I’m not talking about Trump’s version where he magically becomes president again because Trump said so, but if it was found out 2+ years into the term that Biden should not have won enough states to get the electoral votes and those votes would have caused another candidate (Trump) to have enough to win the presidency, what is the procedure? Is there one? Do we go with Trump’s suggestion and just install the rightful person?
I think the president stays, as those electors that the state authorized cast valid votes, and its basically a too late thing. But I simply don’t know. And is such a thing actually impeachable? I don’t think the president can be impeached for not winning the election, as the reasons for impeachment are very clear and limited. Not that this impeachment would get the rightful candidate in office.
Congress has declared the result of the election, and that’s conclusive, even if Congress did so while operating without relevant information that later comes to light.
The mere fact that Congress didn’t know something relevant isn’t, in itself, a high crime and misdemeanour that would justify impeachment. But of course if the candidated declared to have won was personally complicit in fraud or other illegality surrounding the election, that would be grounds for impeachment, if Congress desired.
The president who the Electoral College voted for is the president, regardless of the circumstance.
The president can be impeached for anything, but that wouldn’t put his or her opponent into the White House, it would make the VP the president. If they were both impeached and convicted, then it would make the Speaker the president.
The only way the opponent could come in would be for congress to impeach and convict the VP, get agreement from the president to appoint his or her opponent as the new VP, and then impeach and convict the president. Or, I guess, the House could make the opponent the Speaker and then try and get the VP and President impeached and convicted.
There are very few cases in US history where voter fraud was a reason for voiding an election. Tammany Hall was a hotbed of corrupt election practices (as were most big city political machines), but the result always stood (barring a legitimate recount).
I’d think this is the case, since it is what happened in 2000? Not by fraud mind you. But the point is, we know Bush didn’t really win, but it doesn’t actually matter.
If the evidence was strong enough to seriously consider removing the sitting President, it would also be strong enough to convict everyone who had any kind of knowing role in the fraud. So that’s the first step; arrest and charge all those people, and convict them, eventually.
This would almost certainly mean that a lot of the President’s political allies were in jail, or facing that possibility. This would isolate the President enough that impeachment becomes far more likely. Which means this puts pressure on the President to simply resign, rather than face conviction in the Senate, like what happened with Nixon. Even if they don’t go that way, with strong enough proof as discussed above, it becomes very likely that even those in the same party who weren’t directly involved will agree to impeach, out of concern for the country or their own careers.
Who then becomes President then falls to the order of succession as established in law, modified slightly based on which of those people have also been caught up in this, and thus ended up in prison.
Trump’s fantasies aside, the US system already has tools in place to deal with such an event. That they have to do the work to get it done is a feature, not a bug. It’s bad enough that you’re risking a dictatorship, you don’t want to add a lazy dictator to the equation.
That’s it in a nutshell. The Electoral College isn’t necessarily beholden to vote according to the popular vote, so even if there was massive fraud, they voted and it’s a done deal at this point two years later.
If somehow, there was some sort of smoking gun - a video that could be verified of the DNC high brass detailing how they were going to cheat, how it would be pulled off, etc… and then some sort of actual proof that it was done on their orders, then I imagine there would be law enforcement inquiries in pretty much every state, but the results would still stand- there’s no path in our system for throwing out a sitting President in favor of a shafted candidate, especially not two years later. It’s just not going to happen. Even if the sitting President was impeached fully, it would still go to whoever’s next in the line of succession like @Horatius points out.
If the president knew or participated in the cheating, impeach the president. If the VP knew, impeach 'em both, and install the speaker of the House as President. If the Speaker is implicated, impeach and go to the next person in the line of succession (President Pro Tempore of th Senate). Etc.
Have the next election at the regular time, hopefully after having put in controls to prevent the same kind of fraud.
There is no option in there for a ‘do-over’ election, or for appointing the loser of the stolen election as President. And that’s a really good thing, or else every election going forward would be endlessly contested because there would be a chance of ‘winning’ through the courts even after an election loss, even years in the future.
IIRC there was a do-over election for one of the house seats a few years ago, due to election fraud. But that was a simpler call, the person just stops sitting and a new election is called. I don’t recall if the person was originally sworn in, or if the whole case went on hold until the court was done.
It seems to me the above posters have it right with presidential elections. Because the electoral college decision is a multi-step process, it’s not like a simple count. The vote is certified by the state, the electors are appointed, their vote is sent to Washington, vote certified by congress. Each oof these steps has a deadline and is a formal process. A certification with incomplete or incorrect information is likely still a formal certification?
There was an attempt at Electoral College fraud in 2020 - false slates of Electors sent to Congress to present votes in opposition to their states certified election results and legally appointed (as per state law) slate of Electors.
Trick question: Where does the Electoral College meet?
Trick answer: They don’t.
12th Amendment says, “The Electors shall meet in their respective states…”
I’m not sure how the ballots get to Washington, DC, though.
With regard to Congressional Joint Session disputes over which ballots to count, you may refer to the election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877, which ended Civil War Reconstruction.
I don’t think any of that is inevitable. I think a wide ranging conspiracy that reaches the president is not the most likely scenario. The chances of it taking 2.5 years to be discovered is highly unlikely. Although also not likely a more plausible scenario would be fraud could occur in a battleground state that swings the election to the other side. The conspiracy could all be contained in that state. The president would be hurt politically but none of his circle could be involved. So no arrests up top.
Sometimes, the courts defer to issues as being “political questions”, which are answered by the voters instead of the judges, and I think this would be such an issue.
Sure, those who actually committed fraud could be prosecuted, but that wouldn’t invalidate the election. The remedy is another election. Presumably, voters would be angry about being defrauded, and the beneficiaries would be thrown out. Or, these fraudulent officeholders would have become more beholden to the voters’ electoral demands, and therefore have morphed into the popular preference. Either way, it’s not for the courts to decide.
Yeah, but one swing state probably wouldn’t be considered “mass” vote fraud, would it? If one small state that’s near a 50/50 draw is the key to the electoral college, even a few hundred votes could make the difference.
I could see someone trying to pull that off, hoping to give their guy the win. But that’s not what Trump and the MAGAts are talking about. They think there were millions of fraudulent votes. No way does that happen without some kind of multi-state conspiracy, and a lot of people who weren’t “in on it” would probably have to decide to look the other way when they start noticing weird things in the voting results.
I figured the important part of the question was if there was voter fraud that changed the outcome of the presidential election. For that to happen it wouldn’t have to be across multiple states.
Yeah, but the 2000 election showed that, when it comes down to a coin flip in one state, that’s so close that people really won’t get worked up about it. They’ll moan a bit, but won’t plan the downfall of the federal government. Everyone figures the next election will be fair.
It’s only when we’re talking about multiple states that people start getting incensed. That’s when people start thinking the whole system has fallen apart.
The news is talking about a case before the Supreme Court today about whether the courts can overrule the legislature and impose a different electoral map. The map used in the election in NC was drawn up under the control of the courts based on the argument the planned map was unconstitutional.
While the NC legislature may win this case, it appears nobody is suggesting an immediate do-over of the existing seats if the case is decided in favour of the legislature’s map. It just means they get to decide boundaries for the next election, I presume, even though the current election was “wrong”.