Will this be judged based on economist democracy index, freedom house, val dem ratings?

It will be judged by my own assessment. Maybe taking various ratings into account but not exclusively relying on any one.

Was someone here anxious about the future just hedging? 48% seemed so crazy to me that I was compelled to stop lurking and register an account. I could understand if OP was allowing for Trump decreasing turnout in vague questionable ways, but given the clarification this seemed like an easy YES.

Yes, massive truth arbitrage opportunity

If the US becomes a monarchy like so many liberals are saying it will if Trump wins, then Trump will become easily in my book the best president of all time

You want the US to become a monarchy?

I assume things in the current Overton window (e.g changes in voter ID laws, felon (dis)enfranchisement, or mail-in/early voting) wouldn't count here?

(Also, I'm assuming this is for GE only, not primaries)

Yeah. If it is just more of the same then it wouldn't count.

Correct. GE. Although if Trump say passes some sort of law requiring himself to be the nominee of both parties that would count.

Which of these scenarios would count?

1. Trump creates a new state from a Republican area (e.g. Jefferson)

2. Trump makes immigration easier for European conservatives than liberals

3. Trump actively encourages internal immigration of his supporters from Mississippi to Pennsylvania

4. Supreme Court allows Trump to run for a third term

The first would count. The second would depend on how he does it. A law blatantly stating that only conservatives can enter the country would count. But if it is simply that people believe a more conventional law favours the sort of people that are likely to vote Trump then it would not count. The third would not count. The last depends. An ammendment of the constitution legally done would not count. But if the supreme court simply arbitarily allows trump to run again it would.

I'm surprised you say passing an amendment would not count. If amendments are on the table I think he can simply amend the constitution to remove the voting rights of democratic demographics, or change the electoral college weighting to make it nearly impossible for republicans to lose. Surely this should not count as a fair election by the standards of past elections?

If he alters the constitution to remove voting rights from certain demographics or alter electoral college weighting that would resolve as yes. But plenty of countries lack term limits and they are not generally considered non democratic. So altering term limits alone can't, I think, be considered ending fair elections if it is done by the proper constitutional method.

Altering the US Constitution is incredibly difficult. A President cannot "simply amend the constitution".

I wasn't implying it is easy. Only that if a change is made then it does not need to be complicated in order to make the election unfair.

@SamuelMillerick changing term limits of a president, by that president, is generally considered a highly autocratic move. I don't know if that directly means the elections are free and unfair, but if I knew nothing about a country and heard that the president (constitutionally) removed term limits, I would guess that it's not a real democracy anymore.

@Tater I agree that constitutional doesn't guarantee that something is fair!

I agree that it would be an autocratic move. But I want to keep this question focused on the election itself. It is already going to be a potentially difficult question to resolve uncontroversially and if we expand it to if America is as a whole more or less democratic or more autocratic than it was it becomes a very subjective question.