Cenk Uygur tested out the theory that you don’t need to be eligible to get your name on the ballot last year. Didn’t work out for him.
IMHO when you are the leader of your party, test results would differ.
Trump would be denied being on the ticket in blue states, but he doesn’t need their electoral votes.
The answer to the thread question is no. It would be seen as nutty not just by Democrats, but also by most newspaper readers around the world.
Nutty things happen when a major party in your country does not believe its elections are free and fair. The U.S. could not follow the exact same path, but Guinea-Bissau news over the last few days is eye-opening as to possibilities:
Except the terms end at noon eastern time on January 20th. So cancelling the election would make the new Speaker of the House the Acting President.
Elections rarely are cancelled. It is the results that get cancelled.
My other answer to what Saint_Cad writes above is: Not automatically. It requires the military giving the new Speaker the nuclear football.
In other countries, when there is a widespread dispute over election results, it is up to the military to decide who is the head of government. I am not so sure the U.S. would be an outlier here.
Pete Hegseth is busy replacing the top ranks of the U.S. military with men he believes will be Trump loyalists. And some members of Congress, including my House member Chrissy Houlahan, are busy telling the U.S. military that their loyalty needs to be to the Constitution, not Trump. Who is more successful there will determine what happens in the event this administration attempts to cancel either elections or their results.
There’s a procedure in federal law for what happens in that situation and it’s not “the military decides”.
The scenario you’re suggesting wouldn’t be “non-nutty”, it would be a coup, and IMO grounds for any state to declare its secession on the grounds that the Union has been dissolved.