Respectfully, I really don’t think you understand the social dynamics at play here. We live in an age of conspiracy theories, which many of his voters believe in. In fact, we will probably going to have an active Q-Anon conspiracy theorist winning a seat in the US House of Representatives this fall. Trump’s supporters defy orders to wear masks, ignoring the facts and ignoring the science. His voters believe that the Russia scandal was a hoax. They believe in a so-called “deep state.” In short, Trump’s voters, by the tens of millions, believe in a lot of shit that isn’t real. And guess what: Trump’s voters, by the tens of millions, are also GOP voters by the tens of millions. They’re NOT going to just dump him.
Excellent post, @RTFirefly. Good to see you back, btw.
I agree that it’s important to understand that Trump’s voters will, at minimum, claim that whatever process they’re following is constitutional. It can be both anti-democratic and constitutional - or least quasi-constitutional - at the same time.
I would argue that this is pretty much been the playbook of Republicans for a while. Use technical, procedural, legal means and claim that any of their tactics are either supported by or at least not explicitly opposed by the Constitution itself.
This is also how the power of the executive branch can expand over time, and over time, it could conceivably become so powerful that the other two branches would no longer be coequal. An executive could claim a national emergency, seek emergency powers, and then seek to rule using emergency powers into perpetuity.
If our nation survives this election, this right here should be the reason to abolish the electoral college. Not “unfairness” or anything along those lines, just the fact that a state legislature (of which 99% of Americans probably can’t even name their representatives) can theoretically name its own electors regardless of the votes cast in their state.
Democrats could screw over Republicans just as easily as vice versa, so who wouldn’t want to get rid of that loophole?
Given the Dems’ history of bringing Nerf guns to a gun fight, “Democrats could” is still “Democrats are really really unlikely to.” So Republicans would still see this loophole as their loophole to take advantage of, especially while they control the legislatures in most of the contested states.
Right, but Republicans are also ignorant, gullible and prone to conspiracy theories, so they’d gobble up a narrative like “godless socialists who you didn’t even vote for could completely disregard your votes to put a terrorist in the White House – unless we change the Constitution!”
Thanks!!
I think I’ll be more in-and-out than posting with any regularity, since the lack of any internal geography to a thread really fucks with the way I’ve always navigated a thread, which makes it really hard for me to stay with a discussion the way I used to. But I’ll be posting occasionally.
Yeah, but that conspiracy theory would have to come from their people for it to get any traction.
It’s probably a waste of time trying to change something that requires 3/4 of the states to approve, when the EC works to the advantage of quite a few states. What I’d rather see is more states gradually, incrementally being pressured into agreeing to support legislation that binds electors to vote for the winner - that’s an obvious first step.
We could then consider legislation down the road that says if someone wins the national vote by X%, then they agree to accept the national result and they submit all their electors for the winner of the popular vote. If some states don’t agree, then maybe we could offer a compromise in which the state reserves an elector or two for the national vote winner. So let’s say a state with 4 electoral vote elects Trump but Biden wins the national vote by more than 5%, then one of those votes goes to Biden. Or each state could reserve one elector for the popular vote winner.
The possibilities are endless, I suppose, but it’s not realistic to suggest getting rid of an institution that clearly gives added power to some states. A compromise that makes sharing that power a little more palatable, fair, and reasonable is probably the best route.
Rest assured, I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me what I do and do not know. 
And if I didn’t make it clear, I’m talking about the Republicans in office, not his moronic supporters.
The Manner that every state legislature has directed is to have the popular vote decide the electors. Changing that would require a change in that State’s law, and where there’s a Democratic governor, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that’s not going to happen.
According to this whitepaper that I found linked from this article, federal law says that states may not change their process for choosing electors after election day. There is also some court precedent that “the principle [to vote as proscribed by the legislature] is broad enough to encompass changes in voting rules that inappropriately unsettle reasonable expectations concerning the operation of the voting process”.
I really hope this is good enough. IANAL but I worry a bit that the federal law has shaky constitutional grounds because I think the constitution gives the federal government regulatory power only over elections of senators and congresspeople. I’m hoping that a lot of court precedent extends the elections of senators and congresspeople to the entirety of what happens with federal elections, and I’d love for someone who knows more to chime in on this and help me sleep at night.
I think unless Trump just wins the old fashioned way by counting all the votes and assigning them to states, this is going to end in a supreme court battle. Fortunately, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch seem to at least has some willingness to break with Trump, but unfortunately Trump won’t make the same mistake in his next appointment. The SCOTUS completely fucked up with Bush v. Gore 20 years ago and it’s only become more conservative since then.
I think at this point, even if the math of the EC is completely unchanged, making constitutional law on how the EC works, in what circumstances electors are allowed to be faithless etc. should be a priority that warrants an amendment.
The GOP still won’t do it because they know vagueness in the rules gives them an advantage over Democrats who are afraid to go there.
There is this clause in the 14th Amendment:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male* inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age**, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
*Superseded by the 19th Amendment
** Superseded by the 26th Amendment
This would seem to indicate that the state legislature could submit their own slate of electors, but at the risk of losing Congressional representation. But I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so am I reading that right?
That the Court is conservative isn’t a problem per se; it’s the fact that since Scalia, they’ve been conservative and activist. To be fair, one could argue that the court has hosted liberal activism as well. It’s impossible for someone to be completely neutral.
But what was particularly troublesome about the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore was that the Courts deliberately thrust themselves into an election. If they want to be activists about abortion outside of an election, I accept that this is an inevitable outcome over time. But stay out of elections, especially when there’s nothing that compels them to stop a recount at the state level. At least in my non-lawyerly view, they literally acted to hear a case and decide a case for the express purpose of awarding the election to Bush.
There’s no reason to believe history wouldn’t repeat itself.
Not a lawyer, either, but even if you’re 100% right about this, how on earth would it ever be enforced?
Slightly off topic, but that question - how on earth would it be enforced - is the most troubling one that keeps coming up in these discussions about dealing with Trump. Stated another way, who has the power to stop an acting president who has millions of federal police officers and troops at his fingertips? He is the one who has the power, as he has repeatedly demonstrated over and over again. The only thing that can stop him, quite literally, is if many of these millions walk off the job. But doing that has consequences, and there’s no guarantee others would join.
Thanks for the info.
Congress, technically, if they muster a veto proof majority. Cut funding, then they have no job to walk off from.
As they can’t even get McConnel to bring things to a vote, that’s a no go though.
Ultimately the only enforcement mechanism would be for Biden’s campaign to sue states. And then it would end up in the Supreme Court.
He could say it today and change his mind in 6 weeks.