Will Trump emulate Gore?

When asked during the third and last US presidential debate if he would accept the results of the election, Donald Trump refused a categorical answer: “I’ll tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. Ok?”

Indirect election. He pilloried the media for allegedly “rigging” the election by reporting “lies and fiction” about his sexual assault on several women. Reminiscent of Philippine elections, he also bewailed supposed “electoral frauds.” Later, he modified his answer, saying he would accept the results provided “I win.”

In response, Hillary Clinton—who may become the first female president of the United States—was “appalled” by the absurd attack on 240 years of US democracy in which rigging or fraud had never been raised by the losers. Which raises the question: How, in the first place, is the US president (and vice president) chosen?

Unlike us, American voters do not write or indicate their choices on their ballots. Instead, they vote for “electors” who in turn are pledged to vote for their chosen candidate. In this sense, the American election is said to be “indirect”: People vote for the electors who, in turn, vote for the candidates.

The legislature of each of the 50 US states, plus the District of Columbia, determines by local law how the electors are to be chosen. Although the method of voting varies in each state, Election Day is fixed on the same day for all states: the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, which this year falls on Nov. 8. The winner takes office on Inauguration Day, which is set on Jan. 20 of the ensuing year.

Winner takes all. Each state is allocated a number of electors in direct proportion to the population of that state. California, the most populous, is given 55, while the least populous, like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming and DC, are granted three each.

In all, the Electoral College is composed of 538 electors. To win, a candidate must obtain at least 270 votes. Most states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, adopt the “winner-takes-all” rule—that is, the slate capturing a plurality of the popular vote wins all the electoral votes in that state.

Normally, the winner of the nationwide popular vote also wins the majority of the electors’ votes. However, under this complex, indirect system of election, a candidate may capture a majority of the popular vote nationwide, yet lose the electoral vote.

Gore vs Bush. This happened in the 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections. In the last one, Al Gore, the Democratic Party’s candidate, won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, 271-266, to George W. Bush, the Republican Party’s candidate.

In this very close election, the US Supreme Court, voting 5-4, refused a manual recount of the imperfectly punched automated ballots in Florida, thereby giving Bush the winning margin in the Electoral College.

The US Court’s decision was criticized for being partisan, given that the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush (George’s brother) and that Florida’s electoral commission was headed by a Cabinet member of the governor. Worse, the five justices who voted against Gore were appointed by Republican presidents. Despite the widespread howling, Gore humbly accepted the decision and conceded defeat.

In 2006, during my watch as chief justice, Gore visited our country. During a private conversation, I asked him, “Why did you not pursue your remedies in the public fora, in media and in the streets of America?”

His reply was quick: “Mr. Chief Justice, there is something greater than me. The survival of our democratic institutions is more important than my personal victory… Had I brought the battle to America’s streets, there would have been chaos and political upheaval. The manual recount would have taken many months. Meanwhile, no one would have been sworn in as president that ensuing January. Can you imagine a leaderless United States?”

Gore was tall and husky. But in my esteem, he immediately rose 10 feet taller. Can we expect the same patriotism from Trump?

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com