Article on EV.COM Debunks plan to bypass voters.

[Thunderbeast]

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]

1. That's My Take as Well, he Would Need to Do it in WI, MI and PA and they all have Dem governors who

can stop it or delay it long enough for the Democratically controlled house to certify the election for Biden.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. 2018 will win us 2020!

The Blue wave of 2018 ensures that those 3 swing states will have fair elections where all the votes are counted.

[lagomorph777]

13. 2019, too. We flipped VA blue.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

2. Thank you!

That one was thought up by someone in St. Petersburg, I'll wager

[Hoyt]

3. Thank dog for a voice of reason and truth. The endless ways folks try to convince us voting is a

waste of time -- and trump will remain king -- is getting old.

[Jillgirl]

49. Who is trying to convince anyone that voting is a waste of time?

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]

50. Just vote, rather than worrying about all the scenarios the COULD occur. We have Democratic poll

and election observers who will do their jobs.

[Jillgirl]

53. Worry has a purpose.

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]

5. It's just another piece in the PSYOP. n/t

[PNW-Dem]

9. PSYOPS is exactly what it is

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]

23. This! n/t

[kiri]

6. Trump has shrewdly laid the ground work for legal and popular mood challenges.

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]

17. I call bullshit. The Killer Clown will not get away with anything.

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]

32. Biden's campaign and the Democratic Party have lawyers too...

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]

38. the post is about substituting electors

by means of state legislatures. i.e., a real legal mechanism -- not mind games and misdirection.

[brooklynite]

7. Why would you want to counter panic-stricken hyperbole with facts and common sense?

[reACTIONary]

27. I know, right? What good does that do?

[stopdiggin]

39. ruining a perfectly good meltdown! (nt)

[cp]

8. Thank you for this sensible article

My stomach thanks you!
Good analysis.

[crickets]

10. Thanks for this, Thunderbeast. K&R

[Firestorm49]

11. Appreciate your words, Thunderbeast. Well said.

[Doremus]

12. What does your article say about Ohio?

Swing state
Republican trifecta

I'm at work and unable to read it

[jorgevlorgan]

15. I didn't read the article, personally, but Mike Dewine is not a governor who would be onboard with

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]

28. He is using the "tipping point" model

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]

29. Yeah I get it, but I while those three states will be an unknown

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]

31. Also Florida's stat legislature is in play. If the Dems take it, they are sworn in the next day per

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]

33. Plus Florida is only in session once a year

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]

55. Unless the numbers change drastically before election day the margin is going to be razor thin

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]

56. I don't think DeWine would sign a bill to change the law.

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]

14. We need to fight this misinformation.

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]

18. I remember Karl Rove's face in 2008 when they announced Obama won.

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]

45. Precisely

It is now and always has been about turnout.

[Trumpocalypse]

46. Fyi

[MoonlitKnight]

34. 537 votes

Florida was decided by 537 votes. But if they had kept counting Gore would have won by about two thousand.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. There is nothing physically stopping the Republican legislatures from sending alternate electors.

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]

20. Concern noted

As is the obvious fact that you didn't read the article you're commenting on.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. I read it. I also read the piece written in 2019 in The Loyola Law Journal

I also read the relevant parts of the Atlantic piece that references John Podesta‘s (You know him, HRC’s 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 it’s 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 we’re 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]

40. no. what we thought was that the arguement was around

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]

41. Democratic governors will veto any alternate elector bullshit.

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]

51. All-Republican government in a couple of important swing states

Arizona and Florida have Republican governors as well as Republican control of both legislative chambers, per the Atlantic article.

[Demsrule86]

58. We don't need those states if we win the blue wall states which all have Democratic

Governors and Florida already said they would not do it...these folks have to run for election.

[Jillgirl]

59. How do you figure?

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]

64. The "rules" for making laws in those states

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]

24. + 1000 n/t

[Tarc]

30. Infantile hyperbole

and entirely unnecessary.

[DeminPennswoods]

66. Yes, but it was good for a week's worth of

hysteria on MSNBC.

[Wanderlust988]

35. And there's nothing stopping the governor and SOS from sending their own electors

and Pelosi can choose which one to honor.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Nope. The president of the senate opens and counts in the presence of congress

At least that’s 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 state’s 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 “presence”—for the sake of transparency—but 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]

42. Wr are likely to win the Senate.

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]

54. So if we don't win a sizable election it they might steal it so it's not a fantasy. I agree.

If Biden puts him away on election night that’s it. If we take the Senate that will go a long way to ending this nightmare.

[Demsrule86]

57. I don't see Trump stealing anything...I think we may be looking at a realignment election...

I hope so. The Senate is my greatest worry.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Thank you!

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]

25. This! n/t

[Demsrule86]

43. It is not but could demoralize voters. people play into Trumps hands when they

post this nonsense.

[UserNotFound]

21. Excellent source of info!

I had never heard of this site. Thanks!!

[flying rabbit]

26. Good read. nt

[Cha]

36. Bookmarked.. TY Thunderbeast!

[Sherman A1]

44. Thanks for posting

I’m sure that they will still try to toss as much sand in the gears as possible.

[Trumpocalypse]

47. FYI

[Demsrule86]

48. And what is the motivation for those here to post things that claim we are doomed and

can't beat Trump? Are they supporting Biden and the Democratic Party. I think not.

[gristy]

52. Great Q & A on at that link - thanks for posting!

Here's one that I take some heart in:

Q: At what point do Donald Trump's malevolent plans of a dictatorship cross the line from "politics" into a coup d'état? Even if done as visibly and out in the open as Trump has been doing, isn't the act of planning a coup to take control of the country a crime? Who's left to investigate and stop such a plan if the Attorney General is a part of it?

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]

60. Not seeing it

I see nothing in the link that explains your points regarding the Electoral College and the "loyal electors" problem. Did I overlook it?

[Thunderbeast]

61. Here is the static link to the story

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Sep25.html#item-2

[AntiFascist]

62. Voter suppression and challenges to vote counting ARE real threats...

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]

63. Color me skeptical.

"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]

65. With respect to the article's overview of the Dred Scott decision

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]

67. Bad link - goes to letters from readers about multiple topics. Correct link here:

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Sep25.html#item-2

[Thunderbeast]

68. Much confusion on link.

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]

69. As I expected.

Trump just tosses shit out there to see what sticks.