They have gone through all this trouble to gain the ability to delegitimize elections, so why would they even bother to use it? There is as much chance of them using this to steal power as there is for a conman/blowhard tv show host/molester of women to become President of the United States!
It needs to happen, and sooner than later…
I agree with the sentiment, but it isn’t possible. The split in the US isn’t region vs. region, it’s urban vs rural.
Which is part of why it is so frustrating to have to deal with so many conservatives as tho they were rational, lucid adults.
And this is why I take a “keep minding the store” attitude, just like I did during the post election day, pre-inauguration period. I found the legal and practical realities of Trump finding any means of overturning the election to be such that I did not think there was any chance he really could. But it’s an important enough matter you don’t trust that to chance, so you keep your eyes on it. Same for the process of certification in 2022 etc. The textual reality of these laws doesn’t actually scare me that much, but it’s still worth minding the store.

I agree with the sentiment, but it isn’t possible. The split in the US isn’t region vs. region, it’s urban vs rural.
I disagree, I’m someone who has moved somewhat into the “tentatively in favor of some sort of slow negotiated breakup” of the country; and I think we recognize the reality there will be red and blue states. Some people within those states won’t be happy, the reds in blue states and the blues in red states. Those people should be in any negotiated breakup be given the option to move to the other side freely at least once so the most recalcitrant types on each side have an “out.”
I keep wondering how (or whether) section 2 of the 14th Amendment will affect things should a state legislature refuse to certify the popular vote winner.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. 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.
(Of course, the “male citizens” and “21 years of age” have been subsequently amended.)
If the state legislature throws out the vote and appoints its own electors, does that mean that they could lose all Congressional representation?

If the state legislature throws out the vote and appoints its own electors, does that mean that they could lose all Congressional representation?
None of these states is literally taking away the right to vote; they’re just throwing up absurd hurdles to voting and laying the groundwork to interpret the outcomes in favor of their preferred candidates.
But even if their actions could be interpreted as unlawfully denying the right to vote, who would enforce the expulsion of their Congresspeople? The executive branch they (presumably) helped elect?

None of these states is literally taking away the right to vote
Not necessary; note the “…in any way abridged…” language in the amendment. There might be room for arguing that administrative arrangements designed to make voting an impractically difficult PITA (but still theoretically available) for the “wrong” people does not meet the definition of “abridged”, but outright ignoring votes en masse is a rather more clearcut case. I suppose they could argue that they deserve only a partial penalty because they only abridged the voting rights of the people who voted for actual election winner.
Good combination of UID and post.

If the state legislature throws out the vote and appoints its own electors, does that mean that they could lose all Congressional representation?

But even if their actions could be interpreted as unlawfully denying the right to vote, who would enforce the expulsion of their Congresspeople? The executive branch they (presumably) helped elect?

I suppose they could argue that they deserve only a partial penalty because they only abridged the voting rights of the people who voted for actual election winner.
But that isn’t my point. My point is, say this Constitutional clause were invoked. Who would enforce it? Who would literally say to the representatives from those states, “Sorry, you can’t come in because your state legislature committed this Constitutional violation”? Who would physically evict them from the Capitol?

But that isn’t my point. My point is, say this Constitutional clause were invoked. Who would enforce it? Who would literally say to the representatives from those states, “Sorry, you can’t come in because your state legislature committed this Constitutional violation”? Who would physically evict them from the Capitol?
It would be up to the House as a whole. They can refuse to seat representatives for whatever reason. Unfortunately, there’s no precedent for it ever being enforced. It should have been enforced during Jim Crow to reduce the representation of a number of Southern states and it never was.
I don’t have a strong opinion on 2022, but I think there are enough not-full-in Republican Trumpist judges for us to get by. (Although the GOP might just win the Congress legitimately.)
As Trump found out, it is extremely hard to steal the presidential without full buy-in from the vice-president. And DJT is both determined to run again, health allowing, and way past his political sell-by date. So unless Kamala Harris is planning to switch parties, I think we are safe for 2024.
Destroying democracy takes longer than some here think.

That paragraph stuck in my mind as well. Is “there is no official will of the voters before certification by the legislature” a preexisting, legally recognized thing? It seems sound on first glance, but I’m hesitant to instantly declare that it’s one of those “Founding Fathers never thought the government would be dishonorable” loopholes without making sure.
It’s true that the Founders didn’t envision some of the recent events. But the entire purpose of the Constitution was to chain down the government, precisely because they didn’t trust it.
It’s at least one factor of the current political divide that a greater number of voters are swinging towards “government action as a force for good.” That appears to be a fairly common approach across the Atlantic but continues to draw forceful backlash domestically.
It’s difficult even for a progressive like me to trust the government unequivocally. I see our present representatives (who are poorly representative by design) unduly influenced by the wealthiest donors and not in the peoples’ best interest.
A big part of the issue is that the constitution was written because a lot of the most influential thinkers and politicians realized that the US needed more centralized power than ut had in the articles of confederation, but there was a combination of half-baked ideas on how to do that while protecting state sovereignty and there were also incomplete compromises between people with different ideas about how much power they were ok with giving the feds.
The lack of certainty and determinism with some aspects of presidential elections is a major negative rather than a positive when it comes to protecting states from federal overreach. If people start really testing these limits the end result wont be a headless federal government that allows states to reassert control, itll be an unrestrained president who was essentially appointed by one or two state to rule over the rest and has significantly less reason to fear being democratically removed from office.