The American Coup: 11.9.2020 -

Politics & Elections
622

Yes, of course. That’s what I get for trying to use a fancy word… now I’m wondering what word I was actually thinking of. Ah yes, opprobrium.

Well, as I understand it there is already a process in state law for the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Kathy Boockvar) to appoint electors based on certified election results. My reading of it shows no role in the state legislatures in that process.

They can certainly try to pass a law to use a different set of rules to appoint a different set of electors. But that won’t stop the ones appointed by Broockvar to show up in Harrisburg on Dec 14 to cast their votes.

623

I’m afraid I don’t follow. What does this have to do with Biden?

624

Exactly, Biden doesn’t have a role in preventing this. That falls on the heads of everybody else. The people that do not want to live to see an unopposed Jared/Ivanka ticket in 2024. Make no mistake: that is Trumps goal, the only way he doesn’t die in prison.

625

We could very well see a 306 - 268 electoral vote Talley, with both Pennsylvania and Michigan appointing both slates of electors.

626

Yup. But it would have to include either AZ or GA as well, as 268 isn’t enough. Maybe WI.

But ultimately the law on how to deal with dual slates is pretty damn clear, and while Pence may try to count the Trump EVs at the joint session and not the Biden ones, there really isn’t any way to do that I’m aware of that SCOTUS could conceivably endorse.

But I’m really not convinced that there is a way to get any of these states to vote in an alternate slate in the first place. In PA, for example, the GOP has a 29-21 majority in the Senate and 110-93 in the House. I guess it’s possible that a majority in each body would vote to appoint an alternate slate, but that seems pretty unlikely to me absent any significant evidence of fraud being presented anywhere. And an attempt to stop the certification should be subject to a veto, which clearly the GOP does not have enough votes to override.

Trump will try to pass the buck so he can blame his loss on somebody else (“those damn traitorous RINOs in PA and WI and MI just wouldn’t stand up for me and Ducey and Kemp stabbed me in the back by signing off on the certification”) but it just isn’t possible to turn this around for him. Unless there really is some super-duper evidence that the crack legal team is sitting on for just the right moment in time.

627

And, and…Republicans in the House and Senate.

My understanding is that the House could probably stop the madness - at least temporarily - by refusing to accept the objection to state-certified electors, but two things:

a) They could make a final appeal to the SCOTUS, who have a very solid 6-3 majority and would only need 5 of those six to be partisan enough to vote for the republican electors.

b) Even if this doesn’t come to pass, the narrative will likely be that the race was too close to call and Biden’s not really a legitimate president.

So point being, even if Democracy’s not completely fucked yet, it probably wouldn’t take much to send it over the edge.

628

Sorry, I was responding to @FlickTheBlue but screwed it up.

629

What they may - and I think chances are better than 50/50- is that they will interpret the constitution literally when it says that electors can be chosen by state legislatures, meaning that the republican legislatures will pass resolutions to send their own electors to congress. Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s constitutionally invalid, but if you’re going to cheat, cheat hard, is what they’re thinking. They’re going to triple down on the “originalist” and “textual” interpretation of the constitution. Who knows, maybe the SCOTUS will endorse such a novel approach in a last-minute lawsuit.

630

Yes, I’m pretty sure that you are right about this. If I was to make a historical comparison for Biden, I think Carter would be a good match. Let’s hope I’m wrong and Biden turns out to be more like FDR or LBJ.

631

Georgia:

632

I think I understand you, and I agree that this is what those supporting this approach (as apposed to a more court-based approach) are saying. But you have glossed over a few important details.

First, the GOP in a given state is not a monolith and their majorities in most of these states are pretty small (6 votes in the MI house, for example). I think it is much less than 50/50 that they can command a majority to literally overturn the popular vote in any one state, much less the necessary three. Many of those state legislators come from Biden-won districts or at least not super-Trumpy ones.

Second, passing legislation that sends their own electors doesn’t get rid of the other set of electors that will be appointed when then popular vote is certified by the SoS/Gov/whomever existing state law gives that authority.

Third, the lawsuit you posit would only come about if Pence somehow finds a way to count the secondary EVs rather than the popular vote ones. It’s actually not entirely clear how he would even do that, as the requirements in how the votes are read out and how they are challenged is all written in law now (after the 1876 fiasco), and the Democratic House gets a say in how any disputes with the voting is adjudicated. But if somehow Pence does manage to finagle a Trump win, that’s when it goes to SCOTUS saying that the Electoral Count Act was violated. And I think it clearly would have to be for this to work.

That’s the conundrum for these would-be EV-stealers. It’s not enough to just send a second slate, they also have to keep the first slate from getting sent. And as I understand it that would require new legislation stopping Democratic executives (or even Republican ones in GA and AZ) from certifying the election results. Such legislation would be vetoed, and none of these states have enough votes to override the veto.

The only way this works is if the courts stop the certification under existing law. But courts (unlike politicians) require evidence. And so far evidence has been, shall we say, light on the ground.

Again, I’m not saying citizens shouldn’t pay attention, or that this isn’t a terrifying attack on democratic norms. It’s ridiculous that we are even having this conversation. Names should be taken, and hopefully voters remember who was willing to chuck out American democracy in the name of Donald f’in Trump.

On preview I see that the next person we should focus our attention on is Gov Kemp of GA. He has until 5pm tomorrow to certify the results that his fellow-Republican SoS just certified. Kemp has a press conference scheduled in 10 minutes or so…

633

Isn’t this one, at least, a fait accompli, or – like Michigan – is there still technically time for Brad Parscale to kidnap the Kemp and Raffensperger children, and … ?

634

I’ve seen other posters say GOP state legislators won’t name alternate slates because it would be political suicide. Come on. If they’re willing to go against the clear wishes of their state’s voters to overturn a free and fair national election, what do they care if they’re re-elected in two or four years?

635

Unfortunately I’m not very well-versed on GA electoral certification law. I think Kemp doesn’t really have a choice here unless a court compels him to not certify. But I could be wrong - he will speak on the matter in a few minutes.

636

If that happens, who knows if there will still be elections that aren’t shams in two or four years?

637

I would have to agree with you that, based on what I know, nothing the GOP could do would necessarily override the state-certified results, and that those would be the ones considered more valid on a number of grounds. The main obstacle would be Pelosi’s House, which would have to agree to that there’s a valid reason to ignore the state-certified electors, and we know that won’t happen – well, I assume it won’t

But consider the spectacle. Consider the state legislators sending alternate electors anyway, for no other reason than to humor Trump and his base of support. They meet and they say "Look, okay, we know that this is bullshit, but let’s just do this. What’s the harm in doing this. We know it’ll fail but we’ll keep his thicker than pigshit voters. And then we’ll get them off our backs" So then they trot these competing electors out. Except that now there’s a chance that Trump could now actually somehow pull off a miracle and “win” the election, so there’s now a tremendous amount of pressure on Senate and House leaders to support him any way possible. See, this is what’s been happening all along - people who don’t like Trump but fearing his voters kicking the can down the road, only to find that it festers and grows into a monster.

So the Senate then takes up the case and then, same thing, Mitch and the Republicans, behind closed doors, say “Look, this is nonsense, but we need his voters, so let’s kick it over to the House. We know the madness will end because Pelosi won’t let it out of committee.” But now the focus is on Pelosi’s House, and whether they will allow this to be voted on. And so the narrative would be, Pelosi and the Democrats are protecting their fake president. Partisan politics. We know who really won the election. What are they trying to hide - let it on the House floor for a vote.

The result will be parallel interpretations about what constituted a “free and fair” election. My friend, American democracy is not long for this world, once we get to that stage.

638

Most Republicans express their disagreement with Trump…by quitting or retiring early. We’re witnessing the Nazification of an American political party.

639

Exactly. If you can ignore your state’s voters’ wishes for POTUS, you sure as hell can ignore them for Representative from Dipshitville.

640

I see this:

The superintendent, on his or her own motion or upon petition of any candidate or political party, may order the recount of ballots for a particular precinct or precincts, for one or more offices in which it shall appear that a discrepancy or error, although not apparent on the face of the returns, has been made. The recount shall be held at any time prior to the certification of the consolidated returns by the superintendent. Before the recount is held, the superintendent must give notice in writing to each candidate and the county chairman of each party or body affected by the recount. Each candidate may be present in person at the recount, or be represented by one person. Each political party or body may send two representatives to be present at the recount. If the recount shows the original count was in error, the returns and all papers being prepared by the superintendent shall be corrected accordingly.

Candidates for a federal or state office (including candidates for a state house or state senate office) may petition the Secretary of State for a recount when it appears there is an error or discrepancy in the election results. At his or her discretion, the Secretary of State may order a recount in the county, or counties, encompassing the district.

NOTE: A recount, as described above, is at the discretion of the superintendent. Should a recount be requested by a losing candidate and there does not appear to be any errors on the face of the results, then the superintendent may refuse to recount the election.

https://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/CandidateTrainingGuide.pdf

I’m going to assume that GA’s ‘audit’ satisfied their Superintendent that no requisite errors exist.

I take this to mean that GA is akin to MI at this point: grave threats (or video of them in, say, compromising positions with livestock) against the state officials and the last-minute-Elector game, “only.”

641


Band name!

Ozzy Ghouliani & the Cuckoo Coup