An Unfinished Election

For some inexplicable reason (as I watch growing protests, rising hate crimes, and shocked responses to Trump’s first announced appointments), I get the feeling that the 2016 presidential election isn’t over yet. 

The same thing seems to be going on in the US that happened with the Brexit vote in the UK — the voters assumed how things were going to turn out, didn’t take the event seriously, were shocked at the result, and then started asking for a do-over.  Like Teresa May in the UK, Obama has accepted the result and has promised an orderly transition.  But there are more people looking at the transition with nervousness than looked at the election that way.

A great number of moderate Republicans voted for Trump with the assumption that he didn’t really mean literally all the things he said in his rabble-rousing speeches.  But now he’s appointed Steve Bannon, a virulent white nationalist, as his special advisor.  If Trump sends out enough signals that he was serious about his reactionary, exclusionist rhetoric, he may face a backlash not only from the Democrats who are so dismayed at his victory, but from the moderate Republicans and the Republican Establishment that were critical to his reaching his winning margin.

What could the implications of this be?  Before I speculate, let me say that things move slowly enough in the political world — and people are reluctant enough to admit to making mistakes — that I really don’t believe the possibility I’m going to outline below will become a reality.  Still, it is a possibility, and possibilities are the avenues for change.

First, look at who the Electors are who will be casting their votes when the Electoral College meets:  they’re practically all Establishment politicians.  Party regulars.  This is true on both sides.

Second, look at Trump’s margin of victory in Electoral votes:  he’s ahead by around 75 votes, depending on whose “final” figures you look at.  If he lost 40 of these, his total would be below 270.

Third, while it’s traditionally been considered Very Bad Form for Electors to vote for someone other than the candidate who won in their state, it has happened, and it is perfectly legal.

So suppose 40 moderate Republicans, serving as Electors, decide that Trump’s threat to establish a racist, sexist society ready to use nuclear weapons is simply too much to accept.  Trump would not become President.  This does not mean Clinton would become President.  If the rogue Republican Electors didn’t vote for Clinton either, no one would have the 270 votes necessary to win.  That might mean that the election would be turned over to the House of Representatives.

Right now, the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans, 238-193 (with a few not yet determined).  Who would the House select as President?  Again, the majority of the Republicans in the House are Establishment politicians.  If the Electors failed to support Trump, would the House go ahead and re-establish him, or would they take the opportunity to select someone more predictable and less controversial?  Would they once again turn to Paul Ryan?  What is the House’s attitude toward him now, after his wishy-washy refusal to be clear about Trump?  Is there another candidate out there?

Or a bi-partisan group of House members could vote for a centrist candidate who could garner support from both parties, in order to pull the country together without clearly jeopardizing either party’s agenda — a caretaker government to get us through the next two years to the start of the next presidential campaign.

That’s if the vote went to the House.  But what if the rogue Electors conferred with other Electors and came up with their own compromise candidate whom a majority of Electors of both parties could get behind?  Again, since the majority of the Electors are Establishment Republicans, they’d want to make sure the choice didn’t risk putting a liberal voice in the White House.  But there are moderate Republicans that many Democrats would be willing to get behind if Trump were the alternative.  John Kasich and Jeb Bush are two that had broad appeal at the beginning of the primaries (and it was that broad appeal that made them less appealing to the rightists of the Republican base).

So there are several routes that could be followed to a non-Trump Presidency. 

Whichever route might be followed, though, severe problems remain.  One is the reluctance of Establishment politicians to sail into uncharted waters.  Another is the likelihood that such a shift would release a tremendous backlash from those core Trump voters who are unconcerned with (or even happy with) his worst features.  If anyone is likely to erupt in violence, it is these people.

On the other hand, there could be no more effective way to gather broad-based support from the American people than to provide relief from the threat at hand by compromising on a coalition candidate who promises an inclusive, non-partisan government.

The whole thing seems unlikely.  As far as I’m concerned, though, the benefits to be gained from the attempt far outnumber the risks that already face all of us, of both parties and of all countries, if we proceed down our current path.