• The forum will be going down at about 5 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing loyalist electors

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,799
Reaction score
6,686
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A fascist as a fascist does, he can't help his fascist fingers from the fascist cookie jar.



The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing electors who would vote for the president in the Electoral College even if he loses, according to a report by The Atlantic.
Election experts have said that moves by state legislatures to appoint their own slate of presidential electors after the fact would violate federal law.
The Trump campaign's plan would focus on swing states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, The Atlantic reported.



The Interregnum allots 35 days for the count and its attendant lawsuits to be resolved. On the 36th day, December 8, an important deadline arrives.

At this stage, the actual tabulation of the vote becomes less salient to the outcome. That sounds as though it can’t be right, but it is: The combatants, especially Trump, will now shift their attention to the appointment of presidential electors.

December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,933
Reaction score
34,004
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They're looking to trigger the civil war they've been itching for, huh? I sure can't think of a better way to do it then to openly steal an election like that. They must truly hate American democracy. They want their tinpot fascist to exact revenge on 'the left' for all the imagined slights Fox sold them.

I'd say "watch them make up excuses if they actually move to do this", except things will be bad enough that we'll have greater concerns than what Trumpists say to excuse the havoc they created.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,134
Reaction score
13,362
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
They're looking to trigger the civil war they've been itching for, huh? I sure can't think of a better way to do it then to openly steal an election like that. They must truly hate American democracy. They want their tinpot fascist to exact revenge on 'the left' for all the imagined slights Fox sold them.

I'd say "watch them make up excuses if they actually move to do this", except things will be bad enough that we'll have greater concerns than what Trumpists say to excuse the havoc they created.
They do their classic appeal to authority. He can do it, therefore it’s not illegal and it’s not wrong. If you are offended, concerned, or say Trump killed democracy, they will gaslight you like always. Just another day in America where libs are having a meltdown over nothing
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
21,705
Reaction score
10,414
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
More bullshit from The Atlantic?
 

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
10,823
Reaction score
1,928
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Reminds me of the "National Popular Vote" movements to give electors to people who lose state votes. Neither is a particularly good idea.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,761
Reaction score
7,806
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I do have a thread on this.
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
45,019
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reminds me of the "National Popular Vote" movements to give electors to people who lose state votes. Neither is a particularly good idea.

We really need to come up with a system where, say, if one candidate got less votes than his opponent, he would still win.

Use it in State elections too.
 

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
10,823
Reaction score
1,928
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We really need to come up with a system where, say, if one candidate got less votes than his opponent, he would still win.

Use it in State elections too.
I agree it is hard to elect someone when more people vote against a candidate than for them. When it happens to all the candidates in an election, some sort of fall back/tie breaker should trigger.
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,799
Reaction score
6,686
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Your video was removed from the server (thought It might not have been when I posted, however.....) I didn't see anything in your title that indicated to me it was about the recent ploy by time Trump to install loyalist electors. Had you done that, I would have seen that my post was redundant and I wouldn't have posted it.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,761
Reaction score
7,806
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Your video was removed from the server (thought It might not have been when I posted, however.....) I didn't see anything in your title that indicated to me it was about the recent ploy by time Trump to install loyalist electors. Had you done that, I would have seen that my post was redundant and I wouldn't have posted it.

Thanks, I added a replacement video but can't edit the OP. It's worth watching, though no one has apparently.
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,799
Reaction score
6,686
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thanks, I added a replacement video but can't edit the OP. It's worth watching, though no one has apparently.

If it's maddow, I think I saw the episode, but I'll check it out.
How to you replace a video if you are past the edit 20 minute deadline?
 

AmNat

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
5,778
Reaction score
1,507
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A fascist as a fascist does, he can't help his fascist fingers from the fascist cookie jar.



The Trump campaign is weighing a postelection strategy that would bypass the results in key swing states by installing electors who would vote for the president in the Electoral College even if he loses, according to a report by The Atlantic.
Election experts have said that moves by state legislatures to appoint their own slate of presidential electors after the fact would violate federal law.
The Trump campaign's plan would focus on swing states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, The Atlantic reported.




The Interregnum allots 35 days for the count and its attendant lawsuits to be resolved. On the 36th day, December 8, an important deadline arrives.

At this stage, the actual tabulation of the vote becomes less salient to the outcome. That sounds as though it can’t be right, but it is: The combatants, especially Trump, will now shift their attention to the appointment of presidential electors.

December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
I'm glad to hear they're making a contingency plan. It's good to prepare for all possibilities.
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
15,799
Reaction score
6,686
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm glad to hear they're making a contingency plan. It's good to prepare for all possibilities.

A contingency plan for what? If Trump doesn't win and fraud isn't not found on any scale to affect the election?

That is the contingency Trump is planning for, to subvert the election.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,761
Reaction score
7,806
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How to you replace a video if you are past the edit 20 minute deadline?

Like I said, I couldn't edit the OP, I added a post with the new video.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
24,516
Reaction score
12,740
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's really scary that so many people see nothing wrong with this kind of stunt. Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it morally or ethically right.

Where are the morals, integrity and personal responsibility the right claim to value?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,933
Reaction score
34,004
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
More bullshit from The Atlantic?

It must be really easy to defend a politician you want to defend when anything negative reported about him automatically goes in the trash . . .


Send that thinking 50 years back in time and Nixon skates. It's all the more troubling since virtually all of these things end up getting confirmed. Trump releasing an edited-down memo (no it wasn't a transcript) of the Ukraine call, confirming the allegations. Trump arranging a payoff to a porn star he raw dogged right after his wife gave birth to her anchor baby. Trump lying about COVID to keep people happy with him. On and on and on. Trump obstructing justice. It all ends up being true.

The one exception is Mueller saying all elements BUT explicit agreement were there for criminal conspiracy with Russia. Not a great defense of a guy.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
54,061
Reaction score
19,739
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Reminds me of the "National Popular Vote" movements to give electors to people who lose state votes. Neither is a particularly good idea.
The "National Popular Vote" wants to end the electoral college and elect our Presidents by popular vote so that everybody's vote counts equally. Unlike today where candidates only go to swing States and voters in Montana get 10 times the representation of those in California.
 

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
10,823
Reaction score
1,928
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The "National Popular Vote" wants to end the electoral college and elect our Presidents by popular vote so that everybody's vote counts equally. Unlike today where candidates only go to swing States and voters in Montana get 10 times the representation of those in California.
And if a presidential candidate can not even get a majority of the votes in the nation; they still deserve to be president even if over 50% of the country voted against them? Sounds awful.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
54,061
Reaction score
19,739
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And if a presidential candidate can not even get a majority of the votes in the nation; they still deserve to be president even if over 50% of the country voted against them? Sounds awful.
That's what we have now with Trump. Trump got 46% of the votes in 2016 and nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary. The winner of the popular vote is the choice of most of the people. It is how every other free Country elects their leaders. A minority President and a minority run Senate is why we are in the mess we are now. Montana should not have the same number of Senators as California either.
 

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
10,823
Reaction score
1,928
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That's what we have now with Trump. Trump got 46% of the votes in 2016 and nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary. The winner of the popular vote is the choice of most of the people. It is how every other free Country elects their leaders.
Most of the people voted for someone other than Hillary...
 
Top Bottom