Straight Dope Message Board

[Hari Seldon]

I'm not sure what forum this belongs in. Today's votemaster column gives a way that Trump could lose the election and still win. PA, FL, MI, and WI have Republican legislatures. The constitution gives the state legislatures complete freedom as to how they choose electors. The fathers anticipated that presidential electors would be chosen by the state legislatures. It didn't work out that, but if the Dems win, say, PA, the legislature could simply substitute the Republican slate for the Democratic one. It would be sufficient to deny the Dem candidate of a majority of the electoral vote for in the case, HR would make the choice, but each state would have exactly one vote. So the Democratic vote from California would be canceled by the Republican vote from Wyoming and the Dems would not have a chance.

But I want to know how the voters, even the Republicans of PA, would react to such a scenario. What do you think? 1

[CarnalK]

They couldn't 'simply' do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election. 2

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

They couldn't 'simply' do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election.

Not to mention that the governors of PA, MI & WI are dems, so they could veto the bill. 3

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Not to mention that the governors of PA, MI & WI are dems, so they could veto the bill.

In fact, I can see the other way around - where Trump appears to get a majority of the electoral votes but ends up losing - happening, and Democratic governors play a major role in this.

Remember, if the Republicans try to "rig" a state's votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to "the executive of the state" to decide which to count. 4

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

They couldn't 'simply' do that. They would have to pass legislation that changes their elector selection process, in the space of time between the vote and delivering their votes to Congress and survive the inevitable court challenges about legislation that baldly overturns said election.

Obviously it wouldn't stand up for twenty minutes to any kind of a court challenge, but could the legislature pass that kind of ex post facto law?

Originally Posted by The US Constitution, Article One, Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The laws that control an election are the laws in force at the time of the election.

Regards,
Shodan 5

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

In fact, I can see the other way around - where Trump appears to get a majority of the electoral votes but ends up losing - happening, and Democratic governors play a major role in this.

Remember, if the Republicans try to "rig" a state's votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to "the executive of the state" to decide which to count.

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There's already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she "won" her race in Georgia (she did not). 6

[Kent Clark]

Remember, if something like that were to happen, Democrats would seek revenge. Bigly.

And no matter how much Trump and his supporters might try to keep him in office forever, some day he WILL die.

And Democrats will be waiting. 7

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There's already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she "won" her race in Georgia (she did not).

From "Democrats" to "Dems" to "dems"? I can't wait to see the next step. 8

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

From "Democrats" to "Dems" to "dems"? I can't wait to see the next step.

What are you talking about? I referred to them as "dems" in post #3. There are no "steps" here. 9

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

What are you talking about? I referred to them as "dems" in post #3. There are no "steps" here.

Are you claiming that you didn't use to refer to them as "Democrats", switching to "Dems" later in your posting history, and most recently "dems"? 10

[CarnalK]

Oh for god's sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing "dems" instead of "members of the Democratic party"? 11

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Are you claiming that you didn't use to refer to them as "Democrats", switching to "Dems" later in your posting history, and most recently "dems"?

I use all three interchangeably. For example, here's a post from 2012 where I use "Dems":

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Dems now complaining about poll over-sampling?

And here's one from a few days ago using "Democrats"

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I suppose he's making the point that only a relatively small % of our population serve in the military. but the same sort of accusation could be made against, for example, Democrats:

"Of course, the vast majority of [Obama] supporters haven't and don't intend to volunteer for the military, so many of them won't have any qualms about " fighting in Libya, or Somalia, or Syria, Yemen, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Looked at in that light, it (iiandyiii's lame chickenhawk-ish argument) loses most of its relevance.

Are you upset about the lower-case "d"? 12

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Oh for god's sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing "dems" instead of "members of the Democratic party"?

That's my understanding of the current situation. 13

[Shodan]

It's just faux outrage, like "Democrat party" being insulting. Anything to try to change the subject.

Regards,
Shodan 14

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Oh for god's sake, dude. Are you seriously seeing insult because someone is typing "dems" instead of "members of the Democratic party"?

Right, let's save the outrage for things like saying "happy holidays" to Christians or news reporters who describe the SKS used at a school shooting as an AK-47. 15

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Right, let's save the outrage for things like saying "happy holidays" to Christians or news reporters who describe the SKS used at a school shooting as an AK-47.

Are you saying the outrages are equally stupid or equally justified? 16

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There's already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she "won" her race in Georgia (she did not).

It hasn't affected things, though - Stacey Abrams' wild claims haven't put her one inch closer to being the actual governor of Georgia.

Likewise, Trump can claim whatever he wants, but if he loses in 2020, he is getting evicted in January 2021 from the White House no matter what. 17

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Velocity

It hasn't affected things, though - Stacey Abrams' wild claims haven't put her one inch closer to being the actual governor of Georgia.

Likewise, Trump can claim whatever he wants, but if he loses in 2020, he is getting evicted in January 2021 from the White House no matter what.

I agree with all of this, but what That Don Guy posted about was the opposite: a scenario where President Trump actually wins in 2020, but is denied the presidency through some post-election shenanigans along the lines of what the dems tried the first time he won. 18

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It's just faux outrage, like "Democrat party" being insulting. Anything to try to change the subject.

Regards,
Shodan

"Democrat Party" is meant to be insulting by those who use it. Cite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party in the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While historical and occasional current usage includes non-hostile appearances, the term has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators.[1]

However, HD's usage of lower case "d" and shortening of Democratic Party to dems seems fine to me. It doesn't seem disparaging in any context nor does it seem to be the intent here. 19

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I agree with all of this, but what That Don Guy posted about was the opposite: a scenario where President Trump actually wins in 2020, but is denied the presidency through some post-election shenanigans along the lines of what the dems tried the first time he won.

Ah, ok. I see. 20

[sciurophobic]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

[URL=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21603110&postcount=62]
Remember, if the Republicans try to "rig" a state's votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to "the executive of the state" to decide which to count.

Wrong. From history.house.gov

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

21

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Obviously it wouldn't stand up for twenty minutes to any kind of a court challenge, but could the legislature pass that kind of ex post facto law? The laws that control an election are the laws in force at the time of the election.

I agree. Legislatures can set up whatever kind of election procedures they want before an election. But I don't think they can enact a law that overturns an election that's already happened. 22

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

In fact, I can see the other way around - where Trump appears to get a majority of the electoral votes but ends up losing - happening, and Democratic governors play a major role in this.

Remember, if the Republicans try to "rig" a state's votes, the Democrats can challenge it when they are counted on January 6, and keep in mind that is after the newly elected Congress is seated; if, say, the House votes to accept the electoral votes for the Democrat and the Senate votes for Trump, it goes to "the executive of the state" to decide which to count.

If this got to SCOTUS, I don't see how they wouldn't rule in Trump's favor. They'd just default to "did Trump win the Electoral College according to how it should be done? Yes? Then case over." 23

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Velocity

If this got to SCOTUS, I don't see how they wouldn't rule in Trump's favor. They'd just default to "did Trump win the Electoral College according to how it should be done? Yes? Then case over."

I hope you're right about that. In another thread we recently had a poster suggest that adherence to SCOTUS decisions was voluntary and that blue states might just start ignoring them. 24

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I hope you're right about that. In another thread we recently had a poster suggest that adherence to SCOTUS decisions was voluntary and that blue states might just start ignoring them.

Link, please? 25

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

... However, HD's usage of lower case "d" and shortening of Democratic Party to dems seems fine to me. It doesn't seem disparaging in any context nor does it seem to be the intent here.

Thanks for acknowledging this, BTW. It's simply short-hand, not intended in any sort of derogatory fashion. And on a more general note, thanks for your recent efforts to improve the tenor of discussion here. 26

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Link, please?

Here 27

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by sciurophobic

Wrong. From history.house.gov

From Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code:

"But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted."

I am assuming that "the executive of the State" is the governor of that state. If a Democratic governor "certifies" that the Democrat gets the electoral votes, then the Democrat gets them. 28

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Thanks for acknowledging this, BTW. It's simply short-hand, not intended in any sort of derogatory fashion. And on a more general note, thanks for your recent efforts to improve the tenor of discussion here.

Thanks! I'm doing it for selfish reasons because I really like this place and want to keep it worth visiting. Thank you for doing the same! 29

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Here

Thank you-That idea is crazy and/or ignorant, of course. No matter what side you're on that just isn't right. 30

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Thank you-That idea is crazy and/or ignorant, of course. No matter what side you're on that just isn't right.

I agree, and I was heartened that it got fairly substantial push-back from multiple posters of various political persuasions (I think) right in that thread. 31

[SingleMalt]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

From Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code:

"But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted."

I am assuming that "the executive of the State" is the governor of that state. If a Democratic governor "certifies" that the Democrat gets the electoral votes, then the Democrat gets them.

Aren't the electors certified before the vote? I believe that this clause is saying that if the two chambers can't agree, then the votes of the original, certified electors are used. 32

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I agree, and I was heartened that it got fairly substantial push-back from multiple posters of various political persuasions (I think) right in that thread.

When I first read that post I only skimmed it. The impression I had then was the poster was basically saying:

"If SCOTUS makes abortion illegal there would still be some blue states that would "allow" abortions because women won't stop needing them just because it's illegal so better to have competent doctor's and proper facilities than back-alley stuff."

I thought he/she was implying that some states would "look the other way" when abortions were performed under those circumstances. But then I re-read it and saw that he/she wrote:

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

a coalition of Blue States will [...] continue to allow legal abortion in those states

Which is wrong on the face of it because abortion would no longer be legal, and:

SCOTUS relies on voluntary compliance, after all.

I suppose it's true the Justices wont try to physically stop you if you violate their rulings, but other sectors of the U.S. government might be a bit less passive. 33

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by kunilou

Remember, if something like that were to happen, Democrats would seek revenge. Bigly.

.

I wish. The democrats are disorganized pussies who are terrified of republicans and rich people being mean to them. They'll probably roll over and accept it. 34

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Unfortunately, what you outline does not strike me as impossible. It would trigger a real Constitutional crisis. There's already a crazy dem running around the country telling everyone she "won" her race in Georgia (she did not).

In between voter suppression efforts and questionable results in the machines, she has a point.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ctions-1162134

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...led/803579001/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ill-flourishes 35

[PhillyGuy]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Not to mention that the governors of PA, MI & WI are dems, so they could veto the bill.

Then competing slates of electors get to have their votes counted at a joint session of Congress presided over by Mike Pence.

If ABC/CBS/NBC/AP/CNN project, after the election, that Trump lost, the only sure prediction is that DJT won't accept the result as fair. He could do anything from order the Secret Service to defend the White House gates, to flee the country to live the rest of his life in one of his overseas golf properties.

Whatever he does, it won't be be what a President who respects democratic norms does. 36

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I wish. The democrats are disorganized pussies who are terrified of republicans and rich people being mean to them. They'll probably roll over and accept it.

Pussies or not, people hold grudges. Remember how long Southerners held a grudge against Republicans* after the disagreement over Reconstruction.


* Republicans aka, Reps, Pubbies, GOP, Rs, elephant party, etc. All of which I use randomly, none of which I try to imply any different tone to than any other. 37

[Hari Seldon]

Would all you people, Dems, Demonrats, Reps, Republicans, etc., please read https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp20...16.html#item-7. The Votemaster is generally pretty level-headed and if he thinks it possible, it is possible. Note that, as he explains that the legislature could simply ignore the vote and choose the elector and apparently the governor has no role. I would be on surer ground had the item been signed by (Z), a historian.

And my question is how would the public, especially Republicans react to such a scenario? The party seems to have gone thoroughly the "end justifies the means", but have their voters. Is it conceivable that something like this would finally lead to the demise of the electoral college? 38

[Velocity]

Great link. I was particularly intrigued by the author's scenario whereby we could have a President Trump but Democratic vice president (i.e., Stacey Abrams.) If that happened, we can expect to see a spate of assassination attempts on the president's life like never before seen. (Ditto if we had a Democratic president but Republican veep.) 39

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I hope you're right about that. In another thread we recently had a poster suggest that adherence to SCOTUS decisions was voluntary and that blue states might just start ignoring them.

I agree that this is wrong but I find myself thinking it just as likely red states ignore a SCOTUS ruling. We already have a President and AG who have taken the position they can ignore the oversight authority of Congress and subpoenas they find to be inconvenient. It isn't hard to imagine them ignoring any ruling by SCOTUS on this matter that doesn't go their way. The states would simply be taking their cue from the President.

And it is highly unlikely the Court will back the POTUS on all of the legal challenges we will see soon, no matter how stacked my fellow Democrats think the Court is at present. I suspect Trump & Co. are likely to win on some issues and lose on others. I am curious to see how they will react to the ones they lose. 40

[asahi]

A more likely scenario would be that the election's close enough so that Republicans can claim that the results are invalid and contest the election in various states, creating a constitutional crisis by refusing to accept the results. The results become a protracted legal and political dispute which ends up ultimately going to the House, where they would probably win because of a majority of state delegations. This couldn't happen if Trump lost by 10-15% in the popular vote and the Dem winner ends up with 350-400 EC delegates, but if the Democrat wins by one or two states and a few thousand votes in those states, we could be headed for an 1876-style crisis. 41

[Kent Clark]

Just to go straight to the reductio ad absurdum - every President since Ronald Reagan (and that's the first time I actually noticed these things) has been said to have black helicopters hidden away in the mountains, thousands of armed "United Nations" troops garrisoned all over the U.S., and road signs marked "Martial Law" (although it's usually spelled Marshall) hidden in the back rooms of Wal-Marts all over God's Greatest Country, ready to deploy instantly, and all of them planned to hang on to office despite what the Constitution says. 42

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Kent Clark

Just to go straight to the reductio ad absurdum - every President since Ronald Reagan (and that's the first time I actually noticed these things) has been said to have black helicopters hidden away in the mountains, thousands of armed "United Nations" troops garrisoned all over the U.S., and road signs marked "Martial Law" (although it's usually spelled Marshall) hidden in the back rooms of Wal-Marts all over God's Greatest Country, ready to deploy instantly, and all of them planned to hang on to office despite what the Constitution says.

True, but to be fair, Trump isn't like Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama. 43

[Velocity]

If these Trump-hanging-on-despite-losing scenarios come to pass, it will most likely all come down to Secret Service. The director of Secret Service would probably be in communication with the incoming administration as soon as election results were in, and tell his agents to respect the outcome of the election and drag Trump out of the Oval Office by physical force, if need be, at noon on Inauguration Day 2021. 44

[Superdude]

THAT I would watch. 45

[That Don Guy]

I have a feeling that, if it comes down to Trump losing the election but refusing to concede even on January 20, it would come down to one thing; which Commander-in-Chief does the Armed Forces follow? That's pretty much how Ferdinand Marcos got driven out of the Philippines in a similar situation. 46

[Ravenman]

Since we are off in the realm of speculation here, I could just as easily see Trump not showing up to anything relating to the inauguration of the candidate he just lost to. The guy barely shows up to work. He might just take a three month golf vacation from November through January. And that could be the hardest he worked during his entire term. 47

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

I have a feeling that, if it comes down to Trump losing the election but refusing to concede even on January 20, it would come down to one thing; which Commander-in-Chief does the Armed Forces follow? That's pretty much how Ferdinand Marcos got driven out of the Philippines in a similar situation.

They follow the lawfully elected President. Not some guy who is no longer president past 12:00 on January 20. 48

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by Velocity

True, but to be fair, Trump isn't like Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama.

Nor, at least as far as I know right now, is Trump like Caligula.

Besides, if he refuses to go, some minor bureaucrat will finally leak his tax returns and Trump will die from embarrassment. 49

[Tired and Cranky]

Trump is an insecure man who understands he doesn't have the support of the military, intelligence, or civil service so he can't hold power after Inauguration Day. He would also terrified of facing real consequences when he can't pardon himself. There is no chance he tries.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Since we are off in the realm of speculation here, I could just as easily see Trump not showing up to anything relating to the inauguration of the candidate he just lost to. The guy barely shows up to work. He might just take a three month golf vacation from November through January. And that could be the hardest he worked during his entire term.

He'll show up but not out of any respect for tradition or the importance of symbolizing an orderly transition of power. It will be his last chance to stand before a truly giant audience. He can pretend that they want to say farewell to him while simultaneously asserting that his audience was twice as big. Maybe we'll even see Melania smile with the knowledge that her ongoing nightmare is coming to a close. 50