So, what happens if Trump (or any candidate, for that matter) wins the elections and some states refuse to recognize him as president?
States don't declare who won the national presidency, only who won in that state. The federal government holds an election after the states and then declares who won the national office - and eventually, legally declares that - after which all disputes and challenges are disallowed (the very declaration the mob was trying to postpone until investigations could be made into alleged election fraud).
Many (even in the USA) seem to not know that the US is not a federalist country, it's a union of states (50 of 'em currently, plus the very weird thing of the District of Columbia). Elections ARE a state issue.... but the federal government does have laws that regulate elections to federal offices. The US Constitution has stuff about this (albeit not much).
For president, each state has the election.... each state determining who won THERE. Then each state then sends a delegation of its electors to Washington to hold the actual election, it sends its "Electors" to the Electorial College. Americans do not actually vote for a candidate, we vote for a slate of electors from our state who will vote for the president (sometimes they are obligated to vote for a given candidate, sometimes not). The electors we chose then vote. This is why it is possible (and lately, common!) that a candidate will get more popular votes but loose the election; it's the Electoral College (those electors each state sends) that actually votes; it's not by direct popular vote. This is all flowing from the REALITY that this is a collection, a confederation of sorts, of 50 states - not one federal nation. Yeah, it's complicated... and even a LOT of Americans don't get it. But remember - we started from 13 entirely independent colonies, each with their own money, culture, army, dialect of English (they could hardly understand each other!) and sometimes state church. Each passionately independent. The FIRST attempt at a country placed too much emphasis on the separate states.... that was quickly replaced with our current government which seeks to strike a balance between states and the federal government, but it's a mix of the two. Those in the EU (or even UK) probably can understand this better than a lot of Americans.
SOOO, given the ODD situation with Colorado. Yes, Colorado runs its own elections. BUT there are federal regulations for the election of federal offices so it's legally POSSIBLE that the federal Supreme Court could take this up since it's all based on a point in the
Federal Constitution about
Federal offices. The US Supreme Court could weigh in - but remember, it only weighs in on what it itself chooses to weigh in on, so it may not. In any case, normally all this takes months (even years) but the Supreme Court has - on rare occasions - taken up a matter immediately. It did so very recently in a similar case, an issue in Florida when there was a dispute about whether Bush or Gore won in Florida. That could happen here. But again, the Federal government would weigh in BECAUSE it's an issue about the US Constitution and a federal office - and thus it has authority here. I find it VERY hard to believe this Colorado ruling will stand. But when dealing with US government and politics, it's good not to put money on it.
Call it weird... call it wrong... but it's how we do it. LOT of countries have LOTS of traditions that don't always make a lot of sense.... but often there's strong HISTORY behind it.
.
