General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArticle on EV.COM Debunks plan to bypass voters.
While voter suppression and challenges to vote counting are real threats, an article on ElectoralVote.com unpacks the threat of going to state legislatures to appoint "loyal electors". There are no swing states where that move is possible. State laws would need to be changed, and none of the states needed to "swing" have a Republican trifecta likely to pull off such a move.
https://electoral-vote.com/#item-1
Skraxx
(2,967 posts)can stop it or delay it long enough for the Democratically controlled house to certify the election for Biden.
Johnny2X2X
(18,968 posts)The Blue wave of 2018 ensures that those 3 swing states will have fair elections where all the votes are counted.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Just_Vote_Dem
(2,793 posts)That one was thought up by someone in St. Petersburg, I'll wager
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)waste of time -- and trump will remain king -- is getting old.
Jillgirl
(64 posts)Everything I've seen warning of Trump's shenanigans screams that the only way Democrats can win is to vote in massive numbers in ways that are sure to be counted.
What is sure to be counted depends on the state. Trump will try to argue that votes counted late are fraudulent. So find out when your state counts absentee ballots and vote accordingly.
Think they can't just stop the count? They did in Florida in 2000, and that's what got us Bush.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and election observers who will do their jobs.
Jillgirl
(64 posts)There may be issues that go beyond anything election observers can fix.
Many of us worry about voting in person, at polling places where we are sure to encounter unmasked magats. We need to think about our health. When we consider voting by mail so we can avoid exposure, we need to think about whether our votes will be counted. "Just vote, rather than worrying" is for other elections. Not this one.
rzemanfl
(29,554 posts)PNW-Dem
(244 posts)It had me going for a minute. As much as we think Trump is an idiot, his campaign doesn't some pretty sophisticated shit.
Insightful post, it should be on the greatest.
MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)kiri
(789 posts)I am not so sure. Trump has an army of lawyers plus Barr and the DOJ to do everything possible to stall and create uncertainty in the election results. Trump has shrewdly laid the ground work for legal challenges. And his 200 court appointments are taking over (seen on the 11th and 9th circuits). His minions will continue to believe in every conspiracy theory.
I do grasp that Trump is a master at misdirection, creating "stick it to the libs" memes. Which the media amplifies.
Look at the outrage when Trump held his campaign rally/event at the White House. He gloated and giggled, "they can't do anything about it." Absent some Senate Republicans having any principles, Trump will get away with it.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Do you know constant doom and gloom attitudes have been been proven to suppresses turnout?
Be wary, be cautious, be watchful, hell be angry - but jiminy crickets the doom and gloom is sooooo counterproductive on a Democratic website.
Everyone, please HELP Joe & Kamala, don't kneecap them from behind - GOTV & WE ARE GOING to PREVAIL!!!!!
cheezmaka
(737 posts)Nancy Pelosi is well aware of what Trump is trying to do and has some "tricks up her sleeve"! Any attempt to "sway" or "discount" the election by Trump would practically cause an "insurrection".
stopdiggin
(11,237 posts)by means of state legislatures. i.e., a real legal mechanism -- not mind games and misdirection.
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)reACTIONary
(5,766 posts)stopdiggin
(11,237 posts)cp
(6,615 posts)My stomach thanks you!
Good analysis.
crickets
(25,951 posts)Firestorm49
(4,028 posts)Doremus
(7,261 posts)Swing state
Republican trifecta
I'm at work and unable to read it
jorgevlorgan
(8,277 posts)bypassing the will over his state's voters. And Republicans would need his support to change the law.
Not just that, but even if every republican was onboard to steal the election, MI, WI and PA would all be needed to do that. They cannot change their laws with enough electoral votes, without support from each of their Democratic governors.
Also, Ohio's going to have a large vote by mail percentage which will mostly be counted before the election. The early votes will be reported as the first results from the sate and totaled with the in-person count for the day. If Biden clearly wins Ohio, there will be little that can be done to change that if any of these politicians care about their job.
Thunderbeast
(3,400 posts)that focuses on the blue states that are most competitive, but are likely to put Biden over 270. If Biden holds the "blue wall" states (that do not have GOP Trifecta status), he wins. If Trump pulls off a win in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, the Florida EV play may be attempted. Current polling shows Biden further ahead in the industrial midwest than in Florida.
jorgevlorgan
(8,277 posts)We will be able to tell a lot from the results in FL and OH. Like if he wins those states, it is far more than likely he pulled off a landslide. If he is close in both states, there is a chance he still did well in mi wi and pa. But I have serious issues with the idea that we won't be able to know the results of the election on election night due to the time it will take to count ballots. Also, those three states will start at least processing and counting mail ballots the morning of the election, and the partial results and election day votes will say a lot about where the states will swing.
jorgevlorgan
(8,277 posts)FL state law, easily blocking and chance of their being able to change the law if they wanted.
We really need to take at least one house of the legislature in general, anyways to defend against gerrymandering..
MoonlitKnight
(1,584 posts)Would require a special session and I doubt they could pull it off before safe harbor date.
Even so, if we keep House and take Senate, they can vote to not accept electors from Florida or any state that screws around.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)Ohio is a toss-up currently. That's why I'm wondering about the electors. The Ohio legislature is not only (R) but batshit crazy (R) and I wouldn't put anything past them.
jorgevlorgan
(8,277 posts)And even if it did, to do so last minute, to apply retroactively to an election that already happens doesn't seem feasible. These things generally need to be enacted earlier. Also, if Biden wins Ohio (or even is razor thin close), it is very unlikely he lost MI, WI and PA -even though we might not know who won those states for a few days. GOP might (and a big might) be able to change the law in Ohio, but those other 3 are an impossibility.
On edit: Also it is likely, based on the makeup of mail voters, that Biden will be ahead substantially in Ohio (maybe even for a day or two), before he isn't. By that time, we could possibly already know for sure the results of MI, WI and PA.
jorgevlorgan
(8,277 posts)He cannot legally, in any manner, bypass the voters in a landslide election. The ONLY exception that has happened in modern times is Bush V Gore which came down to a few thousand votes.
If Biden wins in a landslide -and it really needs to be a landslide. There is no other option but for Trump and the GOP to accept it.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)He shit a brick, he thought the fix was in...but we had the answer:
HUGE F'ing TURNOUT!!!!!!
You can't steal it if we lead by 6% or more. Just ask KKKarl.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)It is now and always has been about turnout.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)MoonlitKnight
(1,584 posts)Florida was decided by 537 votes. But if they had kept counting Gore would have won by about two thousand.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)And there is nothing physically stopping Pence, if he is still the President of The Senate, from opening/counting the alternate electors.
What this article presents is a legal argument. That will end up in front of the Supreme Court.
I mean, they are not even working on getting out the vote. They are planning on the fight after Election Day:
They are going to flood the polling places with looney magats
Link to tweet
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)As is the obvious fact that you didn't read the article you're commenting on.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)I also read the relevant parts of the Atlantic piece that references John Podestas (You know him, HRCs campaign chair) part in gaming the scenarios out that all led to a giant clusterfuck.
That article lays out a legal opinion. One I agree with. But I know republicans and I see how the Supreme Court operates...
....and its only going to be worse with the new lunatic they are going to run through.
Or are you one of those people who thought Chuck Grassley and Mit Romney were going to do the right thing?
Or maybe you feel all warm and fuzzy over that hand job of a Senate resolution that is about as useful as a resolution saying puppies and babies are cute.
stopdiggin
(11,237 posts)the idea of a separate slate of electors "fixed" by the state legislators. The article clearly states why this won't (can't) happen in most of the swing states. (which is the only place where such a scheme would be at all relevant) Chuck Grassley, Mitt Romney, John Podesta and "hand jobs" have nothing to do with it. And we're not talking (at least on this thread) about "gaming scenarios" or "giant cluster ****s." That's another argument.
----- -----
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)We have governors in important swing states. And I live in Ohio and doubt DeWine would do it. Biden is going to win most likely on election night if the media doesn't play games. Stop spreading doom and gloom.
Jillgirl
(64 posts)Arizona and Florida have Republican governors as well as Republican control of both legislative chambers, per the Atlantic article.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Governors and Florida already said they would not do it...these folks have to run for election.
Jillgirl
(64 posts)How do you figure we don't need those states? What are the "blue wall" states? Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are battleground states with Democratic governors and Republican legislatures. Is a Democratic governor enough to stop a law? I don't know the rules for making laws in all the states. Do you?
When did Florida say they would not do it?
Yeah, these folks have to run for election. And Trump will make it look like counting mail-in ballots is cheating, so they will be pressed to ignore mail-in ballots.
onenote
(42,531 posts)Are just like the rules in other states. The governor can veto legislation and it would take a supermajority to override it. There also would be an issue with retroactive legislation if the legislature tried to change the process for selecting electors after the votes are cast.
MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)and entirely unnecessary.
DeminPennswoods
(15,265 posts)hysteria on MSNBC.
Wanderlust988
(509 posts)and Pelosi can choose which one to honor.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)At least thats a plausible interpretation of The Constitution. It would probably have to go to The Supreme Court if it got that far.
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
The Constitution itself says remarkably little relevant to this topic, and what it does say is shockingly ambiguous. Here is the applicable text of the Twelfth Amendment:
[T]he President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.33
The first thing to observe about this constitutional language is that the critical sentence is written in the passive voice: the votes shall then be counted. Here, thus, is the first frustrating ambiguity. It could be the President of the Senate who does the counting; or, after the President of the Senate has finished the role of open[ing] the certificates then the whole Congress, in this special joint session, collectively counts the electoral votes.
Either way, this language contains no provision for what to do in the event of a dispute, whether with respect to the certificates to be open[ed] or with respect to the votes contained therein. It certainly says nothing about what to do if the President of the Senate has received two conflicting certificates of electoral votes from the same state, each
certificate purporting to come from the states authoritatively appointed electors. As the distinguished jurist Joseph Story observed early in the nineteenth century, this crucial constitutional language in the Twelfth Amendment appears to have been written without imaging that it might ever be possible for this sort of dispute to arise.34
Despite its ambiguity, or perhaps because of it, the peculiar passive- voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the President of the Senate has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which certificates to open and thus which electoral votes to be counted. This interpretation can derive support from the observation that the President of the Senate is the only officer, or instrumentality, of government given an active role in the process of opening the certificates and counting the electoral votes from the states. The Senate and House of Representatives, on this view, have an observational role only. The opening and counting are conducted in their presencefor the sake of transparencybut these two legislative bodies do not actually take any actions of their own in this opening and counting process. How could they? Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives only act separately, as entirely distinct legislative chambers. They have no constitutional way to act together as one amalgamated corpus. Thus, they can only watch as the President of the Senate opens the certificates of electoral votes from the states and announces the count of the electoral votes contained therein.
This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are entitled to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)The Gop will do nothing of the sort. We need to win by good sized margins. Only close elections can be stolen so stop trying to demoralize our voters with this fantasy. The GOP will not make Trump president for life. Some of them want to run for president next time.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)If Biden puts him away on election night thats it. If we take the Senate that will go a long way to ending this nightmare.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I hope so. The Senate is my greatest worry.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)People have been spinning out of control on this and it's not a realistic possibility
I am certain the Trump campaign put this out here to distract and demoralize us. If they were really planning to do it, we'd never have heard about it.
MFGsunny
(2,356 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)post this nonsense.
UserNotFound
(108 posts)I had never heard of this site. Thanks!!
flying rabbit
(4,623 posts)Cha
(296,774 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Im sure that they will still try to toss as much sand in the gears as possible.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)can't beat Trump? Are they supporting Biden and the Democratic Party. I think not.
gristy
(10,667 posts)Here's one that I take some heart in:
What I find completely terrifying is how quickly such a question has gone from spy novel nonsense to one of plausibility and deserving of at least some consideration. S.S., West Hollywood, CA
A: Vigilance is clearly called for, because Trump is willing to trample just about any norm, democratic or otherwise, in service of his goals. That said, our study of history suggests that coups only work in two situations. The first is when the people being governed welcome the change and promptly accept the legitimacy of the new leader. That clearly does not apply here. The second is when the people being governed are too frightened to challenge the new leader. And that sort of coup (including the fear involved) requires military backing. Trump quite clearly does not have that; the leaders of the U.S. armed forces reiterated yet again this week that they will not be getting involved in the election.
JeaneRaye
(402 posts)I see nothing in the link that explains your points regarding the Electoral College and the "loyal electors" problem. Did I overlook it?
Thunderbeast
(3,400 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)and if the winner of the vote count in swing states continues to be legally debatable up until the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (as occurred in Bush v Gore), then that could be where the SCOTUS empowers state legislatures to decide, based on how the US Constitution may be interpreted. This is the main problem as I see it, and it should motivate people to GOTV so that we can win in a landslide.
not_the_one
(2,227 posts)"Well, EV.com said it couldn't be done". Then how in hell did it GET done? (Our usual response in these given situations, after the fact and TOO late...)
How many things that we thought "couldn't be done", somehow managed to be done? We have been over so many "bridges too far", and dealt with so many "last straws", and had to "stick a fork in him, he is DONE" so many times I have lost count.
Yet they still persevere and get their way.
I am hopeful, but also paranoid as hell.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)It should be pointed out that Chief Justice Taney did more than just declare that laws against the spread of slavery were unconstitutional. He wrote that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and had none of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. "They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect".
Fiendish Thingy
(15,544 posts)Thunderbeast
(3,400 posts)Go to the bottom of the ev.com page to the archived posts.
Look for entry "But will it work?".
Sorry for the confusions. Their links are dynamic.
honest.abe
(8,610 posts)Trump just tosses shit out there to see what sticks.