House of Representatives.  The precedent there is clear, and the procedures to get there relatively strict, restricting this path to a contested election to a very narrow set of circumstances.  Should it happen, however, there would likely be a very political contest, as it is unclear how exactly states will decide their individual votes.   Overall, many of the potential paths to contesting the 2024 election could pass through Congress but it is not a guarantee.