Is there an AMERICAN STANDARD on democratic election?

Le Vinh Trien

People in developing countries often wish for international standards to be applied on construction projects or machinery purchases and installations. However, if an “American standard” is ready for use, they will stop asking for a more general, and perhaps somewhat vague, international standard. [In this technical perspective, China and Russia are still too far behind to be adored like the US.]

In newly established regimes and young democracies, minority parties and activists often demand to have international or United Nation’s supervisors (meeting an “international standard”) oversee local elections because they do not trust in the fairness of local systems or claim fraud by the ruling party. An “American standard” may not necessarily be considered unbiased in this particular political issue.

Elections in America in general, and the US president election in particular, are seen as the citadel and symbol of American democracy and are presented as American standards of democracy. To some extent, it could be considered as an experiment of mankind seeing how people from different races could democratically live in a sample of itself (the world is the population in this experiment). It is understandable that the rest of world has been closely watching all the emotional ups and downs of the US presidential election. From this perspective two assumptions could be drawn:

First, if the election in the US is a citadel as well as a symbol of American democracy, the non-democratic contenders of the US in global politics would be determined to disrupt the election to have an excuse to block requests by the US for international intervention in the elections of other countries, as well as to maintain their own dictatorships. The argument becomes that Americans have cheated in their own elections and therefore the American government has no standing to intervene the elections of other nations.

Second, Americans who believe that US elections are fraudulent will face a dilemma. On the one hand, they take pride in how the world views the American election standard. On the other hand, they assume cheated occurred by one side and that checks and re-counts are required to correct the results. The need to correct results of the election definitely undermines their collective pride and undermines the American standard as viewed by the world.

Simultaneously considering the two assumptions may help solve the above dilemma. It may only make sense, albeit minimally, if the Americans (namely Trump and a handful of supporters), instead of claiming an American systemic fraudulent election, suggest that fraud may come from identified mighty dictatorships outside the US that seek to overthrow the world’s democratic symbols by manipulating US elections. This has been actually accusation that some Americans have employed since the last few years, especially against Trump’s administration. However, questions on whether or not there are authoritarian countries that meddled in the 2016 US presidential election are still open. The same situation would hold true for Trump in accusing of any foreign country meddling in the 2020 election, making the results unfavorable for him.

Losing candidates in US presidential elections often accepted defeat immediately after the election results were announced and more than half of electoral votes was recognized for the winner (except for four cases of 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000 calling for the Supreme Court’s judgement but not all cases were due to allegations of fraud).

If there is such a stronghold of democracy, it will be constantly protected by those inside, strongly against destruction from outside. Assumingly, only challengers who are both tyrannical and super powerful dare to attack the stronghold in this high risk -high return political game.

Therefore, if Trump loses, the supporters should not be too pessimistic to assume that there is justice because the choice of behavior would be detrimental to their dignified pride as an American citizen.

Perhaps, the nine revered judges in the US Supreme Court and those of the state courts that the current President Trump is claiming his case may be the most edgy people in America today because they might have encountered the above dilemma and are in the position to solve it. If it were the case, it is supposed to be solved straightforwardly with integrity and dignity, protecting the American constitution and values. Their arbitration would definitely be considered as the last stand defending the above citadel of democracy no matter what the result for Trump would be.

There is no doubt that America’s ability to transition power is being tested. Opposing forces are already working to destabilize the world’s foundational democracies. If the stronghold holds it will be because America’s competing parties found a fair path forward that shows the world how diversity remains a grounding component to a dynamic democracy.

Anyway, it’s interesting that the ruling party is alleging the opponent. This happens only in a solid and energetic democratic country.