Guardrails Still Exist

In the modern world, the President or head of state tends to get all the attention. They have a bully pulpit, get the best motorcade, and the nuclear codes. While these roles are highly visible, they are defined by well-known rules unique to each democratic system. In the US, an election is held every four years, and the winner of the Electoral College becomes the President of the United States. In the United Kingdom and Germany, the leader of the party that wins the majority of seats, or can form a coalition, forms a government. In France, the winner is declared in a head-to-head match-up in a two-round system. However, focusing solely on these heads of state or government can overshadow the equally fundamental structures and rules that govern legislative elections, which are crucial to understanding how democratic governance and legitimacy function across different systems.

Legislative elections, however, are often less publicly discussed, despite being integral to the functioning of democratic systems. Each of the “big four” Western Democracies- the US, France, Germany, and the UK- structures these elections differently, reflecting the unique foundations of their governments. In the United States, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are elected every two years, and these elections are called “midterms” in non-presidential election years. By examining how each system organizes and conducts legislative elections, it becomes clear that these processes form the backbone of democratic legitimacy and are essential for ensuring effective governance.

President Donald Trump addresses a House Republican retreat at the Kennedy Center on January 6, 2026 (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Recent social media discussions have questioned whether President Donald Trump could cancel the midterm election, but the Constitution grants no such authority to the President. The United States conducts highly decentralized elections, with each state responsible for administering its own process. Every two years, all seats in the US House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are contested. This structure originates from Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” although Congress retains the power to standardize certain aspects, such as the timing of federal elections. Throughout American history—including during the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II—these elections have taken place as scheduled.

Another layer to the conspiracy is the 20th Amendment, which sets the end of Congressional terms at noon on January 3rd. Hypothetically, if Trump were to stop the election, there would be no House of Representatives, and the remaining ⅔ of the Senate would be Democratic by one vote; not that any legislation could get passed, there would be no funding for anything, and everything would grind to a useless halt.

France votes using a hybrid of the United States' Presidential model and the parliamentary model seen elsewhere.  While the term "semi-Presidential" model might not be creatively named, it seeks to overcome the political gridlock and instability seen in post-war France’s Fourth Republic.  The President is elected in a two-round standalone election.  The first round can feature a dozen or more candidates, all vying for votes (which usually hurts the French left, which is spread across many parties, versus the French right, which is only represented by a couple).  The top two winners from the first round advance to a second-round election held several weeks later.  The winner from that becomes President de la Republic and is sworn in several weeks later.

Normally, a legislative election is held within a few months of the new President’s term.  While technically a separate election, the results normally mirror those of the Presidential election, as national conditions don’t change much in just a few months and thus create a fairly stable government coalescing around the President’s party.

However, the President of France does have the ability, borrowed from parliamentary government, to call a snap election.  If one were ever silly enough to do so while saddled with the horrible polling that normally burdens French presidents outside of the campaign season, it can backfire, resulting in a President from one party and a government from another.  This cohabitation grinds things to a halt as no one can agree on what program to enact.  

This separation operates differently in parliamentary systems such as those of the United Kingdom and Germany, where the legislature and government are institutionally fused. In the UK, the prime minister may seek an early election, but this is limited by both statutory requirements and political factors, such as the outcome of a confidence vote in the House of Commons. In contrast, Germany’s Basic Law imposes even greater restrictions, permitting early federal elections solely through formal confidence procedures—such as a failed constructive vote of no confidence or a loss of parliamentary support by the chancellor — illustrated by the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition in early 2025.

The crucial distinction between these systems and presidential models lies in how executive legitimacy is continuously tied to parliamentary confidence: in both the UK and Germany, the executive must maintain the legislature's support to remain in power, resulting in direct mechanisms of government accountability and far less separation between the branches. Furthermore, ministers generally serve concurrently as legislators, reinforcing this interconnectedness, with policy initiatives and governing authority originating directly from Parliament. In contrast to presidential systems, the heads of state in these parliamentary systems occupy primarily symbolic roles, and their legitimacy depends on their adherence to established democratic procedures; if they were ever to refuse an election sanctioned by the legislative majority, their position would become untenable, and their credibility as neutral constitutional actors would be fundamentally compromised.

Which is another issue.  Almost every country holds elections.  Even North Korea, China, and Russia hold elections to provide their governments with democratic legitimacy.  As much of a sham as they are, they can point to the results and say, “This is what we were elected to do”.  Even totalitarian despots understand that the people are the root of power, and with their endorsement, they cannot realistically govern, no matter how autocratic they may be.

In developed democracies such as the United States, the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes increases as the link between individual voters and institutional power becomes more transparent and direct. This relationship stands in contrast to countries like Russia, where elections are held but are widely regarded as neither transparent nor competitive, resulting in diminished legitimacy both domestically and internationally. The principle of transparent linkage between voters and power underpins the long-standing importance of the peaceful transfer of power in American politics and helps explain the widespread national trauma experienced on January 6th. By ensuring the separation of powers, the government upholds the foundations of legitimacy and accountability that are critical to democratic governance and stability. The consistent and uninterrupted conduct of elections, even in times of crisis, thus reflects both the nation’s institutional resilience and its commitment to representative democracy, reinforcing the underlying argument that unbroken electoral processes are essential for public trust and the continuity of democratic norms.

In short, the US President cannot dissolve Congress like King Charles III.  He cannot call for snap elections like the French President.  He cannot cancel the election that is prescribed by the Constitution. Trump’s ability to get away with what he gets away with, such as the War Powers Act, is because Congress has willingly given him much of its authority and refuses to check his power due to the political realities the Republicans find themselves in.  Not even Congress can outright cancel an election, and even this Supreme Court has been willing to challenge Trump’s authority, such as their recent ruling that barred the administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois, stating that Trump “has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”  

Courts in the United States often step in to protect voting rights in every election, such as when issues with voting machines or ballots prompt a judge to extend voting hours in specific precincts. If Trump were to deploy ICE to “monitor” voting sites, any judge worth their robes would instantly order an injunction to leave any site under their jurisdiction, as it is clear voter intimidation.  

Emergency powers cannot override the Constitution. The oft-threatened Insurrection Act simply authorizes troop deployment under limited circumstances. Martial law, when it has existed in American history, has been geographically confined and temporary. Neither doctrine alters the legal authority governing congressional elections. Neither transfers control over election timing or administration to the executive. Even during the Civil War, congressional elections continued. The only thing that could change this is a Constitutional Amendment - but 38 states are simply not going to ratify an amendment that takes away their power to run their own elections.

To even joke about the alternative is deeply un-American, unpatriotic, and anti-Democratic.