Biden's on to get the biggest share of the vote for a challenger since FDR in 1932 - and a higher % of the US population voting for him even than Reagan got in his 1984 landslide
US election 2020 thread
- Thread starter petee
- Start date
Raheem
Well-Known Member
They don't have to declare for it to be legal (unless there are some states that specifically require that). The state legislatures vote on how to allocate their votes, which they can do while counting is ongoing.
Well, in that loads of states are still counting and nobody has got to the stage of ratifying their results, nobody has any electoral college votes at all yet
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What do you mean by that, though? I mean they're still counting all over the place. If every one of Alaska's uncounted votes goes to Biden, he can still win there!
Legally, he doesn't win until the electoral college has voted. The rest is convention rather than strictly legal. But there are processes in place for transition, including money for the president elect, that have started already. Trump isn't moving but the rest of the world is.
bimble
floofy
Looks like this right now to me
Will they do a coup if they can get away with it? Yes.
Will they pretend they were just joking if someone else starts talking seriously about treason charges and looks like they can make it stick? Of course.
What if none of these people gives a shit about The Republican Party or anything else and just wants to keep their jobs and their power. Why wouldn't they go all in what have they got to lose.
Will they do a coup if they can get away with it? Yes.
Will they pretend they were just joking if someone else starts talking seriously about treason charges and looks like they can make it stick? Of course.
What if none of these people gives a shit about The Republican Party or anything else and just wants to keep their jobs and their power. Why wouldn't they go all in what have they got to lose.
Cloo
Banana for scale
I'm getting more and more worried they will just make a coup and stay in government claiming enough people saying there was voter fraud and Trump saying it was going to happen means its true and anyone who says otherwise is corrupt. I mean, they're the government. And it'll be decried all over the world except for the by UK government.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Zero chance of any of their legal challenges being successful. They will lose. They just haven't accepted it yet. And they haven't actually broken the law by refusing to concede. This is crazy, what's happening, but it isn't yet a sign that the system is broken.
bimble
floofy
Who exactly are you relying on though to 'save us', the judges, supreme court ?
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Alternative is that votes don't flip, but there are abstentions. If there are enough (a big ask), then neither candidate gets 270 votes and it is for the senate to decide who is next president. At the moment, we don't know which party would control the senate were this to happen.
Not saying it is likely.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What are the supreme court going to do? Vote in such a way as to discredit the system? That is not going to happen.
That is not me saying I think the system is wonderful btw. But those with a vested interest in preserving the system, whose power derives from the system, will act in a way that preserves it. It's simple self-interest.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
The supreme court isn't necessarily going to get involved.
bimble
floofy
So thats who you are counting on, those 9 people, and or a bunch of electors to choose to do the right thing and vote reflecting the majority of their neighbour's opinions.
I'm not saying i think they'll actually pull it off and successfully do a coup just don't think its funny anymore, at all.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
All the same arguments apply to the state supreme courts.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Or the state supreme courts. We're only talking about something hypothetical, but Congress or the senate alone could appoint Trump to a second term with any court giving its permission and without there being any legal recourse to challenge the decision.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not sure what you're getting at now. So far, Trump is taking a legal route to challenge the election result. That's his path, if you want to call it that, to winning - getting the courts to rule in his favour over various spurious motions, getting the votes checked, finding widespread fraud against the Republicans, and having the results of various states overturned.
Once that has failed, he loses. And it will fail. It is failing.
bimble
floofy
i think its this, as a potential (worst case) endgame politically? This was written before the election.
"Assume, as now, the US Senate remains in Republican hands and the House remains in the hands of the Democrats come January 6. With Vice President Pence in the chair of the Joint Session as President of the Senate, he rules that in the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 election , the “safe harbor” provisions of the Electoral Count Act apply and bind the House and Senate to accept only the electors certified by the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pence’s ruling would throw the election to Trump. On the objection to the vice president’s ruling raised by one member of the Senate and one member of the House, the Electoral Count Act calls for a division of the House and the Senate which are instructed to come back together after their deliberations of no more than two hours.
Assume that the question presented to both chambers is: do they, by majority vote, agree to override the vice president’s ruling? Unless both House and Senate vote to override (which the Senate, if majority party discipline holds, will not do), the ruling will stand, and Trump will be ultimately be declared the winner of the election after all other states’ electors are counted. '
www.justsecurity.org
"Assume, as now, the US Senate remains in Republican hands and the House remains in the hands of the Democrats come January 6. With Vice President Pence in the chair of the Joint Session as President of the Senate, he rules that in the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 election , the “safe harbor” provisions of the Electoral Count Act apply and bind the House and Senate to accept only the electors certified by the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pence’s ruling would throw the election to Trump. On the objection to the vice president’s ruling raised by one member of the Senate and one member of the House, the Electoral Count Act calls for a division of the House and the Senate which are instructed to come back together after their deliberations of no more than two hours.
Assume that the question presented to both chambers is: do they, by majority vote, agree to override the vice president’s ruling? Unless both House and Senate vote to override (which the Senate, if majority party discipline holds, will not do), the ruling will stand, and Trump will be ultimately be declared the winner of the election after all other states’ electors are counted. '
Navigating a Contested Election, the Electoral Count Act and 12th Amendment: How to Ensure a Fully Counted Outcome
"Unconventional threats to a free and fair election may require unconventional but lawful and legitimate tactics to preserve the constitutional order."
www.justsecurity.org
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Politically that is impossible. There would be civil war. The institutions would lose all credibility, and hence they would lose their power. Not going to happen.i think its this, as a potential (worst case) endgame politically?
"Assume, as now, the US Senate remains in Republican hands and the House remains in the hands of the Democrats come January 6. With Vice President Pence in the chair of the Joint Session as President of the Senate, he rules that in the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 election , the “safe harbor” provisions of the Electoral Count Act apply and bind the House and Senate to accept only the electors certified by the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pence’s ruling would throw the election to Trump. On the objection to the vice president’s ruling raised by one member of the Senate and one member of the House, the Electoral Count Act calls for a division of the House and the Senate which are instructed to come back together after their deliberations of no more than two hours. Assume that the question presented to both chambers is: do they, by majority vote, agree to override the vice president’s ruling? Unless both House and Senate vote to override (which the Senate, if majority party discipline holds, will not do), the ruling will stand, and Trump will be ultimately be declared the winner of the election after all other states’ electors are counted. '
Navigating a Contested Election, the Electoral Count Act and 12th Amendment: How to Ensure a Fully Counted Outcome
"Unconventional threats to a free and fair election may require unconventional but lawful and legitimate tactics to preserve the constitutional order."
Raheem
Well-Known Member
The court cases might influence how things go, but the process runs through the legislatures. So, a state where Biden has won can vote to give its votes to Trump, or to not give any votes at all. Some states may be restricted in how easily they can do that, but generally they can vote for bullshit if they want.
Then, at the federal level, the states send electors who are meant to follow the instructions of the state legislatures but might not. If an elector instructed to vote for Biden votes for Trump, then that will generally stand (or, for some states only, it might become a null vote).
Then, if the senate has to decide a tie, it can just decide by vote, in the same way it decides on other things.
Although I don't think Trump will be successful, what he is doing is not trying to use the courts to overturn the election, but to create an atmosphere which might permit legislators to rebel.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Politically, how likely do you think this is? A state whose certified vote gave one candidate a majority giving its EC votes to the other candidate? On what basis if the court cases have not been successful in overturning the result? That's not going to happen. They would be asking for riots in their cities. Internationally, the US would look ridiculous.
And remember that this has to happen in at least three states. It's vanishingly unlikely to happen in one state, but three?
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
To be fair, no. Significantly stupider yes.Is he even crazier than Donny Jnr?
maomao
普費斯
A concerted attempt to overturn a fairly contested election and refuse to hand over power is civil war.
maomao
普費斯
Have you watched the news lately?
mauvais
on reddit or something
Raheem
Well-Known Member
As I've said a few times, I don't think it's likely. But it is also wrong to assume that it can't happen because of law and procedure.
Trump has just terminated the Secretary of State for Defence for not putting troops on the street during the BLM protests. He has now installed a yes man. It’s not a great leap to see how dangerous this could quickly become. Is the military aligned with the president, the constitution or God?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't think it can't happen because of law and procedure. I think it can't happen because of something more powerful than that. Politics.
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
The Proud Boys are marching on DC this weekend.
bimble
floofy
there were ten of these 'faithless electors' in the 2016 election, this says, three of them failed and were forced to vote reflecting the majority opinion. Nothing to do with unsuccessful court cases.
Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
this bit is really interesting:
'The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement .. they attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives. The electors advocated for voting their conscience to prevent the election of someone they viewed as unfit for the presidency. .'
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Both of them.
Similar threads
- Poll
