Presidential nominee Donald Trump has brazenly declared that, if he loses, he may challenge the results of the election on the basis of voter fraud. Trump pronounced at Wednesday night’s debate that he would keep us “in suspense” as to whether or not he will accept a loss, and the candidate has been even more blunt on Twitter.
The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016
Big-name Republicans have denounced Trump’s claims, continuing a trend that we have seen already in this election process. They deem the accusations of rigging irresponsible and worry that citizens will hop on the bandwagon without first doing their research. Trump’s remark at the debate has been called a “terrible answer” by Republican radio host Hugh Hewitt and “the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years” by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal.
One aspect of Trump’s claims that many find particularly frustrating is the lack of evidence. Lynn Bartels, spokeswoman for Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams, says, “I can say on Twitter I’m a supermodel, but that doesn’t make it so.”
But others agree with Trump that something suspicious may be occurring behind the scenes. What many of these individuals may not realize, though, is that voter fraud is actually extremely rare, and the study that Trump has cited as evidence of voter registration defects is outdated. Researchers generally concur that fraud is seen in only a small number of instances, and ones that would not have the power to influence a national election. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt conducted a study two years ago on over one billion ballots cast since 2000 and found only 31 credible claims of voter fraud. But nevertheless, 73 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats fear that this Election Day will see large-scale, influential voter fraud.
The entire debacle has caused many to worry that November 9th may be even more chaotic than the 8th. But what exactly would happen if Trump decided to defy a Clinton victory?
The short version: not much, unless a significant portion of the Republican party were to unexpectedly decide to back him up. The long version: Trump would have to ask for a recount before he could challenge the results in court, unless he could present sufficient evidence of an abuse of power by an election official or some other similar allegation. Otherwise, the case would likely get thrown out. If Clinton were to have won by a lead of more than 0.5% of total votes cast, a recount would either not be allowed (such as in states like North Carolina) or would require Trump to cover the costs (such as in Colorado). In Wisconsin, the law would require Trump to pay for a recount if the difference was even 0.25% or higher. Such recounts are expensive, and Trump would likely have to challenge several states in order to bolster his chances of overturning the results.
So will this election be one of the rare instances in which the losing candidate does not concede to the outcome? Or will our arguably most unusual nominee in history end up taking the victory? While many may disagree on whether or not to consider Trump’s rigging allegations reasonable, most of us can agree to mark them as unprecedented.
