Electoral Rigging

"The election is being rigged against me." -- Donald Trump

   For those who believe the General Election is about to be stolen from You-Know-Who, here's how the choice of President is made, according to the Constitution of the United States of America. (This is a summary. If you want the original wording, a copy is available online or at any bookstore or library.)
   The Presidency is the only office not filled directly by voters. Instead, voters in each state cast ballots for what the Constitution calls electors, who then meet a week after the election to choose a President. Each state names electors equal to the number of its members of the House of Representatives plus its two Senators. There are 435 representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate. In addition, the District of Columbia names three electors. This yields a national total of 538 electors, none of whom may be members of Congress or hold any other federal office.
   The winning candidate needs a simple majority of 270 electoral votes.
   Each state names its own slate of electors, and customarily the candidate with the most votes wins all the electors from that state. The exceptions are Maine and Arkansas, which use a proportional system.
   By custom, citizens in each state mark their ballots by a candidate's name, and the electors typically follow the public's choice and cast their electoral ballots for that candidate. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so, although some states do.
  So to rig the system and steal the election, as the Dark Lord warns will happen this year, the opponents will have to persuade electors in several key states to ignore the citizenry and vote for someone other than You-Know-Who.
   Is this possible, and has it happened before?
   If a select few key states be targeted in such a way as to ensure that He Who Must Not Be Named fails to collect the requisite number of electoral votes to take the victory, then yes, it is possible.
   But is it likely that 270 electors could be sufficiently persuaded or bribed to throw the election a certain way? Only a bookie could calculate those odds.
   Meanwhile, an argument can be made that a presidential election has already been rigged -- twice -- to install a candidate favored by a few. On two occasions, a candidate was named President despite having a lower total of citizen votes nationwide.
   Sixteen years ago, Democrat Al Gore lost to Republican George W. Bush after the Supreme Court ordered a stop to a recount in Florida, to ensure its electoral votes were cast for Bush rather than Gore. As a result, that was just enough to give Bush a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency.
   In the 19th Century, the dispute went all the way to a special committee in the House of Representatives to resolve the issue, and historians are still arguing over the extent of shenanigans perpetrated by those involved.

   As reported here July 26, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost in 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Both Democratic candidates, Gore and Tilden, had clear national majorities.
   As it happened, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon submitted two sets of votes in 1876, leading Congress to name a special commission to resolve the issue. In the campaign of 2000, Florida again played a key role.
   So is it possible to rig a presidential election? In a broad and complicated sense, yes. But is it likely? That's a broad and complicated question.
   This week, the Whiner in Chief has already set himself an excuse for his losing.