The U.S. General Elections of November 3, 2020, depicted an important period in American democracy. The leading contestants from Democrat and Republican factions led many political rallies to seek vote from the public. Mr. Joe Biden won the elections, and his opponent failed to concede defeat. The former U.S. President, Donald Trump, has consistently denied losing last year’s elections to the Democrats (Fried and Douglas 528). The party also won majority seats in both House of Representatives and Congress. This analysis presents a current event topic in which Mr. Trump claims election fraud after losing the nationwide contests. As will be noted, there are imminent and substantial arguments that argue in favor and against Republicans’ accusations. Most importantly, Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims could be determined by electoral legislation and public understanding of the U.S voting process.
Several arguments support the assertions when perceived from specific viewpoints. For instance, Mr. Trump claimed to have won the presidency by popular vote. In essence, the U.S. General Elections is determined under two tiers, as evidenced in the previous contest. Some registered voters participate in the process through early mail voting before the actual date. Others contribute to the democratic process by in-person voting, which closes at a stipulated time when polls have ended (Fried and Douglas 528). The initial counting process is initiated to determine the electoral outcomes of contestants at both levels of representation. In this perspective, Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims could be accurate as he won the popular vote. This attribute of American democracy entails the total voters supporting a certain candidate. The contestant with the highest number of votes wins the popular vote. In modern political contexts, this aspect of the electoral procedure in the U.S. is irrelevant to the recent generation of voters.
Another argument in favor of Mr. Trump’s electoral fraud claims includes online popularity on social media platforms. For instance, the former president had many followers on Twitter who responded to his tweets frequently. His online popularity was significant as most of the followers had ease-of-access to their leader’s information. In essence, this is a critical source of supporting Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims. One could question how he lost the U.S. General Elections of 2020 if he led national polls conducted across these media platforms (Fried and Douglas 528). His followers were convinced of their candidate’s popularity and were assured of similar success as that of 2016 (Guo and Chris 180). It is objective to remember that electoral information spreads quickly across different online platforms. However, online survey participants’ authenticity is questionable, and most information, interpretation, and findings become inaccurate and irrelevant.
Moreover, Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims could also be justified by the tight numerical margins evidenced across specific states. For instance, Georgia presented a vital battleground for votes between the Democrats and Republicans (Hamilton 337). In addition, similar voting attributes and anticipated outcomes were depicted in the state of Pennsylvania (Hamilton 339). In essence, one would argue against the competence and efficiency of electoral agents in ensuring counting accuracy. Tight margins could indicate instances of fraud as opponents can generate illegal votes. This claim was supported by Mr. Trump’s followers who accused their opponents of including votes of dead people in the ballot (Fried and Douglas 528). In essence, tight numerical margins in electoral procedures can develop social and political differences. The margin of errors in statistical computations contributes to minor differences in eventual results presented (Guo and Chris 184). This is a vital claim that could determine or influence the elections’ outcome, as argued by Mr. Trump’s supporters. Most importantly, common questions against certain votes’ legality represent arguments in favor of claims presented by the former U.S. president.
However, legal facts would argue against election fraud in last year’s November contest. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that Electoral College votes are the critical determinant of winners in general elections. According to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, vote counting for the presidency is ultimately determined by Electoral College votes computed after comprehensive counting. Representatives of major political parties present voting outcomes of their respective areas of political jurisdiction (Fried and Douglas 528). Each state is legally assigned distinct college votes, which vary concerning the existing population’s economic and social attributes (Guo and Chris 186). This is to acknowledge that certain American regions have more Electoral College votes than others. A political contender for the presidency seat must win with these votes to legally occupy a public office. This was imminent when Kentucky dismissed the claims and noted they were infeasible as presented by a local judge (Hamilton 337). Most importantly, the Democrats used this argument to invalidate Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims, as evidenced in certain states.
Another argument against Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims entails evidence presented regarding his unethical practices. Leading media outlets in the U.S. accessed classified information in which the former president was illegally seeking additional votes from a representative. The conversation highlighted the president’s need to add more votes to the total count to ensure Electoral College votes for winning the presidency. According to political experts, his tone depicted a candidate losing an election, hence striving to use dishonest channels (Fried and Douglas 528). These actions were critical in determining the former president’s accusations regarding voter fraud. It is vital to acknowledge that Mr. Trump criticized America’s elections by claiming mail voting’s ineffectiveness. His statements regarding this attribute of American elections resulted in diminished public confidence among some voters. Many voters in support of the Democrats, nevertheless, ensured timely voting by both mail and in-person.
In addition, events that occurred in the Capitol by Republican supporters argue against Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims. It is worth acknowledging that the former president’s supporters raised national security concerns when a democratic institution was attacked. The individuals responded to their leaders’ appeal to stop the confirmation process of Mr. Biden’s presidential victory (Fried and Douglas 528). Representatives from both Republicans and the Democrats had to seek safety through intelligence security which protected them against an angry group of individuals. Some were captured by hidden cameras unveiling sensitive documents detailing classified information. This incident unveiled leadership failure as the former president was accused of not stopping the supporters from accessing a protected institution by force. Legal cases against specific supporters include internal terrorism, which can amount to life imprisonment. Most importantly, there were imminent social signs of defeat when the former president publicly motivated individuals to take part in a violent act.
From a personal perspective, Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims are inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The arguments which support his victory are legally irrelevant, as evidenced in different states. For instance, Kentucky’s dismissal of similar claims indicated that his arguments had no constitutional support. Similarly, the former U.S. president presented specific signs of defeat before the general elections were conducted on November 3, 2020. He criticized the efficiency of mail voting, which had a significant influence on both supporters and rivals. The supporters believed the Democrats would capitalize on this channel of casting the ballot to cheat on election outcomes (Fried and Douglas 528). This was further proved using ballots of dead persons, which were not verified as accurate and genuine. Mr. Trump’s rivals had a challenge convincing the public to vote irrespective of reduced confidence placed throughout the election process. It indicates that election fraud claims were unsubstantiated, as acknowledged by prominent Republicans such as Senator Mitch McConnell.
In conclusion, the future of the U.S. General Elections will be attributed to advanced national security measures against certain individual behavior. Politicians will be made accountable for their comments and opinions, which could incite individuals into violence. Moreover, the leaders will face strict legal punishment for spreading inaccurate information and unproven facts to the public. An accurate prediction of the U.S General Elections will include the integration of internet technology for advanced efficiency. This will be integral in eliminating outdated and irrelevant election procedures. The current generation of voters has failed to embrace Electoral College’s essence to determine the U.S. president. Voting online will be a fundamental right that will be made available and accessible to all registered voters. The analysis above, as highlighted, has set vital precedence for ensuring safe, accountable, and trustworthy electoral practices in America. Most importantly, Mr. Trump’s election fraud claims are politically influenced and irrelevant, as evidenced in events before and after the U.S. General Elections of 2020.
Fried, Amy, and Douglas B. Harris. “In Suspense: Donald Trump’s Efforts to Undermine Public Trust in Democracy.” Society, vol. 57, no.5, 2020, pp. 527-533.
Guo, Lei, and Chris Vargo. ““Fake news” and Emerging Online Media Ecosystem: An Integrated Intermedia Agenda-Setting Analysis of the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Communication Research, vol. 47, no.2, 2020, pp. 178-200.
Hamilton, Robert E. “Russia’s Attempts to Undermine Democracy in the West: Effects and Causes.” Orbis, vol. 63, no.3, 2019, pp. 334-348.