President Trump has again and again been saying that the elections will turn in his favor. He has also said that he will not be doing a peaceful transition. With all these things in mind and keeping all the repercussions in mind, the democrats are all prepared for a counter-attack.
Democrats are all geared up for a wide variety of potentially impossible possibilities, including everything from Trump seeking to assign federal law enforcement agents to the polls, to Republican state legislators overruling the popular vote of a county, to Trump claiming election night victory when it is still essential to count millions of mail-in ballots. Democratic sources tell CNN that the party’s legal machinery is ready to adapt to any imaginable situation that happens, whether it be battling contentious state counts in court, the roster of ballots of a state, or the relocation of federal law enforcement officers to states.
The plans can sound alarmist, but Democrats claim that for reasons they need to look no further than Trump’s rhetoric to consider a situation in which the legitimacy of the presidential election — and its outcome — is facing a significant challenge. To make elections work properly and to counteract the effort by Donald Trump to generate distrust and frustration with our method of voting, or to intervene with the electoral process, the Biden campaign has pulled together the largest voting safety scheme with history, “said Joe Biden, Campaign Speaker Mike Gwin. Trump has recently announced that he plans to deploy law enforcement agents to polling stations to protect against the suspected vote theft, a potentially dubious case and that his candidate at the Supreme Court must be approved, so the votes are expected to take place before the High Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
He said the polls’ outcomewould be public at Election Night. Something that political observers said clearly is not the case, since the surge of absentee ballots in the coronavirus pandemic was not the case. Trump has repeatedly claimed the mail-in vote was illegitimate. Many votes from Trump would be taken first because more Republicans are preparing to vote in person than by mail. The only way we can lose this election is by exploiting this election. And last week, Trump declined to believe that after the polls, he will surrender peaceful power transfer and said we just have to see what’s going on and what will happen.
Though the officials are not taking him seriously, then there might be the case that Trump has something going in his mind. You just cannot trust him as he can do whatever that he plans. Trump is known as the rule breaker, and he does not bother what others think of his actions. On 20 January, the 3rd election winner is declared, and a well-coordinated change will take place as there has been since 1792 after every four years. But Democrats warn their GOP counterparts not to condemn Trump’s observations — and oppose him if he opposes the election. We should trust any of our Republican colleagues to stand for us at the right time, to say that there’s more important than the President’s self, that it’s the Constitution. It’s our democracy.\
Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, specialized in electoral law, said it was remote that the possibility of conflicts might fuel the constitutional crisis, but pointed out that, while the mechanism is functioning properly, the inevitable pause in deciding the outcome due to the numbers of mail-in ballots could cause public agitation. Democrats see several landmines where Trump can take steps to sabotage the election – both from the federal and his Twitter accounts. In last month’s Fox News interview, Trump said that to deter election fraud, he planned to deploy law enforcement officials, including federal U.S. lawyers, to polling places. In reaction to police and social discrimination demonstrations earlier this year – and relocation of federal officers amid city government objections — Trump’s threat amid send military forces in U.S. cities ignited fears that he might be threatening such steps before the election too.
The Department of Justice has now waded in the election. Attorney general William Barr repeated Trump’s misleading allegations regarding mail-in voter fraud. He told Trump personally this week of the judiciary’s report on the unintended removal of nine Pennsylvanian mail-in ballots. The prosecutors were told that they were struggling with the matter due to poorly qualified employees, not systematic bribery. But Trump’s campaign and his incident were taking over the allegation of wrongdoing and Political rigging elections. On CNN State of The Union Sunday, Sen. Joe Manchin, Western Virginia Democrat, said that it wasn’t Trump who wanted to attempt to send a U.S. military to polling stations. But he was alarmed at the reports Trump may have stripped him of his election.
Trump has associated Amy Coney Barrett, the latest contender for Supreme Court, with the presidential election. He also said that all the things would get wind up at the Supreme court itself. The possibility of a decision from a newly-ruled judiciary surrounding a case that could conclude for or against Trump is not good for Democrats, and it intends to push Barrett to oppose any future political conflict hitting the high court. Sen. Mazie Hirono, Hawaiian Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN last week: If the President wanted to withdraw, the legal case would occur. This is definitely how it will be decided. He understands that. It is another reason he claims he needs the Supreme Court applicant to resign as soon as possible in the event he has a legal challenge before the polls.
Democrats are now planning more legally fragile situations, such as a State legislature that sends a rival list of electors to the Electoral College against the general voting winner. In Pennsylvania, a crucial swinging Territory, the government officials say that there were entirely imaginary conversations about the legislature nominating voters’ prospect if the voting count is postponed. It was said that the talks reacted to improvements in Democrats’ state voting laws, rejecting the implication that the establishment would reject widespread voting.