Ascertainment and U.S. Elections Transition Process

Ascertainment and U.S. Elections Transition Process





Ascertainment and U.S. Elections Transition Process

Ascertainment as defined under the U.S. elections laws is the process through which administrator of the federal General Services Administration ascertains the “apparent successful candidate” in the general election and the siting president begins the transition process. This process is well documented and all presidents are required to honor it to ensure that the country remains peaceful and the incoming leader is able to take powers in the most convenient way possible. One of the major reasons for the Ascertainment is to ensure that there is no power vacuum and the country remain under good leadership that is essential for security matters (Rinfret et al., 1364). “An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names, but are as alike in their principals and aims as two peas in the same pod.” The formal presidential transition doesn’t begin until the administrator of the federal General Services Administration ascertains the “apparent successful candidate” in the general election. Neither the Presidential Transition Act nor federal regulations specify how that determination should be made.

Trump’s agency tasked with the transition process is yet to begin its work and this is creating worries among many people. The major reason for the delays is because President Trump is yet to publicly admit defeat after the November 2020 elections. The danger here is that Biden’s team will have difficult time after they take power because of the short time they will get to familiarize themselves with the government affairs. Under the U.S. election laws, the sitting president is required by law to help in the transition process by helping the incoming president with the key tools required in handling the government. To this date, Trump and his team have adamantly refused to own up this role and this is harming the core essence of Ascertainment. This is deeply analyzed by a quote that was put forward in trying to define democracy; “A government of laws, and not of men.”—John Adams Still, the failure to engage with the incoming president has delayed the vital processes that would allow the country address key issues like the pandemic and racial divisions. The Ascertainment is thus a vital process that should be honored at al cost as it endures that the country’s governing cycle remain strong (Sievert & McKee 1057).

It is the high time the country unites and realizes that there are more challenges that divide Americans (Rinfret et al., 1357). One of the best legacies Trump can leave behind is to bridge that division by first accepting the outcome of the results and working with the President Elect to bring the country together. One of the underlying issues in the U.S. is the hurting economy and the worried Americans pressured by Covid-19 pandemic. In a time when an urgent solution to the high number of deaths and infections is needed, a smooth transition would be a great step to healing. Today’s the U.S. is more divided than ever, to counting the biting danger of the pandemic that has left many jobless and many families unable to out up with life (Abramowitz et al., 12). There is a need to ensure that the country gets going to ensure that its global image is upheld as the global super power.

The solution to this lies in Trump’s administration to accept begin the transition process by allowing the incoming administration to access vital tools they need in fighting the pandemic and governing the country. It is so worrying that most Americans believe that trump may refuse to hand over power peacefully that would push the country into more internal chaos amid the intensifying Covid-19. To start with, the trump’s administration needs to lay their ambitions aside and come to the rescue of the country’s image and future that for now looks tainted globally due to the November 2020 election. Works Cited

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Steven Webster. “The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century.” Electoral Studies 41 (2016): 12-22.

Rinfret, Sara, and Christina Barsky. “The gatekeepers of US elections: Exploring street level bureaucrats in Montana.” International Journal of Public Administration 43.16 (2020): 1357-1365.

Sievert, Joel, and Seth C. McKee. “Nationalization in US Senate and gubernatorial elections.” American Politics Research 47.5 (2019): 1055-1080.