If a sitting President does decide to play games to prolong his stay in office then yes it can be seen as a conflict of interest. If memory serves correct the only time it happened that I can think of off the top of my head when a US election was delayed was during WW2 when Roosevelt was given permission by Congress to delay the election because of the war.
We have to remember that vote rigging is more possible in local elections where the only determining factor to determine the outcome of a race IS the popular vote. It's harder to do in the electoral college b/c of the fact that you'd have to know beforehand where the best states are to attempt to rig. Even with just knowing in broad strokes the swing states, it's still hard to get another 30k or so votes into a state.
In a regular local election which only relies on the popular vote, it's a bit easier. But with the EC it's not as easy -- b/c a rigged vote in Cali does not change the fate of the vote in another state.
But yeah, a sitting President obviously shouldn't be able to delay when their election happens. That's a clear conflict of interest and it's good that the founding father saw that a decision like that should be left to the Congress.
In a regular local election which only relies on the popular vote, it's a bit easier. But with the EC it's not as easy -- b/c a rigged vote in Cali does not change the fate of the vote in another state.
But yeah, a sitting President obviously shouldn't be able to delay when their election happens. That's a clear conflict of interest and it's good that the founding father saw that a decision like that should be left to the Congress.
