653
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
653 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4263 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With Democrats in control of the Senate and White House during the transition, and such a narrow margin of Republican control in the House, I can't really see how denying the election results without court-admissible evidence ends with Trump in power. That said, it could still result in violence.
It will result in violence, that's going to cause problems. Also, weakening faith in our institutions, and voting processes is very problematic for the long term.
Violence kicks the issue to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court -- now packed with not only a fascist majority, but with no less than three of them having worked on Bush's side of Bush v. Gore! -- coronates Trump.
Nothing in that article suggests that the violence was what kicked it to the Supreme Court, and I don't think that's a sound assumption to make. If their plan is to replicate 2000, they're putting in a lot of work that will hinge on a very unlikely situation.
They're trying to do the Brooks Brothers Riot, Jan 6, and brand-new tactics all at once.
I think one idea this time is to have enough states not certify the results to force a vote for president where each state gets a single vote. Since there are more Republican states they vote in Trump. Not sure what safeguards there are against states that decide not to certify even if they don't have proof, or what role courts play in that scenario.
The thing is, that was the plan in 2020, and the reason it didn't happen was because Pence was supposed to refuse to count the electoral college due to the "confusion" caused by the fake electors. He'd then call for the "1 vote per state" sham. Now, Kamala Harris is in charge of that process.
I thought states needed to certify before it got to Congress? This would be not sending any results period so the VP isn't involved yet. Least that's my understanding.
Well there's nothing in the constitution or law that says "if the electoral college is too gunked up to work, we go to a single vote per state." The Electoral Count Act of 1887 lays out rules for how it's supposed to be done. The plan in 2020 was for Mike Pence to claim the ECA was unconstitutional and throw it to a 1 vote per state assembly, since the extra (fake) electors from some states were muddying the waters. He didn't do it because his lawyers and advisors convinced him that he didn't have that power under the law.
I'm no expert, but it seems like best they can do by refusing to certify at the state level is probably just to slow things down. There's really no viable way that gumming up the works will end with Trump in the White House without having actually won.
According to Wikipedia a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win, if no one gets 270 votes then it goes to the other vote. All I'm saying is one avenue I've read about is they are trying to have enough people in place to ensure the Democratic candidate can't get the electoral votes to win to force the house to vote by not certifying their states's results.
I'm not saying it's likely or possible, that's beyond my knowledge of the process so I really have no clue, but that's slightly different than the VP not certifying the votes though it's the same end result.