Trump claimed he won“one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history.” However that’s his normal braggadocio and, as usual, objectively false. Actually, look at the past century of Electoral College results, his 57% was rather low – though it was consistent with our research into 57 and 49, where Trump when we exclude the third party votes, received 49% of popular vote. Over the century from 1900 to 2012, of the 29 elections 22 had wider margins. And that’s even before statehood was granted to Hawaii and Alaska (1959) or Arizona and New Mexico (1912). The seven which had lower margins were: 1900, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1976 and 2000.
In terms of playing with numbers, the 19-year Metonic Cycle is related to 57 (3x19), and 49 is the 7-squared, the mystics in the population could do an “OH WOW” when they realize the Electoral College meets on 19 December to cast the ballots which actually declare the winner of the presidency.
Only the District of Columbia and 29 states require, by law, that their electors to cast their ballots consistent with the popular vote. In the other 21 states and American Territories, Electors are charged with acting according to the Constitutional intent behind their creation. The simple act of abstention could deny a candidate the 270 vote plurality needed to become POTUS.
There is a Jewish tradition which says that in every age, there are “36 righteous men” (Lamed Vav Zaddikim) appear in times of turmoil or danger and exercise the ‘mystical power’ which will save the chosen people. Were they to be among the electors and know, or simply believe, their vote must be withheld, they would reduce Trump to the lowest margin in history – and leave him with exactly the 270 votes necessary for him to become POTUS, but without an electoral mandate to justify his platform or Cabinet nominees.
Would their vote create a Constitutional Crisis? Clearly, given he would have the 270 votes necessary, Trump would be the victor -- one who lost the popular vote by 2. 6 million ballots and therefore has no mandate and scant credibility as a leader ... much less as the "Leader of the Free World".
Were he denied a critical 37th vote, he would be a loser and the nation would have no POTUS-elect.
Would it then fall to the Republican Controlled Congress to decide upon the winner when the Republican lost the popular vote should be the President?
Would the winner, or governing political party, have any credibility if appointed by his own party after losing the popular vote?
Russia skews the election toward