I’d propose a counter scenario.
What if the military code of conduct, the belief in the constitution, and the love of America was so firmly impressed on both the junior and senior officers in the Pentagon that they decided that the destruction of America needed to be stopped at all costs?
I’m sure that if several infantry, mechanized, and/or air cav divisions suddenly decided on an impromptu tour of the White House, the gate wouldn’t exactly be able to stop them.
Personally, I’d be heart broken… and while shaking my head I’d probably ask most poignantly, “…would you like more wine, Dear…?”
I very much doubt it would be legal according to the state constitutions for any state to change its mind in the middle of an election as to how it would select its electors.
But even if so, that wouldn’t meet the thread’s hypothetical; because that presumes Biden wins the electoral college. In your hypothetical, he’d be prevented from doing so.
Another election to look at for parallels was 1876, when the Democrats essentially gave the election to the Republicans in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. Tilden won the popular vote by a large margin, but 3 states had disputed results. In the end a political compromise was arranged under controversial conditions, a true backroom deal.
Some of the answers seem to pursue the question of what is proper and/or legal. Why?
The present-day Republican Party has turned from extreme mischief and malice to blatant criminality. Trump and his enablers are already illegally refusing Orders of Subpoena. They held up judicial appointments under Obama and hurried to help Trump pack the courts with judges expected to go easy on their crimes. Most of the American public is ignorant or confused about all this. Mueller — the highly respected former FBI Director — finds that Trump obstructed justice? The DoJ launches an investigation into … Mueller, Comey and Hillary; and the Senate goes along.
The country is being run for the benefit of big corporations, the super-rich, and specific criminal friends of well-connected Gopsters. This isn’t just a few multi-billion-dollar deals we’re talking about: the stakes riding on the occupation of the W.H. are enormous. The 2017 tax cut represented a transfer to the super-rich in the amount of, believe it or not, several Trillions of Dollars. With four more years they expect to get much more. The stakes are enormous. If they think they have a decent shot at stealing the election, they will.
OP understands all this. With the GOP sinking to new depths of depravity every day, a cheated election is not an unlikely result. He asks What will the Dems do about it?
I think there will be huge anger from many Dems, but the Fox Potatoes will all laugh in unison. What will citizens think? The average American never was very smart, and is getting stupider every day. Soldiers will do as they’re told. With 65% of white males supporting Trump, I wouldn’t count on help there.
If RBG is still alive, Chief Roberts might vote for democracy. But with *trillions *of dollars at stake there’s probably already a bounty on RBG’s head. I expect there to be five despicable scum on Scotus by December 2020.
Because the scenario in the OP posited that the Supreme Court upheld whatever it was. I.e. it was legal according to the highest court in the land.
Then I guess you’re screwed.
If the Supreme Court gets to decide, even if they are making it up as they go along, and it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says but only what the Supremes think it should say, then them’s the rules. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Of course none of this will happen - it’s all hysterics. Trump has probably better than a 50-50 chance of re-election, although it’s early days. But [ul][li]Biden wins in a popular landslide, []Bid wins the electoral college in a landslide, []mumble mumble, []The Supreme Court rules that mumble mumble was legal,[/ul]then the logical next step is [ul][]wait for the Democratic heads to finish exploding[/ul]and then impeach. [/li]
If enough Democratic heads are left in the House.
Because, bad as things are, they’re not that bad. It’d take more than four years to ease the USA into a place where it’s possible to be as blatantly illegal as you’re positing. Yes, there’s an awful lot of crap going on; but while it’s in new versions, it’s not new crap. It’s the same old crap coming around and around again. It may kill the country eventually, but it hasn’t done it yet. So let’s get out and vote, instead of deciding that it’s useless. (And, in the meantime, demand paper ballot backups if your area hasn’t got them already.)
Plus which, if it does get that bad, Biden or whoever still won’t win the popular vote and the electoral college both in a landslide, with everyone or even any significant number of people allowed to know that he did so, but then be stopped at that point. He just wouldn’t be allowed to win; or wouldn’t be allowed to run in the first place. There are genuine things to worry about; but the particular scenario you’re positing isn’t one of them.
Back in the early 1960s there was a ton of political thrillers about this or that person double-crossing some other person and someone uncovering a vast plot to take over the government of the United States of America. You may have heard of the Manchurian Candidate, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.
I suggest everyone with one of these wild conspiracy theories start here and then go through every “Customers who viewed this item also viewed. . .” until they find their question fully discussed.
Nitpick. There is a federal law (cite available on request) that is called the Safe Harbor Provision for electoral votes. If a state assigns its electors based upon its state law in effect at the time of election day and certifies its results, then that result is binding upon Congress and any debate about the validity of those EVs are out of order.
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held (in part) that the Florida recount procedure was a change in law by the state judiciary taking it outside the Safe Harbor provision, and struck it down as it was contrary to the intent of the people who wished to take advantage of the Safe Harbor Provision.
Still, there is nothing that would prevent any state legislature from simply declaring, after the state popular vote didn’t go the way it wanted, that it would appoint the electors for its preferred candidate. Then that state would be outside the Safe Harbor provision and a challenge to those votes would be in order during the Senate certification of votes.
But the problem with the OP is the undefined “can’t cook up a scenario.” If it gets 5 votes from the Supreme Court, it cannot be that frivolous of an argument.
Again, the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal cases. That is why the only modern litigation over exceptions to that clause involve whether something is a criminal prohibition or not (e.g., sex offender registry). There is no plausible argument that the relevant election laws are criminal laws.
There may well be other constitutional problems with changing the outcome after the election, such as an equal protection problem (which was the basis for the ruling in Bush v. Gore). But it is not an ex post facto problem.
Is there a ruling that the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal cases, or a ruling on a non-criminal case that was allowed to stand even though it was * ex post facto*? Or has the question never been asked?
Seeing as how the POTUS is the commander in chief, what’s to stop him from commanding the military to suppress any effort to remove him from power, regardless of the election results? And what could an aggrieved citizenry do about it?
They got to rule on whether the Florida recount got to continue or not.
To the best of my knowledge, they didn’t issue an opinion on whether they helped steal an election.
The annual Joint Statistical Meetings.
I figured that if Velocity had to ask, there was a great deal of evidence he hadn’t been exposed to concerning his assertion, which was the reason for my omission.
You win the gold star.
Been both at various times. Been a professional statistician for slightly longer than I’ve been on this board.
This. There is absolutely no question in my mind that * they have already stolen an election. * Without Comey and the Russians, Trump would not have won, and the GOP specifically aided both of these illegal interventions. (And continues to obstruct any attempt to keep them from happening again.)
Donald Trump is not currently the legitimate President. What have the Dems done? Absolutely freaking nothing.
If I may junior-mod a bit, the thread was not at all about the likelihood of such a stolen election happening - it’s highly unlikely that an election could be taken away from a candidate who’s got 400 EVs and a double-digit lead in the popular vote. My question was - ***if ***it happened, what would or could the party that got jobbed, do about it?
(We’ve debated alien invasions from space and zombie apocalypses on this message board before, so please don’t say “I won’t debate hypotheticals that are too far-fetched”)
Some of the answers seem to pursue the question of what is proper and/or legal. Why?