This is probably what Individual 1 will try to do in November.
He can’t, because the federal government has nothing to do with running presidential elections.
I wonder if any Republican governors are considering it.
It’s more confusing than that, I think.
AIUI, the governor asked his health director to close the polls on the basis that it poses a health risk to have open polling places with COVID-19. But that only closes the polls. It doesn’t stop the primary election. The governor doesn’t have the authority to do that.
So now, it looks like they’re going to extend absentee voting and leave the election open by some unspecified period of time.
No matter what, there is a ton of confusion and it will definitely affect turnout for this primary. Which, I suspect, was the whole real point. 
If Individual-ONE were to somehow manage to cancel the election in November, his term would then end on January 20th at noon. There is no provision in the Constitution for extending the term of the President, so his legal authority would be null and void, as would be that of the Congress (as of the 3rd). It would be a Constitutional crisis, which would have to be resolved by, well, probably chaos and disorder. Or Vlad.
Are you the governor of a state with major urban centers, where people have everyday contacts with maybe a hundred people? Or a state where that number is more likely ten? Say you got a hundred infections, and three fatalities. You got a thousand ventilators, state wide. Gonna send five hundred of them to New York City? Or San Francisco, depending on who bids more?
If Montana were to close its border, the nation could most likely stumble along. New York? California? A national disaster requires a national response. Duh.
Coronavirus shows Donald Trump was right all this time about China
Oh look, an MSN op-ed piece! They’re liberal - surely this must be a fair and balanced take on…
Ah.
Anyway, the gist of it is: Trump said China bad and people crossing border bad, therefore he was right about stuff.
Yes, authoritarian regimes that routinely break the rules to get ahead are bad.
Because viruses can’t go through walls, I guess.
In an alternate universe timeline, perhaps.
So I’m sure she could provide plenty of evidence of the left saying that. Lots and lots of evidence. Somewhere. Probably.
Or indeed current knowledge.
I’m confused*, Gyrate. Isn’t Trump an “authoritarian who breaks the rules to get ahead”?
*Actually, I’m not confused in the least. That damn dirty lying sack of dung Trump is a hypocrite, and so are his supporters.
The Constitution says that whenever the offices of president and vice-president are vacated, the Soeaker of the House shall become president.
All hail, President Nancy Pelosi!
I try to avoid looking at anything tweeted by that orange numpty, but the local news had one of his tweets on the screen this morning. I notice he’s still referring to the disease as “the Chinese virus.” :rolleyes:
I can’t find the article again (I really need to start bookmarking stuff like this), but there is no requirement for an election to be held to select the members of the Electoral College.
I don’t know if there are enough GOP controlled state houses to pull it off, but the various states could (using Covid-19 as an excuse) cancel the presidential vote and just appoint whoever they want to be their electors.
Don’t recall what it said about House and Senate elections, although I suspect they weren’t addressed.
Right now I’m glad that there is blue executive control over Michigan and Wisconsin because they’re the states that actually matter that would also try this. Now they could always strip the governor of their powers but hopefully not enough to prevent them from blocking this action.
If their elections go off then we could be in the weird position of having relatively few delegates selected in an election but still have a majority out of 538, which seems analogous only to countries where an ethnicity boycotts a unification or separation referendum as being illegitimate, but that would still be legitimate in my mind with no doubts.
Or would could be in the even weirder and murkier area where we almost have a majority of 538 but not quite because enough states did not hold elections, and then what?
This one, perhaps?
Trump can’t cancel the elections, but there’s nothing that says the states have to have elections to select electors.
Well, I do find
Amendment XIV §2
… 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 age12, 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.
So, while an election is not per se mandated, not having one would be somewhat problematic. A state that bypasses its electorate to choose electors would theoretically lose representation in Congress.
That is damn interesting. Thanks.
I said “try”
Duncan Hunter sentenced to eleven months in jail.
Was he the one who called himself a farmer because he had a tenth of an acre of land?
This is funny, because it’s true. At the tiny little rural Iowa Methodist church I went to growing up, communion was cubes of white bread and grape juice in individual glass cups, passed around while we sat in our pews. So at least it was sanitary.
I didn’t particularly think of our congregation as being “fundamentalist” per se, but in hindsight they leaned that way. My grandmother loved Billy Graham, and I’m pretty sure she sent money to Jim Bakker and the PTL Club.