A thought on the "state legislature overriding the popular vote..

[jorgevlorgan]

And appointing their own electors" discussion.

I just realized that most states probably already have laws on the books that dictate how electors are chosen, which I assume they would have to abide by. In a state like PA where the speaker is entertaining the idea, wouldn't they need to change the law before they can change the process for appointing electors? With a Democratic governor and without a veto proof majority, I do not think that is likely.


Can somebody either confirm or deny this for me? :

[drray23]

1. indeed.

most of these hair on fire scenario are not feasible. The fact Trump and his goons are discussing them show how desperate they are.

[jorgevlorgan]

2. I'm hoping if wrong somebody can point it out

We need to be prepared for the worst.


But I was looking at state laws and there is set process mandated by PA law. I don't think they can change that easily.

[Boogiemack]

30. Not feasible? It was done in 2016

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-candidates-did-the-seven-faithless-electors-support-election-2016/

I don't put anything past these corrupt GOP pols and SCOTUS will be on their side.

[jorgevlorgan]

33. Faithless electors were appointed by their parties an still voted against them

We are talking about state legislatures-not the parties, appointing unelected electors and skirting their entire state law.

[regnaD kciN]

3. That's a good question...

When this scenario was first floated about four months ago, someone commented that it isn't just as simple as the legislature deciding who to send as electors -- that, indeed, it would require new legislation. But I don't know for sure if they're correct in every state.

If they are, then Florida is probably a lost cause (just as it would have been in 2000, had they attempted that maneuver -- in that case, it would have been Jeb signing the bill that elevated his brother to the presidency), as is AZ, but I believe PA, MI, and WI all have Democratic governors. And, if they fear that the legislature may have the votes to overturn their veto, they could simply hold the bill and veto it at the very last minute by which time electors had to be certified by the SoS. But, once again, I don't know the specific laws for each state, so I could be wrong.

[jorgevlorgan]

5. Well florida looked on track to change their law at the time

Which wasn't needed, but was possible. I'm sure he would have don't it to get his brother in.

[Mike 03]

4. DUers have been passing around this article. I was only able to skim

it, and I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not positive it relates directly to your question, but it is indirectly about this issue. It seemed reassuring:

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


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

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. That's not going to happen.

Each political party in each state selects their own electors. There's not just one generic electors slate who are supposed to abide by the state's popular vote. They are all party faithful, which is exactly why "faithless electors" are always such a shock.

I repeat, the electors are chosen ahead of time by the state political party. Which is one reason Kanye West was tossed off a ballot in one state: he didn't have a valid slate of electors.

State legislatures don't get to appoint the electors. Plus, most of the state legislatures are simply not in session in November or December.

Get a grip, people.

[jorgevlorgan]

8. Yeah

Technically they can appoint electors, I guess if they change their laws that dictates their process. But that's eems really har, and the fact pennsylvania's speaker is entertaining this while they have a liberal supreme court is purely delusional.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. The problem is that too many here simply do not understand just how the Electoral College works.

They apparently think there is a group of people for each state who comprise that state's Electoral College, and they are supposed to vote for whoever got the most votes although they can always vote for someone else. No. No. No. The Electoral College members are chosen by the political parties in the first place, AND THAT'S WHO YOU ARE REALLY VOTING FOR.

In fact, your ballot should read something like "Electoral College Slate for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris" and "Electoral College Slate for Donald Trump and Mike Pence" and so on through the entire list of whoever is on the ballot for President and Vice-President in your state.

Sigh. Clearly civics isn't taught in high school.

[jorgevlorgan]

10. I remember them telling that to us in hs actually

Maybe I was the last!

But the issue is the problem that constitutionally they can technically appoint whatever electors they want. But again, they would have to get past their state laws that guide the process first. And then there's the fact you point out about how the to elector's have most likely so already been chosen by the parties. I imagine if that were something hat would have remotely been feasible, it would have had to be done last year and laws would have to have changed.

[Zeitghost]

16. That is how most are chosen...

Most are chosen through party convention or party committees but there are other methods including being appointed by a Governor.

[lagomorph777]

54. VA ballot says "Electors for..."

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

55. All ballots say that.

[Orangepeel]

20. legislatures certify which slate gets selected

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/ce1706a48b17015b0fe501fc5fea0481

Florida would have done it in 2000 if SCOTUS hadn't stopped the recount. They would again if the vote is close and they think they can convince people that trump "really" won.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

23. Even so, I can't imagine a state legisture certifying

the Republican slate when the Democrat clearly won the popular vote. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see that happening.

And again, its the individual political parties that put up the electors on the slate. So they are all party faithfuls. Which is why "faithless" electors are so mind-boggling.

Plus, isn't it up to the House of Representatives to certify the Electoral College vote? Do you really think that if some Republican state legislature, whose state clearly went for Biden, certifies the Republican slate instead, that the Democratic slate will simply say, "Oh, never mind," and go home? Don't you think they will still meet and send their vote into Washington? And which slate's votes do you really think Nancy Pelosi will accept? Think about it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. You keep saying "clearly went for Biden"

The whole point of this plan is to claim victory while trump is ahead and before the mail in ballots are fully counted.

The plan is to stop vote counting by screaming fraud and using the courts/legislatures.

Just like Florida 2018 they are going to claim any irregularity is Democrats trying to steal the election. They will post out of context pictures and bogus claims of ballot theft.

They are all but publicly acknowledging they plan on claiming fraud during the “blue shift”

People keep saying there are established laws on the books that determine how electors are picked. That’s true. But there are also provisions for sending electors via the legislature when an election result is compromised and the state is likely to lose their electoral votes.

“They are asking for it” — here is a Republican operative basically saying it will be our fault for having the nerve to want to increase turnout via mail-in ballots.

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

Trump’s instinct as a spectator in 2018—to stop the count—looks more like strategy this year. “There are results that come in Election Night,” a legal adviser to Trump’s national campaign, who would not agree to be quoted by name, told me. “There’s an expectation in the country that there will be winners and losers called. If the Election Night results get changed because of the ballots counted after Election Day, you have the basic ingredients for a shitstorm.”

There is no “if” about it, I said. The count is bound to change. “Yeah,” the adviser agreed, and canvassing will produce more votes for Biden than for Trump. Democrats will insist on dragging out the canvass for as long as it takes to count every vote. The resulting conflict, the adviser said, will be on their heads.

“They are asking for it,” he said. “They’re trying to maximize their electoral turnout, and they think there are no downsides to that.” He added, “There will be a count on Election Night, that count will shift over time, and the results when the final count is given will be challenged as being inaccurate, fraudulent—pick your word.”

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

45. Vote counting isn't goingto happen.

Get back into the real world.

Oh, and the electors are already selected, well before the election. So relieve your mind on that.

Geez.

[Kaleva]

46. In Michigan, the state SOS certifies which slate of electors are chosen

And she's a Democrat.

[TeamPooka]

40. I mean sure they can try something tricky, if they want their capitals to burn like Nero's Rome.

The citizens of this country will rise up.

[treestar]

7. It would deprive people of the right to vote

to hand it over to the legislators anyway! There is no way that would hold up.

[roamer65]

12. You have a right to vote for most offices.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution allows for the state legislatures to direct the manner in which electors for President and Vice President are appointed. It’s very wide power, completely at their discretion.

Sadly.

[jorgevlorgan]

15. While they have the power to do that, doing so would be entirely at odds

With state laws. Just because it is constitutional doesn't make it legal, right?

[Zeitghost]

17. In most cases...

In most cases, various state laws would need to be changed and odds are any states that had a legislature and governor that would change those laws are already voting for Trump.

[jorgevlorgan]

21. That's how I see it.

MI, WI, PA are a lock if we win them, and even TX isn't gonna change their laws given the feuds between abbott and the president. Also we are close to flipping the Florida legislature and would only need one house to prevent them from being able to try this (florida legislators elected are sworn in immediately after they win) . The most important thing remains that we win this election by as many electoral votes as humanly possible.

[roamer65]

26. If it's taken to court, the Constitution is the law of the land.

It supersedes all other laws.

[jorgevlorgan]

28. Not if legal precedent and stronger areas of the constitution prevail

And 150 years of legal precedent, along with the constitution clearly defining that states have the power to run their elections -not state legislatures, along with the fact that if this was allow d, it would override again 150 years of state law and precedent and throw out every state law in the country allowing for a democratic vote.

Constitutionality is more than just using that one part of the constitution that was written 200 years ago and never used in 150 years. It is also based on what has been practiced and which laws have been in place. This would have very little standing to toss entire state laws that have been the norm.

The courts aren't that stupid.

[roamer65]

31. SCOTUS was that stupid in 2000.

[jorgevlorgan]

32. In 2000 they were about to change the law

And appoint electors. It would have been legal. In this case, we are talking about doing something completely illegal expecting the courts to be on their side. Not likely.

[roamer65]

34. Hopefully we don't see the scenarios discussed.

But I do expect Dump will litigate this election.

[jorgevlorgan]

35. Me too. And we have to stand firm against the coward nihilists POS that he is

And if he wants to take this to the end to prove how much of a spinless, cowardly and weak loser he is for all the world to see -I almost welcome it.


He can go gracefully but it will almost be funny to see him waste all his money trying to decide something that has already been decided. I will be happy seeing him leave the presidency with no money to defend himself against the impending criminal prosecution.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. Who exactly was about to change the law and appoint electors in 2000?

[jorgevlorgan]

38. The Republican state legislature and Governor Bush.

That was a stated attempt at some point.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

39. It may have been stated at some point, but

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that would not have happened.

[jorgevlorgan]

41. Especially since it would have been likely that the recount would have amounted to a Bush victory

The media analysis following the election showed that the individual counties that were ordered to be recounted by the state supreme court, would have given bush the win. If it was a statewide recount, that would have been different. Either way the state could have handled it themselves with the exact same outcome.

The SCOTUS did make their decision based partly on the fact that the state legislature had the authority to appoint electors however they wanted, but again -the law would have needed to be changed, etc.

[Trumpocalypse]

42. Actually the final recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court

was to have all the statewide under votes be recounted. That’s the recount that the US Supreme Court stopped.

[jorgevlorgan]

43. oh shnap you're right!

Sorry.

I don't know if I really realized that.

[Kaleva]

47. To do so, they'd have to get their governor to agree or have enough votes to override a veto.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse but the President still has to either sign off on the budget or veto it.

[cynatnite]

11. There was a ruling about electors from SCOTUS...

If I remember it right, states may force electors to cast their votes based on the popular vote.

[jorgevlorgan]

13. Yeah. If it is entirely up to the state as the scotus has made clear

I think we will be fine. Since the laws on the books are already requiring the popular votehe to be awarded the electoral votes. Except Maine and Nebraska where they are awarded by district.

[cynatnite]

14. I do worry about trump and his minions gumming up the electoral process...

But I also believe that states are going to take it seriously and honestly certify the results at the end of the day. At least most of them. I have my doubts about Florida and Georgia.

[jorgevlorgan]

18. I think they will

They always have. And if any try to appoint their own electors, I think they would have trouble convincing ANY court against more than a hundred years of precedent in every state, ignoring state rights and the ability for them to conduct their own elections -and overriding hundreds of million of votes.

[cynatnite]

19. Well, I am feeling better about all this...

I read that Atlantic article about trump's breaking of America with the election and it had me depressed. Keeping up the hope.

[jorgevlorgan]

22. Yeah I mean he is spending all his campaign cash to overthrow150 years

Of precedent and established law. So far he is just making himself look more and more like the loser he truly is

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

24. Some sort of link, or supporting evidence, please.

[cynatnite]

25. Here you go...there are a lot more links but I thought this stated it clearly enough...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

37. Which means that "faithless electors" simply aren't an issue.

And they have NEVER changed the outcome of an election.

Again, the electors are all separate slates by party, chosen by the political party, and are pretty much party stalwarts. Which is exactly why "faithless electors" are so shocking and so rare.

At the risk of repeating myself, the electors are not just a single slate who are then supposed to vote for whoever got the popular vote in the state, but are separate slates, chosen by each party, and will almost invariably vote for their party's nominee.

[Whiskeytide]

50. What is the process for determining which slate of electors ...

... delivers the vote on behalf of the state?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

52. The popular vote in that state.

It's not quite as hidden and mysterious as people seem to think.

[Whiskeytide]

53. What if the popular vote is believed to be corrupted? Say ...

... NY goes for Tя☭mp, but there are cries that millions of votes were flipped, possibly because of malware placed in the system by foreign actors. It’s not verified, and make take months to investigate, but there is anecdotal evidence that it happened. What options does NY have at that point? Are they required by law to certify the republican slate of electors to the EC? Or can the NY SoS or legislature intervene?

[roamer65]

27. The state legislatures have complete latitude to do it however they decide.

So the answer is you are correct.

[jorgevlorgan]

29. No. They are still restrained by the laws in their state

And legal precedent. The scotus has already made clear precedent of leaving state election issues up to the state. If that is the case, these state legislatures cannot unilaterally override 150 years of legal norm and precedent.


Also state legislature generally have no role in appointing electors or certifying elections. Also the state legislatures are generally not in session during this time. Truth is Trump has no standing and is just trying to make us think he is stronger than the weak POS he is

[dansolo]

49. Not just precedent

It would be blatantly unconstitutional. Passing a law to change electors after an election would be an ex post facto law, which is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

[radius777]

51. But would a hard right 6-3 Supreme Court

care about the Constitution... I'm not so sure.

Trumpism is a cult and they do what they want - democratic norms be damned.

The only way to avoid these issues is for us to turn out the vote and win by a solid margin.

[Kaleva]

48. The legislatures can vote to change the law but still need the govenor to either sign or veto

Congress, according to the Constitution, has the power of the purse but the president still needs to either sign or veto all budget bills.

[roamer65]

56. All depends on their laws.

[roamer65]

57. Bigger question is how will Dump substantiate fraud in his race...

while leaving other lesser races untouched? Courts will not like that sort of differentiation.

There will be a lot of split ticket voting happening. He very well could take a few Repuke senators and reps down the tubes with his antics if whole ballots are thrown out. Just like suppressing absentee balloting may blow back on them.