The Genuine Constitutional Remedy for a Fraudulent Election

[MineralMan]

We vote again, two years later, and then again two years after that. Every two years, we vote for every last member of the House of Representatives and one-third of senators. Every four years, we do that again and add voting for the President.

That's in the Constitution. That's our remedy. We don't need any other remedy. There IS no other remedy. We need to freaking vote the bums out and vote new people in and re-elect the ones we trust.

Everything else is nonsense.

So, in 2018, we do the first round. In 2020, we complete the job. How is it that we're not talking nonstop about the real remedy that is already in the Constitution?

C'mon folks! Please!

[exboyfil]

1. Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is still a Constitutional option

but you are right. There is no way to replay the 2016 election, and we are probably going to get three or more Gorsuchs because of it.

I don't see Trump severing out four years (heck I am surprised that he has lasted this long). My guess, if he is to survive, is that he goes into a carefully minded castle approach with little or no public interaction.

[MineralMan]

2. That is true, but it is extremely unlikely with Republicans in control

of both houses of Congress. In the first place, the House would never vote to impeach, and it would be impossible to get a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove. No President has ever been impeached and removed from office. That is not going to happen. And, even if it did, we'd still have to elect majorities in Congress to accomplish anything.

There is a constitutional remedy. We just have to use it. Nothing else is going to work. Nothing else is possible, really. We really, really need to be planning for 2018 right now. We're wasting valuable time on silly nonsense that cannot take place.

[Scruffy1]

59. Even if it happened it wouldn't help.

You would still have Pence, Ryan and Turtle.

[cstanleytech]

72. Exactly which is why we need to focus on what we can actually do vs what we dream about doing and

in this case what we can do is work to regain majority control of Congress and 51 seats of the Senate as that would hobble the Repugnants.

[Ligyron]

78. True.

But it would still be a severe blow to the GOP.

[MineralMan]

104. That is correct. We still need to win in 2018 and 2020.

That's the only thing that will really correct the current situation.

[charliea]

112. There is no bottom...

Below is the current order of Presidential succession. Seems to be a basket of Deplorables. Not one would be a replacement who would inspire me to feel even a slight sense of relief from the current nightmare, let alone a belief in their ethics, competence or general humanity.

Mike Pence VP (Mueller may have him in his sights)
Paul Ryan Speaker of the House
Orrin Hatch President pro tempore of the Senate
Rex Tillerson Secretary of State (Maybe him too)
Steven Mnuchin Secretary of the Treasure
James Mattis Secretary of Defense
Jeff Sessions Attorney General
Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior
Sonny Perdue Secretary of Agriculture
Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce
Alex Acosta Secretary of Labor
Tom Price Secretary of Health and Human Services
Ben Carson Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
(ineligible) Elaine Chao Secretary of Transportation (naturalized citizen, cannot be president)
Rick Perry Secretary of Energy
Betsy Devos Secretary of Education
David Shulkin Secretary of Veterans Affairs
John F. Kelly Secretary of Homeland Security


Resist!

[dixiegrrrrl]

79. You left out the "stealing the election" part.

Bush-Gore- hanging chads, everyone warned about the rigged voting machines that just happened to be made by Republican pals.

Now the obviously rigged Trump election, which STILL is not being discussed adequately.
Plus even more severe gerrymandering in place.
Every single minute that ticks by now has them working hard to harm the country and steal, if not downright ban, future voting.
They have already closed down adequate press coverage of the WH, and no USA reporters were allowed to cover Trump-Putin meeting, or the earlier WH meeting with Trump and the 2 Russians.

In all seriousness, I am waiting for people to start falling out of windows with Russian heart attacks, HERE.

[former9thward]

89. There was no media at the Trump-Putin meeting.

U.S. or Russian. There was U.S. media covering the G20 meeting.

[Dustlawyer]

101. Obviously the Republicans know this and have been gearing up for massive voter

suppression to offset the Democrats and Independents coming out in droves to get rid of Republicans. Jeff Sessions on voter roll purges, and Kris Kobach and Pence and their fraudulent commission are just the leading edge on Republican voter suppression.

[Cheviteau]

111. Removal From Office

I keep reading posts on different sites that the House would never impeach and the Senate would never convict. I'm not so sure about that. Those emails posted today by Don, Jr. are likely the tip of an enormous iceberg. We'll see. I've been telling my wife for months that counter-intelligence and CIA would bring this whole cabal down. That's what we're watching in real time. The NYT didn't grab this information out of thin air; it was handed to them on a silver platter wrapped in a pretty bow. There's much more to come, I believe. Our *president* has made some serious enemies in those communities - that started back at the beginning of his campaign. Those folks have long and most excellent memories.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. People want an immediate, dramatic fix.

And I, too, would like Trump to go away sooner rather than later. But there's no way to make it happen quickly unless unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, methods are employed. It seems like there are an awful lot of people who don't know much about how our system of government works, and what can and can't be done. If we want to do what the Trump administration is doing - that is, disregard the Constitution - I suppose some sort of coup could be organized, but then we're just another banana republic. A lot of energy is expended accusing Trump et al. of violating the law and the Constitution, and yes, they are doing that. But if we start insisting on throwing Trump out of office in a way not involving impeachment or the 25th Amendment, and installing Hillary in his stead, aren't we advocating the same thing?

Of course, voting is the only other way - but part of that has to be to be sure there's no more hacking. And I do worry about that.

[MineralMan]

4. Our best hope is that Trump resigns under pressure

of this investigation. That's certainly a possibility, but it still leaves Republicans in charge of all three branches of Federal government. I suppose he could drop dead, too, but that would have the same result.

Bottom line is that our first chance to change things happens in November, 2018, followed by a second opportunity in 2020. That's true whether Trump remains in office or not, really. The damage is already underway and will continue, regardless.

Beyond those two election, there is nothing. We're stuck with the results of 2016, legitimate or fraudulent. That's why we have elections ever two years in which we have an opportunity to overturn whatever apple cart we're in.

I say, let's do that in a big way at our first opportunity. Tip that cart over.

[Orrex]

7. Under pressure or out of crippling humiliation. Either works for me.

[cstanleytech]

73. He would have to have a conscience to resign over humiliation and he has proven he lacks that. nt

[Wounded Bear]

5. People apparently can't handle the reality of the situation...

There is no constitutional way to "undo" an election. It would require a constitutional amendment to put one in. That's even less likely than impeachment.

The only legal path is to fight to win the next election, as you have stated.

[MineralMan]

8. I suppose. People who can't handle reality

aren't of much use in politics, I think. They're a big waste of time.

[Wounded Bear]

22. People who can't handle reality...

vote for idiots like Trump, and Repubs in general.

[MineralMan]

25. Indeed that is true in many cases.

[loyalsister]

20. Would it also require a Constitutional right to vote?

There is no such affirmative right.

[Wounded Bear]

28. You do raise an interesting question...

because the Constitution does not define the "right to vote" as you say. As such, it is left to the states to define, which could be argued is a big part of the problem.

So, yes, I guess a Constitutional amendment might be required to do that. There is precedent, since the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all handle voting rights issues. I suppose one could say that the "right to vote" is one of those "inalienable rights" defined in the DoI, but that is not nessarily considered legally binding IIRC.

I'm not a legal scholar, though.

[loyalsister]

53. It would seem that it would be implied when there are Amendments that forbid interference

But, as with privacy, I suppose it is debatable.

It makes sense to me that voting was left to local control because different locales require different processes and calendars to conform to their local offices. Particularly at a time when states were being added. It would be pretty chaotic to try to bring it all together considering that some areas have local elections in off yrs. And, how would local bond issues be handled.

[MineralMan]

29. Actually, there are amendments that affirm

that right. And each ratified amendment is a full part of the Constitution by definition.

[loyalsister]

55. Not explicitly

The Constitution tells states what they cannot do in terms of interfering with voting. But it does not affirmatively state that such a right exists under federal law.

[we can do it]

6. It is utter bullshit that a party can steal an election and remain in power.

Complete utter bullshit.

[MineralMan]

9. Bullshit, yes...that's why we have regular elections.

Do you get the connection there? The constitution has a built-in way to get rid of people who got elected for the wrong reasons. We get to do it over every two or four years. Like clockwork.

What part of that do you not understand? It's very simple. It should be difficult to remove people who were elected to office. If it were not, we'd be having elections ever two weeks.

Saying that something is bullshit has nothing to do with fixing that something, you see. We have a way to fix it. I suggest we get to work on that. You're welcome to pitch in.

[we can do it]

12. What an arrogant reply.

[Wounded Bear]

30. Truth can seem arrogant at times...

but he's right. There is no constitutional remedy beyond impeachment or winning the next election.

[we can do it]

42. No need being a dick to those on your side.

[mopinko]

16. i agree this response is over the line.

no need to be nasty to people on the same side as you.

[MiddleClass]

33. Organizing, is a frustrating proposition.

You end up debating, irrelevant points to your goal, but they're not irrelevant to the people you're talking to.

Frustrating by nature, so a little bit of slack is appreciated and desired.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. What should the remedy be?

[we can do it]

14. I realize no do over, but it should not just be business as usual.

Otherwise, seeing it was effective and there is no recourse, what's to stop anyone from doing it again and again.

[MineralMan]

15. There is no business of government that is not "business as usual."

We have this imperfect system, because humans are imperfect. With luck, we learn from our mistakes without dying. Government is like that, too.

Our regular elections are in place for exactly that reason, so we can correct our stupid mistakes. And we make them quite frequently, it seems, based on my almost 72 years of experience.

[politicaljunkie41910]

27. Agreed. If there was collusion with a foreign government to steal the election, the results should

be determined null and void. The fact that the Fore Fathers did not anticipate a presidential candidate colluding with a foreign country to steal an election with the use of cyber attacks doesn't mean the status quo should be allowed to stand. If they Repugs had any integrity, they would be the one trying to set the record straight. Instead they have dragged their feet and make the claim that there is no proof that the Russians didn't tamper with the vote count when we know how vulnerable our voting systems were. The reason we don't know whether they did or not is because no one has done an official comprehensive review of state voting tabulations across the country. How likely is it that the Kremlin went through all the trouble to interfere with this election, and didn't assure the result they were after, and just crossed their fingers and hoped and their planning and efforts worked.

If it was the other way around, the Repugs would not be sitting here waiting for the next election 4 years away. Knowing them, they would have utilized their 2nd Amendment remedies already. It's only us as Democrats who are trying to give the system time to work with Meuller and at the current pace and the constant new shit we learn everyday about collusion, another presidential campaign could have come and gone before we know anything definitively. In the meantime, the Repugs could have installed 3 new Supreme Court Justices with lifetime appointments, meaning cheating does pay, and thus encouraging it and ensuring that history repeats itself.

[TryLogic]

35. "If the Republicans had any integrity..." That pretty well says it all.

[MiddleClass]

48. This is exactly the way the forefathers designed it to be hard

So that one side could not just play politics.

They check on the presidency by giving Congress the ability to impeach.

The majority party of Congress being the same as the presidency, makes it harder.

Republicans will not impeach until they see public pressure to throw all the bums out,

that is why "the people's representatives" are elected every 2 years.

When ready to impeach because of this, it will be too late, they're going to lose their jobs.

That is why everybody has got to organize to get out the vote in 18

that's our remedy to all this Trump's shenanigans. Get out and vote.

I agree with everything you say, by the way

[we can do it]

49. If crimes were committed putting people in office, any actions by that person should be nullified.

[MiddleClass]

62. When crimes are proven, we will find ourselves in a constitutional crisis

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, or even a lawyer.

But I don't think that has been spelled out, outside of public making the choice

[we can do it]

70. Agree. Same here. Amendments will be necessary if we still have rule of law.

[Hugin]

11. Also, in line with the Constitution let's up the number of House members to accurately reflect...

The populations they represent. Since the overall number of Congress Members has been largely frozen since 1929.

This would:

1) Make Gerrymandering much more difficult.
2) Make the Congress as a whole much more expensive for any single special interest to buy.
3) It would reduce the influence of money in elections.

I'd say we need at least 1,200 Congress people to accurately represent the current population of some 330,000,000+ American Citizens.

I think the ratio specified in the Constitution was set at 1 per 20,000 or something like that.

It's what the Forefathers intended.

I know... I know... It'll never happen.

[MineralMan]

17. See, all good ideas. But, we'll have to start by

regaining control of Congress and the Executive in future elections, won't we? We can't do any of those things until we do that. And that will mean that people have to get up off their lazy asses, even in mid-term elections, and win. It's all so simple, but it always seems impossible for us to accomplish. Why is that, do you suppose?


Actually, no specific ratio of voters to House members is in the Constitution. Maybe you should read it again. No numbers are in there at all having to do with that, you see.

[Chipper Chat]

69. It irks me that

The Democratic Party seems to concentrate on the presidential elections while republicans dwell on the midterms.
We see the results of that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. The Constitution says only this:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.." The Reapportionment Act of 1929 set the total number at 435, and that number hasn't changed. Congress has not voted to increase the number; bills have been introduced to do that but they have failed.

[Hugin]

66. Yes, I checked on that also.

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..."

From: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

So, I was wrong in that aspect... However, I'm certain I've never read anything in the Constitution about locking in the number of Representatives at 435 in an arbitrary year like 1929 either. I think the number was intended to be fluid to avoid the sort of shenanigans we're subjected to today, where Representatives have power approaching that of Senators and are able to be aloof from their constituents. I think the founders intended for the Representatives to come to those they represent instead of the vice-versa we see today.

[onenote]

84. There is less variation in the number of persons per representative than you might think

Obviously, the average number (and the number in every state) is much higher than it was when the Constitution was ratified or even when the number of representatives was set at 435. But as between states, the number of persons per representatives generally falls between 700,000 and 800,000, with both large and small states falling in that zone. Of the states falling outside the 700,000 - 800,000 zone, some are big and some are small, some are red and some are blue. For example, Montana has over 1 million persons per representative, and Delaware has over 950,000. On the flip side Rhode Island and Wyoming both have under 600,000.

Increasing the number of representatives seems like a logical thing to do; however, a legislature with 1200 members (which would still mean a legislature where each member represents hundreds of thousands of people) could be unmanageable. Plus, the cost of elections would skyrocket. And I'm not sure why simply expanding the number would end gerrymandering.

One of the unstated reasons for limiting the number of persons per representative had to do with communications. But in the modern era, it is as easy to communicate quickly with 500,000 people as will 500 people.

[Hugin]

93. Yes, the cost of elections would skyrocket...

If your goal was to buy the entire House of Representatives for authoritarian centralized control as the GrOPe has done today. However, more Representatives with smaller constituencies the actual cost to those running in individual districts would be dramatically cheaper and constituents would have more access to their district Representative to boot.

That's the whole point of having more.

[Wiseman32218]

57. We are screwed if Ginsburg and Breyer retire.

The courts will uphold the gerrymandering of districts.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Whining is easy. The work it takes to win elections is real work

People don't want to actually have to do anything.

[MineralMan]

18. Indeed, you're right about that.

It's a shame, though, isn't it?

[we can do it]

44. How many hours do YOU devote to making it work? Some of us have actually volunteered full time.

[Lee-Lee]

74. I do more than most

Not as much as I wish I was able to.

At various times I've done everything from phone banks to volunteering to work elections to putting out signs out to stuffing envelopes to letter to the newspaper... the more time I can spare at any given cycle the more I do.

What I find is the loudest talkers rarely do much, if anything, more than talk.

[Initech]

19. Fix the damn voting machines and make gerrymandering illegal.

That's how you do it.

[MineralMan]

26. After we win control of Congress, state legislatures and

the Executive branch through elections, I think your ideas are excellent. Until then, there is no way for those things to happen.

[we can do it]

50. How exactly does one do that with gerrymandering and hacked machines and courts stacked?

[onenote]

86. Excuses.

Yes, there is gerrymandering -- it didn't start yesterday. And yes there are electronic voting machines. They also didn't start yesterday.

Despite both of those things, it is possible for Democrats to win back the House. In 2000, before the last census, the net results of the election were a gain of 2 seats for the repubs and a loss of 1 seat for the Democrats. In other words, nearly no change.

In 2002, after the 2000 census, the repubs picked up net 8 and the Democrats lost net 7, and two years later the repubs gained a net 3 and the Democrats lost a net 3.

But in 2006, the Democrats had a net gain of 31 and repubs lost 30. And in 2008, the repubs lost another 21 seats and the Democrats gained 21 seats.

Was there less electronic voting in 2006 and 2008 then in 2002 and 2004? Were there fewer gerrymandered districts?

Yes, gerrymandering and electronic voting machines present hurdles. But let's not assume they're insurmountable and give up fighting before the election is even held.

[TheFrenchRazor]

95. some people continue to deny the obvious. nt

[we can do it]

102. Yes, and they are often quite vocal.

[we can do it]

103. Not to mention blatant voter suppression.

[MedusaX]

21. IMO/ FWIW: elections are the remedy for ineffective or unpopular representation

by elected officials
&
Impeachment is the remedy for various abuses of executive branch powers... both of these remedies are political in nature.

These Constitutionally prescribed political remedies, of "election" and "impeachment", are not the courses of action appropriate to address a circumstance in which virtually an entire political party (actively &/or passively) conspired with a foreign government to influence the outcome of an election.
In this case, it is necessary to employ a variety remedies, including those prescribed by federal criminal laws, state criminal laws, and the political remedies as prescribed by the Constitution, as the means to address the specific actions of the given individuals.
However, in doing so, it will be necessary for the SCOTUS to determine an appropriate remedy to address the potential illegitimacy of the entire 2016 Election event as a result if the unlawful conspiratorial acts, between the KGOP & Russia, which were intended to influence the outcome of the election process.

Now, it may very well turn out that the 4 yr election cycle is the more timely remedy.... but, IMO,due process would support the pursuit of a SCOTUS based remedy over a mandatory deferment of remedy until the Jan.2021 inaugural ceremony takes place.

[MineralMan]

23. The SCOTUS will stick to the Constitution on this.

They will not go beyond the language therein. As a point of constitutionality, they are not allowed to do so. The SCOTUS does not create remedies. It merely rules on the constitutionality of things.

In the current situation, impeachment could be the remedy. Failing that, our election process is the option. There is no other option the SCOTUS can or will apply. What they can decide is also defined in the Constitution.

[we can do it]

45. Just like with Gore vs Bush.

[MedusaX]

56. The Constitution was purposefully written in such a way that future events could be effectively

evaluated/ interpreted within its construct.

As such, one SCOTUS based ruling might very well be, as you suggest, that the brevity of the presidential term/ election cycle provides sufficient remedy for an unlawfully executed electoral event.

Another possible SCOTUS based ruling could be that the electoral event identified in Article II Sec.1 Clause1, as the prerequisite for the vesting of executive powers, is implicitly one which must be lawfully executed. By definition, an
unlawfully executed electoral event cannot be recognized as meeting the standard of a 'lawfully executed' event. As such, the Constitutional requirement necessary for the vesting of Executive Branch power has not been satisfied therefore no transfer of Executive power is recognized.

[onenote]

85. It's not illegal per se for a foreign govt to attempt to "influence" the outcome of a US election

For example, the leaders of France, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, and Sweden, among others, publicly endorsed, in one way or another, Hillary. Presumably they did so in an effort to influence the outcome. And while I don't have any idea whether some or all of them coordinated their endorsements with Clinton's campaign, I don't think it would matter if they did.


What matters is not the attempt to influence, but the means of doing so. If it involves illegal activity, such as funneling money illegally to a campaign or engaging in illegal cybertheft, then there is reason to complain and, if a campaign assisted in or facilitated such illegal activity, a basis to prosecute or impeach. The same is true, of course, for attempts by US citizens to influence the outcome of an election: there are things one can do that are legal and things that are not legal. The Watergate break-in was an illegal attempt to obtain information that would then be used in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. There were other dirty tricks. But even if the Watergate break-in had been successful and only discovered after the election, I can't imagine a scenario where, instead of pursuing impeaching, anyone would seriously have sought to reverse the outcome of the election and install McGovern as president.

[Hekate]

31. Thanks. That's exactly what I say when people start babbling about term limits. We have them already

[BamaRefugee]

32. Unless Russian meddling is obliterated, AND electronic voting made unhackable, I can already predict

the outcome of 2018 elections: Republicans have majority in every branch of government.

2020? Reince and Repeat.

[the_sly_pig]

36. Exactly....

Voting is no longer a reliable constitutional remedy. This glorious Union has been compromised.

[BamaRefugee]

41. as we type

Russians and their ilk are typing code...and the "man" who swore to fight all enemies and uphold the Constitution of the USA is doing absolutely nothing about it...even though he possesses one of the most formidable armadas of cyberwarriors on Earth

[TheFrenchRazor]

96. yep; get ready for a lot of dems to act shocked and surprised; it's getting old. nt

[SCantiGOP]

34. I opened this thread ready to argue

From the title I assumed it was another far-fetched idea about demanding a new election or some other nonsense.
Instead, it was a reasoned and reasonable idea that everyone here should take to heart.

Thanks for the post - here's a K&R.

[Dopers_Greed]

37. They've already taken care of that "remedy"

They control the voter rolls and voting machines.

[bucolic_frolic]

38. Republicans can barely stand with Trump on ACA repeal and AHCA passage

how are they going to stand with him as impeachable offenses pile up?

They said they'd stick with Nixon, and some did, but one Congress fears for their seats,
it has a way of motivating the most fearless of hardliners

[broadcaster90210]

39. Oh we'll vote for sure

But there needs to be more. We have an invalid SCOTUS, among other things. Voting, alone, won't fix that.

[Ilsa]

40. I love Nancy Pelosi, but would she do anything?

I don't think I could stand it if she swept this crap under the rug like she did with Bushco. Yeah, it's a thousand times worse now. But I would be just as surprised if she supported impeachment.

[BamaRefugee]

43. "Doing anything is off the table"? Please, God, no. n/t

[Ilsa]

47. Yeah, remember 11 years ago?

"Impeachment is off the table."

[BamaRefugee]

51. Yes. And that is when Republicans knew they could

Get away with ANYTHING, in legislation, in media, in unbridled dishonesty, in ELECTION HACKING, that moment was the launching pad, IMHO

[MiddleClass]

58. I was so disappointed, but understood

She wanted to get things done legislatively, impeachment would have paralyzed Congress.

One thing Nancy Pelosi is a very astute legislator, she knows what can and cannot be done.

If you want tit-for-tat, okay, if you want results, she's your woman

[BamaRefugee]

65. But what if you want what is right, Constitutionally?

And exactly WHAT ran smoothly for Democrats after that?

[MiddleClass]

90. Unfortunately, the only way to solve what is right, is the majority vote

As set out in the Constitution.

Technically, the president can be a Manchurian Candidate and if the speaker of the house can allow him to govern until he's over ridden by the majority or loses the speakership. Which all is ultimately controlled by the People's vote.

They got phase 2 of the WMD report that showed Bush lying, a shity prescription drug bill for seniors, Dodd Frank financial reform, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, the citizens United canceled. Consumers protection act, and a few more. I can't remember off the top of my head

[cab67]

77. I doubt she would repeat that mistake.

The political landscape was very different 11 years ago. Bush Jr. didn't have anywhere near the disapproval ratings Trump currently enjoys. There were still plenty of people who had yet to realize just how monstrous a mistake the Iraq War was.

[Ilsa]

83. I know, it's apples and oranges. nt

[Podkayne K]

46. Dream, Dream, Dream!

I guess you're under the assumption that voting is fair, that everyone eligible gets to vote, that the machines on which we vote are completely uncorrupted, and that certain groups of voters aren't harassed, marginalized, and suppressed in their attempt to reach the ballot box?

As the Everly Brothers sang so long ago, "All I have to do is dream."
(And the song concluded "Only trouble is, gee wiz, I'm dreaming my life away.&quot

[MineralMan]

100. I'm under no assumption at all.

Here's what I know, however: Many registered Democrats do not go to the polls in every election. We need to convince them that they should. That, alone, would ensure Democratic wins in many elections. For example, about 40% of registered Democrats in Georgia's 6th district did not vote in the special election for that district's house seat. Had they voted, Ossoff would have won with a large margin.

If we vote in large percentages, we win. Period.

[Louis1895]

52. Hear, hear!

We need to stop grousing about everything and focus in on throwing the bums out.

Let Mueller work his magic but the faster way is to take over the House and as much of the Senate as possible. Impeachment takes too long and is a major distraction from getting the needed job done!

Trump is not the only problem in government right now. The do-nothing Republican-led Congress needs to go!

[hadEnuf]

54. If criminal offenses have been committed by the POTUS,

then impeachment is necessary.

The Right cannot understand anything except political force, and they will only be further emboldened if nothing is done.


How many more times do we have to be rolled by these bastards before we figure this out?

[Warren DeMontague]

60. And impeachment, which is the other constitutional remedy, as people have noted.

but yes, "election do-overs" are nonsense.

[Moostache]

61. The urgency is much greater than anyone thinks...

The census, yes the 2020 census, is already in jeopardy of being under-funded and therefore a mess. The state house races in key areas (ie. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio) especially the governor's races are CRITICAL to getting any kind of changes implemented...

Without an accurate census, the redistricting will be compromised...but before THAT calamity, we need to have Democrats actually win at the local levels...Governors and State Houses first....the House, Senate, SCOTUS and POTUS are all out of reach without a remedy to the gerrymandered deficit the Democratic Party is currently boxed into...and the increasing polarization of the electorate.

"To win a majority of 218 House seats, we project that Democratic candidates would need to win ten million more votes than Republicans."

Also:
"In this partisan reality, any House district where one party has an underlying advantage of just 53 percent to 47 percent is essentially safe for an incumbent absent personal scandal or a national partisan wave."

Finally:
"replace winner-take-all, single-winner elections with fair representation forms of proportional representation. Proportional representation describes a family of electoral systems in which like-minded voters earn representation in proportion to their share of the vote."

SOURCE: https://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races/

[MiddleClass]

67. Let's figure out how to, and create a national partisan wave

It's the only way to beat, gerrymandering, big money in politics,

make the margin too big to steal

[B Stieg]

63. What. He. Said. (nt)

Voting ain't sexy, but it's the ONLY way this time.

[MrModerate]

64. It's because people fear the damage that will be done . . .

Might be unbearable. And that Trump is unfit in a way no other President has been.

So this isn't a George Bush situation, where a dodgy prez could be challenged by sensible voices. It's a unique Trumpian situation, which could be cataclysmic if not corrected sooner rather than later.

[First Speaker]

68. Suppose the position of the two parties were reversed...

...we had a Democratic President, and a Dem Congress. The President was "elected" by help from a foreign dictator. The Supreme Court had had a seat stolen by the Dems, by resolutely refusing to cooperate with a GOP President in the last year of his term. Open evidence of treason was everywhere, and even the voting itself was suspect. What would today's Republican party do in this situation? I'll tell you--they would be calling for open military intervention. They would be calling for the immediate removal of the whole Dem administration. They would be demanding an immediate revote, and wouldn't give a shit about "genuine constitutional remedies". They would, as I said, be demanding that the army arrest the "President", and we would be in the midst of the worst, open constitutional crisis since 1861. That is what would be happening, and everybody knows it. The Republican Party doesn't give a shit about the Constitution; and the Dem party does. This is not sustainable. Sooner or later, the GOP will do something that even the Democratic party leadership will be unable to tolerate, and God help us all.

[cab67]

76. Last time the Republicans tried to remove a Democratic president through impeachment...

...they got shellacked in the midterm elections. Granted, it was largely because the reasons for the impeachment were largely bullshit, and voters were hacked off that Congress was focusing on oral sex and ignoring actual governance, but it didn't end well for them.

That's something we need to keep in mind as we consider the way forward following the 2018 midterms. I really want to see Trump impeached and removed from office - nothing would improve our country's image overseas than the active punishment of someone who has grotesquely abused his authority - but we need to make sure it doesn't bite us instead.

(Please bear in mind - I am not comparing what Clinton did with what Trump is doing. Clinton lied about extramarital sex; Trump is wiping his ass with the Constitution.)

[cab67]

71. I agree that impeachment is very unlikely at present...

...but as a matter of principle, it's important that we pursue it after the 2018 midterms.

We have to show the world how unacceptable we find the current White House resident's actions to be.

[woundedkarma]

75. You're kidding right?

The Republicans have been fixing the vote for years (gerrymandering, voter id laws etc) now they have a country willing to commit cyberwarfare to keep them in power.

How can you even think that we can trust our elections at this point?

It won't matter how worked up people get over healthcare or anything else. Republicans can do no wrong when they *control the elections*

I'm hoping something comes from Mueller's investigation because if it doesn't, or it takes too long ... I don't think there will be much of a country left after the next midterm.

[ck4829]

80. If my nephew's organs start to fail, he won't have until 2018

If the alt-right, far right, and other neo-nazis drop the neo- part, the Muslims and GLBTQ people who I love won't have until 2018.

One day with this ritual every even numbered year won't un-taint what's going on alone. We've got to blitz what's going on from the bottom up in addition to voting: We've got to get healthcare in the US to do more treatment and less social control, we've got to to oppose Putin and that means not just allying with friendly Russians but saying they are part of the family, and Trump has shown that the power of the Executive Branch is too much power for one man, and so it must be reduced, we have to crack the bully pulpit.

The problem is systemic and so a full solution that treats cause, symptom, roots, stem, and leaves must come from outside the system.

[tiredtoo]

81. I agree with MineralMan

And everything he said in this thread.
Now we must ALL work together to get Democratic candidates elected. Matters not if they are establishment or progressives. We must support ALL candidates. There is no perfect candidate, they all have one or more values we as individuals disagree with but they are ALL better than any Republican.

[Honeycombe8]

82. Where in the Constitution? A link? nt

[0rganism]

87. kind of hard to vote out what you didn't vote for in the first place

my fear is that our mechanisms for running elections have themselves been thoroughly compromised to the point where tabulated vote totals may not be representative of the actual votes, and there is no trustworthy way to verify or discredit the tallies.

i realize this is a concern unsupported (and inherently unsupportable) through empirical evidence, and we're not supposed to talk about it because somehow "it might depress turn-out", but my fears remain unaddressed. myself, i fully intend to continue voting, if for no other reason than to make them steal it every time and hope they get caught, but if my fears are reflected in reality then it's already too late.

[Takket]

88. there should be a way to have a recall election.

[onenote]

92. How would it work?

In California, it takes petitions with signatures equalling 12% of the number of votes cast in the previous election for that office. With a standard like that, the repubs would have started a recall movement against Obama the day after he was inaugurated.

[MineralMan]

108. Perhaps, but there is not such a way.

So, why should we not work our asses of to achieve a record turnout by Democrats? What possible argument is there against that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. I don't know about that, really

saying "here's a situation that wasn't foreseen by the people who came up with the Constitution in a very different world nearly 230 years ago" and then being all "oh well, what can you do" sort of skips over the fact that just maybe the Constitution should be amended for this possibility? (Eliminating the stupid and archaic Electoral College, that was designed to give more power in presidential elections to slave states, would probably be a good start).

[MineralMan]

107. There is no such amendment under consideration, as

far as I know. If there were, history tells us that would take years for it to become part of the Constitution, assuming that it could even get through Congress. Even if it did, there's that pesky ratification by the states to consider.

By the time a constitutional amendment could be enacted, we'll have already held a couple of elections. That's why getting Democrats out to vote in record numbers is the practical solution to all of this.

With the current Republican-controlled Congress, no such amendment would ever reach the floor for a vote, anyhow.

[TheFrenchRazor]

94. that "remedy" is no remedy at all, if the elections are rigged. there needs to be a better solution.

[BzaDem]

97. Why do people assume that there is a better solution, just because there "needs" to be?

I would love it if there were another legal solution. There is not, need or no need. People need to stop assuming that the world is just and fair and start thinking clearly. MineralMan is exactly right. Victories in 2018 and 2020 are the only options, absent a catestrophic drop in support for Trump by his own base.

[ck4829]

98. Agree, not having a contingency plan is the same as not having a plan

[onenote]

99. I take it that your position is that elections were first rigged in 2014

Is that correct?
How do you explain the 1994, 2006, and 2008 elections?

[KingCharlemagne]

105. Bullshit! - nt

[MineralMan]

106. Brief and to the point, eh?

[KingCharlemagne]

113. The masses in their collective wisdom can rise up and overthrow your

precious constitutional (read capitalist) order any time they see fit.See 1789 and 1917 for more on that.

[MineralMan]

114. All righty then.

And you'll be leading them into battle, I suppose...

Sure...I'll wait here. You let me know when the revolution begins, OK?

[KingCharlemagne]

115. Ironic that you posted your pablum the same week as

Bastille Day. But you keep persisting in your romanticization of the Constitution as something that sits outside human experience and supersedes it.

[MineralMan]

116. Actually, it's not ironic at all.

And I don't believe that the Constitution sits outside human experience. It is the result of human experience. While it remains, it is still the framework for the system of government of this nation. Since it includes a way for people to modify it, it is not a temporary document.

I get it that you'd like to see it thrown out, but only a successful violent revolution will do that, and that's not going to happen. Not in your lifetime or mine.

[niyad]

109. that only works if our electoral system has not been destroyed, tampered with, "fixed"

suppressed, intimidated, etc.,

[MineralMan]

110. It's none of those things in my state.

It's not in California, Oregon, Colorado and many other states, too. Maybe your system is screwed up in your state. I don't know. I don't live there. What are you doing to try to correct the problems where you are?

I'm sorry, but elections are a state issue, and only residents of that state can push their election officials to correct the problems.