Detailed Republican Plan to Steal Election

[angrychair]

has already taken shape. The plan is appointed electors that vote in favor of trump no matter the vote in a given state. Can someone talk me down on this? :

Republican sources tell @bartongellman the Trump campaign "is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Link to tweet

?s=19

[bronxiteforever]

1. Kick and recommend for visibility

[flamingdem]

2. We need to vote as early as possible and urge everyone we know

to do the same. This strategy and others rely on the late counting of mail in ballots.

[consider_this]

85. this shakes my original plan...

and many others where we were going to mail-in/drop off the ballots early. If the state you are in does not begin counting such ballots until the night of the election, I fear this may give him the opening. I would really like to know if it is ok to stick to the original plan or must risk voting in person.
see my post here where you can see when such ballots gt counted in your state:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10181408705

[consider_this]

86. and now i am going to sound like a conspiracy theorist

which is the LAST thing i would want to do, but this is making me wonder - is it a ploy to get us to vote in person to use another method to steal : (sounds conspiracy theory, but i cannot tell truth from BS any longer) - some shit i read elsewhere where the voting machines can be rigged to take out 10% of votes where they want to.

this is just damn confusing. I am determined to vote, but want to do it in the way that I am 100% sure it is going to get counted.

why are we begin in a situation where that has to even be a question?

flame me for asking, but this is new messed up territory.

[Blue Owl]

3. Little Donny needs to be taught what happens to people who lie, cheat, and steal

For once in his goddamned life...

[Laelth]

4. Sorry. I can't talk you down.

Every state with a Republican legislature MAY be asked to overrule and override the popular vote in their state and select Republican electors.

It would be ENTIRELY Constitutional for them to do so. States have the right to select their own methods for appointing electors.

-Laelth

[angrychair]

10. That is my take as well

but was hoping there was a legitimate way to stop it

My fear isn't that they will do this, I don't put anything past Republicans, my fear is the complete collapse in our society if they do.

[hedda_foil]

11. Laelth, have you read the article? If not, please, please do. It's far more than this.

[Laelth]

15. No. I had not read it.

I have now, and the situation is worse than I imagined. Thank you for the invitation to read the article in full. I don’t feel better, but I do feel better informed.

-Laelth

[yellowdogintexas]

47. in Texas, electors are chosen according to party rules at the state conventions.

The electors who meet to certify will be from the party winning the Presidential and Vice Presidential election, and will generally go 100% with the winners

Since the Legislature will not meet until January 2021, there will be no influence there, and there would not be a point anyway.

Also, there isn't much reason to try and tinker with the electoral votes here because if a candidate takes Texas it is pretty much all over but the shouting.

I had to dig to find this. The Texas Election Code is like everything else here, too big for its britches

[Kaleva]

78. In MI, PA and WI, the Repubs don't have the votes to override a sure veto by the Dem governors.

[Laelth]

80. That's good.

It’s the states with Republican government that are of concern.

-Laelth

[Kaleva]

81. I guess most if not all of those will be going to Trump anyways.

[Laelth]

82. Quite the contrary.

I expect all of those states to go for Biden.

The problem is that PA and WI have Republican governments, and those governments could, if they chose to do so, ignore the will of the people (on the grounds of voter fraud) and send Republican electors to the electoral college. Then what? Who would stop them from doing so?



-Laelth

[Kaleva]

83. In order to do so, they'd have to overide a sure veto by the Dem governors.

And they don't have the votes to do so.

[Laelth]

84. And that's a good thing.

Let us hope that it doesn’t come to that.

PA is safe. MI is safe. WI is safe. IA is not safe. MN is safe. AZ is not safe. NV is safe.

I am expecting a Biden landslide that makes this discussion moot, but I also want to educate people about what states could do (in terms of the electoral college) if they wanted to. Thank you for aiding me in this process.

-Laelth

[Leith]

5. That's been my concern, too

It won't matter to rethugs how the people vote. Their handpicked electors are going to go for TRE45ON regardless of how vote turns out.

[KS Toronado]

33. And if it comes to this and donny calls on the SCOTUS, how are they going to vote?

You know he's asking his SCOTUS nominees that question behind closed doors right now.
Plus the " Will you be loyal to me? " question.

[not_the_one]

39. SCOTUS has already said states can do as the please, since STATES run elections.

Apparently that INCLUDES lying, cheating and stealing.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

43. Doesn't that also mean that Trump must wait for states

to count their absentee ballots?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

41. Well, I think that will at least make it clear that the EC needs to go

If they all are unfaithful electors and vote opposite the popular vote in their states, that's going to cause an uproar for sure.

[yellowdogintexas]

48. depends on the state. nt

[Newest Reality]

6. K&R

[hedda_foil]

7. This is a long but exceptionally important article. It's an absolute MUST READ!

[BannonsLiver]

13. It's actually not though a must read. So there's that.

[liberalmediaaddict]

19. Atlantic has great articles

but I always run out of free ones quick. A paid subscription with them isn't cheap.

[klook]

65. I paid $36.99 for a one-year subscription.

That includes getting a physical copy of the magazine every month plus online access to digital copies of the magazine going back more than three years, as well as a number of digital exclusives and newsletters. It's not nothing, but for all that, I don't consider $37 exorbitant.

Note, you may also be able to get free access via your local library. Unfortunately, mine has only physical issues of The Atlantic (not much help during a pandemic), although it has free access to digital editions of many magazines and newspapers.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

8. well, i'll give 'em this-

they leave no stone unturned.
they could teach the mafia a thing or 2.

[liberalmediaaddict]

16. There's no level they won't sink to

Because they believe they'll get away with it again like in 2000.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

27. yup.

nothin bolder than a con man that just got away w a huge score.

[Orangepeel]

9. In 2000, the Florida legislature was going to do this before SCOTUS stopped the recount

It was very close, of course, and bush had been declared the winner by the media before it was challenged, so they probably would have been able to do it without a whole lot of outrage.

If a state does this when the vote isn't in doubt, I would be shocked but not surprised. I also hope that voters won't stand for it. But, unfortunately, a lot of voters aren't as outraged as they should be about a lot of stuff.

[bullimiami]

12. That game can be played both ways. He better be sure he has his corrupt ducks counted properly.

[liberalmediaaddict]

14. Most Americans don't keep up with the news

Which is why Trump and the GOP are able to commit election fraud in plain sight with no consequences.

The reason our democracy is on it's last legs is the indifference and willful ignorance of half of Americans who sit at home every election day and think both parties are the same. Media outlets like MSNBC and the Washington Post have reported on stories like this one for years.

When our country becomes an Autocracy, which in many ways it already is, we can blame so called independent voters who believe what happens with our government has no effect on their lives.

[Laelth]

20. Too many people take liberal government for granted.

90% of them want it. They just don’t realize that it takes work, struggle, and pain to maintain it, and they definitely don’t remember that it has been the Democratic Party that has given them the liberal government that they take for granted.

-Laelth

[Thekaspervote]

17. This was posted earlier. It is such a stretch, read comment #43

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14120943

[BannonsLiver]

23. It appears to be the latest defeatist boogeyman

The tales will get even taller before Election Day, I’m sure.

Late October headline: “How Trump could train an army of gerbils to eat paper ballots”

[Thekaspervote]

25. Indeed!!

[Laelth]

24. Please read my response to post #43. n/t

-Laelth

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. I will point out that it's never happened before, so why it should happen now

or why you or anyone else here is so convinced this will happen, escapes me.

Perhaps my fundamental failing is that I am essentially an optimist.

[Bettie]

52. Because Republicans used to at least pretend that laws were a thing

that's entirely done with now. They are just grabbing power and burning the whole thing down.

[Laelth]

64. Indeed. It hasn't (not within 100 years, anyway).

Let us hope it doesn’t happen this year.

Ultimately, I agree with you. I doubt we will see any great, Constitutional crisis in November, but the fact that Trump and his allies are considering such things is enough to make me nervous.

-Laelth

[2naSalit]

18. Pay attention! ...nt

[malaise]

21. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

Supreme Court’s “faithless electors” decision validates case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Thekaspervote]

26. Thank you! I hope everyone reads the link. It makes it pretty clear how it actually works

[Mr. Ected]

22. The problem is, even if there is no question as to who wins the popular vote in a state

All Trump has to do is ALLEGE corruption and that's all the basis he needs.

What the fuck kind of constitution do we have, in reality? One that allows a fascist regime to rise up and consume the republic? One that allows the time required for due process to act as a nullifying factor in bringing corrupt politicians to justice? The past 4 years have taught us the answer to those questions.

[jorgevlorgan]

30. the state legislatures wil need to be on board with it

And the supreme court too. They already have precedent for ruling to respect the popular vote of the state, but we need to fight like hell to keep that scotus judge off before the election.

[jorgevlorgan]

28. I imageine this could be possible if the vote was close

It's harder to imagine every republican controlled state legislature being on board with this, though. Although at this point in our political history, we need to start suspending disbelief for any type of scenario.

[stopdiggin]

29. the electors are already chosen

by method laid out in state law. To appoint a new slate of electors, and discard those already in place, would (I think) go against individual state law.

[angrychair]

87. All due respect

the information is laid out plainly. There are multiple articles about it. There are actual plans to do this in some of the republican controlled legislatures already.

That they can do it is not in question. The only real question is: "Are they actually willing to risk a second Civil War to hold onto that power?"

[DeminPennswoods]

31. Have you ever watched the electors vote?

CSPAN covers it or at least in some of the states.

The GOP has a set of electors and Dems have a set of electors. Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who won their state and there have been "faithless" electors in the past, including in 2016, although I believe at least some states have made it illegal for electors to vote for anyone other than the certified winner of the state.

When I watched the PA electors vote, the names were very familiar to me as leading, partisan, party members for each party. No way were any of them going to vote for anyone other than their party's candidate.

[angrychair]

42. I think the point is

that in state legislatures that are controlled by Republicans, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from appointing all republican electors and them voting for trump, no mater the result in their state

Here is another NY Mag article about it as well:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/could-legislatures-hijack-the-2020-presidential-election.html

[Yavin4]

32. This article is the best evidence yet against the electoral college.

We need a direct election of the president through the popular vote.

[FelineOverlord]

34. If This happens and they steal the election

Do we go the French Resistance or the French Revolution route?

[bluecollar2]

49. If the end result is the end of the regime

I'm good either way...but I'd start with the resistance while preparing for the revolution.

[MarcA]

58. Have the strongest blue States then declare the Federal government invalid

and petition for acceptance into the Commonwealth of Nations (aka British Commonwealth).
I think the petitions would be accepted and we would be part of a very interesting world map.

[onetexan]

35. I can only trust that Biden's team of lawyers will have already considered such a scenario and has a

game plan to deal with it.

[Sogo]

40. If they haven't thought of it, this article

will bring it to their attention.


BTW, a NTY article a couple of weeks ago said that Biden has a team of hundreds of lawyers just for the purpose of Trump not being able to steal the election.....

[onetexan]

72. Yes i had read about that at least a couple months ago

So glad he's got good ppl. We're dealing w dangerous crooks here

[sinkingfeeling]

36. That's not 'stealing an election', that's destroying our democracy in favor of

a dictatorship.

[shanti]

45. Exactly

Which is why I think that Barr/McConnell are acting so bold and untouchable.

[bucolic_frolic]

37. If they steal it, it will be by use of raw power in plain sight

In 2016 we had only a few clues as to what was actually going on. This year their intent, motive, and means are clear.

[Sogo]

38. As stated in the article:

"The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office “shall end” at noon on January 20..."

If the electoral process has not determined a winner, the constitution has a clear succession. I believe at that point, we'd be looking at President Pelosi....

[infullview]

46. If he succeeds in fixining the election by appointing electors there will absolutely be civil unrest

that far exceeds what happened in the 60's.

[MarcA]

53. 1860s? n/t

[infullview]

79. Possibly

[EndlessWire]

50. This subject was also discussed

back on August 29th under "The Electoral College." The link I used down thread was also from The Atlantic.

This is a real possibility. And, I remember, after crying when Hillary did not make it, that it was an awful realization that the EC is the only thing that matters. Millions of hours of effort to GOTV doesn't mean a hill of beans with an EC vote.

That is why, later, several states passed laws that made it illegal for an EC delegate to vote contrary to what the voters had won. But, as we have seen, punishment and consequences for going against that will probably not be forthcoming.

Apparently this threat was seen four years ago. It isn't new. You can bet that the Repubs have a plan for it.

We have to GOTV anyway! We have to win in overwhelming numbers!

[TommyCelt]

51. Disturbing.

"Let us not hedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward. If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged."

[MarcA]

54. You can't have reason and principle with those who only want power. n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. To those who scoff at stories about Trump stealing the election

And think the idea of Trump using electors, or the courts, sending out goons to disrupt the voting stations to cause doubt in counts, and sabotage the mail in votes, or "accidentally" expose them and thus render them "spoiled". And ways we haven't even thought of yet.

All I ask is just be ready. Ready to be wrong. And ready to take to the streets. We will need everyone on the streets. I can see some just sitting in shock, in paralysis, because they never let it enter their minds that it could happen. So all I'm asking is that you spare a small space in the corner of your brain to prepare yourself for the possibility that you may be wrong, that it could happen.

[BannonsLiver]

59. You should also probably allow for some room that you will be wrong

And Biden will win big and all the fear and dooming was not necessary.

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. I still think Biden will win.

I have faith that the American people will not allow Trump to steal it so easily.

1. I think Biden might just win a landslide, if most of the Republican shenanigans fail, and voter suppression and mail vote suppression tactics mostly fail.

2. Biden may win barely. If those tactics work better. Trump will most certainly contest it then though, which could lead to #3.

3. And Trump may steal it, if all those tactics work including help from Uncle Putey. As well as other devious plots we don't even know about. Or....steal it even if Biden barely wins, by conducting a sham investigation with Barr who declares massive fraud in the swing States that Biden won.


I am leaning towards #2 at this point. But if I had to put percentages on those three, at this point, it would probably be:

#1 10%
#2 75%
#3 15%

So I know that I am saving at least 15% probability in my brain to be ready to fight if it happens.

Its not about being wrong or right. Its about being prepared for any outcome.

[BannonsLiver]

76. I'm leaning toward 1

That’s because I’ve been following the race closely looking at data and listening to experts in the field rather than making knee jerk reactions based entirely on emotion.

[LiberalLovinLug]

88. Good. I'm glad you feel so confident

But I don't think I can be so sure after 2016. That is not based on "emotion". That actually happened. Michael Moore, someone who travels the country doing documentaries probably can read the moods and temperatures of different States citizens better than anyone, was warning that Trump could win. He was laughed at in here. (and still is). That prediction was not based on his personal emotion, but his opinion based on his experiences.

All I am saying is we have to be mentally prepared to actually get up off the couch, and do something IF that happens. If the electors from R governed, but D winning States will hand Trump another 4 years. Or massive postal office fraud, or intimidation at polling stations. All of that added to what we had last time, Russian interference, troll farms home and abroad using an oblivious FB, polling stations closed, hours reduced, ID laws, etc.

[LymphocyteLover]

61. oh, absolutely-- it is 2020 after all

[UCmeNdc]

56. Do not ever trust Trump!

[Trumpocalypse]

57. I have a lot of questions about this.

What states does this apply to? Do all those states also have republican Governors. Can they change election rules in the middle of an election?

[angrygranny]

60. EXISTING LAW ABOUT THIS

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.



https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional

[klook]

66. Thanks, and welcome to DU. (nt)

[tinrobot]

62. Only if the results are close...

“We could well see a protracted postelection struggle in the courts and the streets if the results are close,” says Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the UC Irvine School of Law and the author of a recent book called Election Meltdown. “The kind of election meltdown we could see would be much worse than 2000’s Bush v. Gore case.”

That's the quote from the article.

Yes, the article is scary, but getting every single Democrat you know to the polls is more critical than ever. The wider the margin, the harder it will be to steal.

[LaMouffette]

63. We WILL get rid of Putin's pet president, but it may require impeaching him again.

We MUST take back the Senate, so that if the horrifying scenario laid-out in the article comes to pass and Trump appoints loyal electors, we can impeach him again once Dems control the House and the Senate and this time vote to convict and remove his dictatorial dick. (Er, I mean, he's a dictatorial dick who should be removed, not that we should perform a dick-ectomy. Then again, does anyone know how to get a hold of Lorena Bobbitt these days???)

If Trump steals the election again and we do not retake the Senate, our democracy is doomed.

[Mike 03]

67. My god, you're right. I never thought of this.

We could win the senate and impeach Trump again, and this time get him removed.

Duh!

Thanks for finding the silver lining in this nightmare.

[LaMouffette]

90. This is the only thing that lets me sleep at night!

Trump's chaos-and-confusion, take-the-ballots, refuse-to-concede strategy might work to keep him in office, but it's doubtful that he can rig the Senate races in all the states with Senators up for reelection.

GOTV.

[hedda_foil]

74. We're not going to win 2/3 of the Senate no matter how well we do in the election.

That's what it takes to convict.

[LaMouffette]

89. But if we win the majority, we can go Mitch McConnell on any legislation . . .

they might want to pass. In other words, we can do some power-wielding of our own if we take back the Senate and vow not to bring to the Senate floor ANY Republican legislation until Trump is impeached and removed from office.

I bet there are a lot of Republican Senators who would be grateful to have the political cover to vote for Trump's removal: "Those nasty Dems made me do it!"

[BComplex]

68. This article is a MUST READ for anyone thinking of voting by mail. My husband and I are

going in person with our masks on. But we're white. I'm afraid it still may not be as easy in some states for POC.

I could not have more disrespect for republicans. Any of them. They are disgusting in every sense of the word.

[triron]

69. We damn well better wake up!

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Do they actually have the right to change the rules in the middle of an election

or even after an election?

I was reading some posts on DKos, and someone suggested that it would be unlikely that even very RW judges would go along with that.

Don't they already have rules in place for how electors are selected before the voting starts? They can't just change rules in the middle of a game, just because they're losing by the rules that have already been agreed on. I hope.

[hedda_foil]

71. Read the whole article. It will answer your questions more fully than we can.

[Doremus]

75. Halfway through the article and am sickened. I hope everyone here reads this. nt

[Kaleva]

77. How does one convince electors chosen by Democrats to vote for Trump?

In what universe will that be possible?