Someone needs to publicly call for a new election.

[zaj]

Who's in the best position to do it? Harry Reid seems like the most likely Dem. if Obama or Hillary dues it, it looks weak.

A member of the USSC? Jimmy Carter? Romney?

Perhaps it's Evan McMullin.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310388-mcmullin-gop-knew-about-russian-meddling-in-election-and-ignored-it

[still_one]

1. Won't happen. The Constitution doesn't provide for it

[RKP5637]

4. These are not normal times, but I agree. I don't see how a new election can be called for

without a civil war, and I doubt that is going to happen. Trump and his Klan will just blast into office like a wrecking ball and start destroying the nation. ... unless the electors stop it, and I doubt that is going to happen. I don't think the US is used to dealing with someone like Trump, which makes me wonder, just what is beyond Trump in 2020, if we make it.

[MANative]

2. There is no mechanism in our Constitution to do this. None. Zero. Will not happen.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. There's no way it can happen.

A do-over isn't contemplated by the Constitution and as much as we like, no one's going to just agree to something outside the Constitution.

The electoral college is the last firewall, and sadly it is paper thin weak.

[RKP5637]

6. From what I know, it's just a rubber stamp of approval. n/t

[left-of-center2012]

5. Impeaching Trump more likely

But then we'd have the religious homophobe and bigot Pence as President.

[immoderate]

31. I predict impeachment by December.

Then we'll deal with Pence.

--imm

[left-of-center2012]

32. Who comes next in line ? n/t

[immoderate]

36. Pence, unless he is removed as well, then Ryan.

I think impeachment might change the dynamics of how these people operate.

--imm

[MineralMan]

7. There is NO possibility of a new election.

However wonderful it would be, such a redo is impossible under our Constitution. We have a method for electing a President, written into our founding document. That document does not mention any circumstances when a new election could be called for.

It doesn't matter who might call for a new election. It can't happen. It is simply impossible, and we shouldn't be wasting anyone's time by pretending that it is.

[bowens43]

8. Not possible.

for the time being the Constitution still exists

[world wide wally]

11. As Dickhead Cheney said,

"It's just a piece of paper"

[Glassunion]

27. He never said that

The quote was actually atributed to Bush, not Cheney.

Bush never said it either.

[world wide wally]

42. Eh I'm sure it crossed their collective minds

[Glassunion]

44. As it does with all people it stands in the way of.

[cwydro]

9. The magical thinking here lately is sad.

Ain't gonna happen.

[zaj]

12. Calling for a new election...

... elevates the urgency of the discussion.

If we have learned anything from the last 16 years, it's that Rove was right.



It's not magical thinking. It's creating a new reality. As conservatives' hold on power within the rules of today diminishes, you see them inventing new ways to blindside everyone by going outside of the past "reality".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

The aide (Karl Rove) said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

I would imagine that there are ways we haven't contemplated. See my next post for further thoughts.

[WillowTree]

14. As I've asked several others who pose this "solution".......

Please point out the section of the Constitution that allows for an election do-over.

Hint: There isn't one.

[zaj]

18. Article III, Section 1 & 2

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

This would be a "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" and "between a State and Citizens of another State".

5-4 wins.

[brooklynite]

34. ...and, what authority do the Courts have to order a new election in this context?

[WillowTree]

35. First of all, no such case has been brought.

Since cases do not originate at the Supreme Court, someone "with standing" would have to bring a suit to a lower court which would then have to rule. We'll pass over, for the moment, the fact that lower court suits would probably have to be brought and ruled upon in all states.

Then the loser of that suit or suits could file an appeal with the USSC. But no one has yet shown any constitutional basis for such an appeal, meaning that I have yet to hear what provision of the Constitution you or any of the others who have brought this up are claiming has been violated for the USSC to rule upon so as to order that a new election be held. So do tell.....what specific constitutional provision has been violated here?

Beyond that, I have no idea what your reference to "between a State and Citizens of another State" is supposed to refer to.

As I and others have said, there simply is no constitutional provision for an election "do-over" and no authority granted therein to the USSC or anyone else to order one, no matter how much you want to see it happen.

[Bucky]

24. No, calling for for a new election only looks ignorant about how government works.

[dumbcat]

10. Many have publicly called for a new election

right here on DU. So why isn't it happening?

We really need to get the Kardashians on this.

[Bucky]

25. LOL!!

sadly, their support for Kanye 2020 creates an appearance of conflict of interest

[Bonx]

13. I'll do it! We should have elections until we win.

[zaj]

15. It's not impossible.

Here's how it might work. Per my last post, this is how the GOP would do it given their seeming new-found desire to only support Democracy as long as they are in power...

* Obama declares that Senate silence on Garland means he's clear to seat him on USSC.
* CIA releases evidence of Russian election tampering and seeming collusion with Trump campaign and GOP.
* Justice Department declares election invalidated and files lawsuit to throw out election results, vacating the election.
* Lawsuit goes to USSC with Garland as new justice.
* USSC rules that election was invalid and calls for new elections.

Is this magical thinking? Not exactly.
Will this happen? No.
Could it happen? I suspect it could if leadership wanted it to.
Is it a good idea? It's a terrible idea. But it might be better than letting a foreign enemy destroy our democracy.

[Bucky]

29. You don't get to just make up government as you go along. We're a nation of laws

You are absolutely engaging in magical thinking here. Point by point

- Obama has no power to just declare he can seat someone on the SCOTUS
...- If the CIA released intel on how we got the proof on Russian support for Trump, it will pretty much kill all future intelligence operations from the US. Who the hell would trust us to protect our sources?
- The Justice Department has no authority to just "declare an election invalidated". Who in the heck taught you government? Did a brick land on your head and make you forget what "separation of powers" and "limited government" mean?
- There is no such thing as a lawsuit for seating a SCOTUS justice.
- The Supreme Court can't just "declare an election invalid" either.
- Seriously, did a brick land on your head?

[stevenleser]

16. Sure, just tell me how to Constitutionally justify it.

I don't think there is anything that would provide for that.

[zaj]

19. USSC

It's pretty simple.

File a lawsuit. Argue that as a result, a real election didn't really happen.

Is this a good idea? No, it's a terrible idea.
Would it be a power grab? Yes, sadly, that seems to be how the GOP is going to conduct business now. See NC's Legistature votes last night.
Would it be possible? I think maybe.

[Bucky]

30. ...

[Glassunion]

45. I know, right?

[Captain Stern]

17. Why? To what end?

We lost.

The Constitution doesn't provide a means for a "do over", and even if it did, there's no reason to think we wouldn't lose again.

Hell, if they held the election again, Trump would probably get even more votes than he got the first time because it actually would look rigged.

Instead of telling ourselves that we didn't actually deserve to lose this one, we should be figuring out how to actually win the next one.

[zaj]

20. It already looks rigged? Do the majority of voters not matter now?

[Captain Stern]

21. The popular vote matters as much now as it always has.

But, the popular vote totals don't determine who wins the Presidential election We knew that going into the election, and we still know that. The process didn't suddenly change...it's the same as it's always been. We lost.

[Bucky]

23. Thanks, Cap'n

The only way to look is forward if you're trying to get somewhere.

[Bucky]

22. That's not how the Constitution works.

Anyone calling for a new election would look like a dumbass and will have ended their career in politics.

[oberliner]

26. No, they shouldn't

That would be unconstitutional.

[ZoomBubba]

28. I don't see a new election ...

... happening. It would be a disaster for the country and stoke hyper-partisan flames to a ridiculous level. It would also destroy all faith in the government and could bring about the end of the US.

The best situation, if the results of the election are rendered invalid, is for congress to convene and settle on a compromise candidate. That means probably a Republican president and a Democratic vice president. It wouldn't be a terrible situation as the priority would be maintaining stability until the next election, which means a lot of politicians probably being more cautious than usual.

[brooklynite]

33. Why not just arbitrarily re-write the Constitution?

Just as illegitimate and just as unlikely to happen.

[hadEnuf]

37. No, we must be fair to the Republicans and accept the results of this coup.

We don't want to look like Sore/Losermans again, y'know.

And even though we've had our collective balls kicked up to our noses by the sewer filth who have staged this coup, we must not let that obscure our search for the rule book of fair fighting.

[WillowTree]

38. No, we have to be fair to the Constitution.

No sarcasm.

[hadEnuf]

41. I wouldn't think that allowing a deranged and unqualified individual

who was helped and backed by the tyrant of an adversarial superpower, is being fair to the Constitution at all.

As a matter of fact, the Constitution was written to prevent exactly what is going on.

[sofa king]

39. You're not THAT far off.

The people sure as hell aren't going to get another crack at it, but there are two more votes before January 20, and they're the important ones.

This week's news cycle appears to be designed to influence the electors before their own vote.

I've been saying all year that the GOP has been planning to steal the election by not voting to certify the election results. We shall see.

[First Speaker]

40. This probably isn't constitutional. However...

...would it be any *more* "unconstitutional" than the actions of the Supreme Court in 2000? What do we do, when one party--ours--plays by the rules, and the other party essentially regards the Constitution as toilet paper, to be invoked only when it permits them to win, and treated with contempt the rest of the time? This is a recipe for fascism. At some point, something will break. There will come some crisis when we cannot back down, or democracy will literally be lost, Constitution or no Constitution. Is the inauguration of a literal traitor and potential strongman such a crisis? I don't know; but I can see why some people would see it as such.

[moda253]

43. It isn't impossible

It isn't impossible... but it would be by force of the people to make it happen and that won't happen.

Although I am starting to think that it is pretty bleak that we don't get out from under these 4 years without some sort of war. Be it Foreign or domestic or both.

Let me be clear I don't want this to happen. I have small children and I am scared to death of this happening. But more and more I don't know how we end up not at that point.

[pipi_k]

46. Sure, why not...

and if the same number of voters...or more...voted for Trump the second time around, what then?

Or, if Trump lost and a Democrat won, what then? The Republicans say the election is invalid and call for a re-do.

And back and forth, ad nauseum until we are even MORE of a laughingstock to the rest of the world than we are already.


How to tell if something is a pipedream or a huge crock of shit...

Apply the same standards to the opposite side.

I would bet that anyone here thinking it's a dandy idea for Democrats to call for a new election or get the electors to change their votes, etc., would scream holy bloody murder if the Republicans came up with some of these same peanut-brained schemes to oust a Democrat.

sigh...