This isn't a new problem, it's one that has existed since the founding of the country. However, some states have passed amendments binding electors to the vote in that state. If a state has enough...
Team Trump could ask GOP-controlled state governments to choose electors, completely ignoring an unfavorable or uncertain popular vote, state and national Republican sources told Gellman.
This isn't a new problem, it's one that has existed since the founding of the country. However, some states have passed amendments binding electors to the vote in that state. If a state has enough GOP power to change the amendment to clench a Trump win, then that state will almost certainly have gone to Trump anyway.
To compound on this unlikelihood, that move seems a tad too bold, even for the GOP. But while I think I could be convinced that it isn't too bold for the 2020 GOP, I'm probably not going to be swayed that a state with an overwhelming enough GOP majority to change the state's constitution will not only go blue, but also subsequently change its constitution to bind electors from Biden to Trump.
Not necessarily true... If you look at the "snake chart" in the 538 model lots of swing states (eg GA, OH, NC, FL, AZ, PA, WI) have Republican-controlled state legislatures according to this. And...
If a state has enough GOP power to change the amendment to clench a Trump win, then that state will almost certainly have gone to Trump anyway.
Not necessarily true...
If you look at the "snake chart" in the 538 model lots of swing states (eg GA, OH, NC, FL, AZ, PA, WI) have Republican-controlled state legislatures according to this.
And I'm not aware of any states where a constitutional amendment requires electors to vote faithfully. 33 states have laws about it, but as far as I know none have it baked into the constitution. SCOTUS only just ruled this term that laws against faithless electors are even allowable.
I think there's a very real possibility of Bush v. Gore 2.0, with a Republican swing state legislature deciding to hand their state electors to Trump.
In an oft-forgotten aspect of the 2000 Florida recount, that actually happened:
Meanwhile, on December 6 the Republican-controlled Florida legislature convened a special session to appoint a slate of electors pledged to Bush, as the U.S. Constitution bestows upon state legislatures the duty to determine how its state's electors are appointed. On December 12, the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Florida House approved awarding the state's electoral votes to Bush, but the matter was moot after the Court's ruling.
This comes on the heels of his statement earlier today saying he may not have a peaceful transition of power, and that "We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer....
Barton Gellman (The Atlantic) reports that the Trump campaign has been discussing “contingency plans to bypass the election results and appoint local electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.” Citing the president’s baseless claims of fraud, Team Trump could ask GOP-controlled state governments to choose electors, completely ignoring an unfavorable or uncertain popular vote, state and national Republican sources told Gellman.
This comes on the heels of his statement earlier today saying he may not have a peaceful transition of power, and that "We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer. There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
Honestly I believe it. The brazenness of the open electioneering happening in the run-up right now is insane. Like...there are open bribes being offered to federal employees and medicare...
Honestly I believe it. The brazenness of the open electioneering happening in the run-up right now is insane. Like...there are open bribes being offered to federal employees and medicare recipients. Manipulation within the USPS has been already shown to be a possibility (getting ballots out late or returned late).
Most of the swing states have republican control as well, which opens up a wide swath of opportunity for voting booth fuckery in the key areas that matter most. If it is anything other than a blowout by biden it's going to be contested and they'll get it to the supreme court...where we know the outcome.
All in all this election is already a miserable affair.
The scenario described in the Atlantic article depends on the cooperation of Republican-controlled state legislatures in destroying the integrity of the election. Evidence that things are that far...
The scenario described in the Atlantic article depends on the cooperation of Republican-controlled state legislatures in destroying the integrity of the election. Evidence that things are that far gone and that Republicans are that coordinated in choosing chaos over defeat seems a bit slim?
I wouldn't take their words at face value. I mean, what politician would say that they have no intention of leaving (besides Trump, apparently)? Consider also this quote from the article: The...
I wouldn't take their words at face value. I mean, what politician would say that they have no intention of leaving (besides Trump, apparently)? Consider also this quote from the article:
"I can assure you it will be peaceful," Mr Graham told Fox News, but suggested a decision could go to the nation's top court. "If Republicans lose we will accept the result. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Joe Biden, I will accept that result.
The Supreme Court? Why should this election be a matter for the Supreme Court? If anything, I consider Graham's "assurance" evidence that the Republican party is preparing for a court battle to contest the election results, which feels especially nefarious given their commitment to instate another Supreme Court Justice before the election.
The 2000 presidential election was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court due to a near-tie vote in Florida resulting in lawsuits over vote-counting procedures. I don’t see it as particularly...
The 2000 presidential election was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court due to a near-tie vote in Florida resulting in lawsuits over vote-counting procedures.
I don’t see it as particularly likely to happen again, though, and I’m not sure it matters what McConnell says given that the Senate isn’t likely to play a role.
If you’re worried about this, you need to watch what’s going on in competitive state elections.
But how many US elections have ended up at the US Supreme Court? As far as I'm aware, Bush v Gore is the only US Presidential election to be decided by the Court. The fact that we're in a...
But how many US elections have ended up at the US Supreme Court? As far as I'm aware, Bush v Gore is the only US Presidential election to be decided by the Court. The fact that we're in a situation where that's not just possible but (in my opinion) probable worries me.
I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he sees this as two distinct possibilities: Biden wins, and it is not contested in the supreme court. Republicans will accept this. The result...
"If Republicans lose we will accept the result. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Joe Biden, I will accept that result."
I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he sees this as two distinct possibilities:
Biden wins, and it is not contested in the supreme court. Republicans will accept this.
The result is contested in the supreme court, and they rule Biden the winner. Graham will accept this.
His choice of words is still interesting, as they indicate other republicans may not accept a supreme court ruling in favour of Biden.
This isn't a new problem, it's one that has existed since the founding of the country. However, some states have passed amendments binding electors to the vote in that state. If a state has enough GOP power to change the amendment to clench a Trump win, then that state will almost certainly have gone to Trump anyway.
To compound on this unlikelihood, that move seems a tad too bold, even for the GOP. But while I think I could be convinced that it isn't too bold for the 2020 GOP, I'm probably not going to be swayed that a state with an overwhelming enough GOP majority to change the state's constitution will not only go blue, but also subsequently change its constitution to bind electors from Biden to Trump.
Not necessarily true...
If you look at the "snake chart" in the 538 model lots of swing states (eg GA, OH, NC, FL, AZ, PA, WI) have Republican-controlled state legislatures according to this.
And I'm not aware of any states where a constitutional amendment requires electors to vote faithfully. 33 states have laws about it, but as far as I know none have it baked into the constitution. SCOTUS only just ruled this term that laws against faithless electors are even allowable.
I think there's a very real possibility of Bush v. Gore 2.0, with a Republican swing state legislature deciding to hand their state electors to Trump.
In an oft-forgotten aspect of the 2000 Florida recount, that actually happened:
This comes on the heels of his statement earlier today saying he may not have a peaceful transition of power, and that "We wanna get rid of the ballots, and we'll have a very peaceful transfer. There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
Honestly I believe it. The brazenness of the open electioneering happening in the run-up right now is insane. Like...there are open bribes being offered to federal employees and medicare recipients. Manipulation within the USPS has been already shown to be a possibility (getting ballots out late or returned late).
Most of the swing states have republican control as well, which opens up a wide swath of opportunity for voting booth fuckery in the key areas that matter most. If it is anything other than a blowout by biden it's going to be contested and they'll get it to the supreme court...where we know the outcome.
All in all this election is already a miserable affair.
The scenario described in the Atlantic article depends on the cooperation of Republican-controlled state legislatures in destroying the integrity of the election. Evidence that things are that far gone and that Republicans are that coordinated in choosing chaos over defeat seems a bit slim?
On the contrary, evidence that Republicans are willing to stand up to Trump seems rather thin.
Rather than framing it as “standing up to Trump,” maybe ask how far they are willing to go to rig the election for him?
You called it
I wouldn't take their words at face value. I mean, what politician would say that they have no intention of leaving (besides Trump, apparently)? Consider also this quote from the article:
The Supreme Court? Why should this election be a matter for the Supreme Court? If anything, I consider Graham's "assurance" evidence that the Republican party is preparing for a court battle to contest the election results, which feels especially nefarious given their commitment to instate another Supreme Court Justice before the election.
The 2000 presidential election was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court due to a near-tie vote in Florida resulting in lawsuits over vote-counting procedures.
I don’t see it as particularly likely to happen again, though, and I’m not sure it matters what McConnell says given that the Senate isn’t likely to play a role.
If you’re worried about this, you need to watch what’s going on in competitive state elections.
But how many US elections have ended up at the US Supreme Court? As far as I'm aware, Bush v Gore is the only US Presidential election to be decided by the Court. The fact that we're in a situation where that's not just possible but (in my opinion) probable worries me.
I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he sees this as two distinct possibilities:
His choice of words is still interesting, as they indicate other republicans may not accept a supreme court ruling in favour of Biden.
Trump Wants You to Think You Can’t Get Rid of Him
The lawyer, Teri Kainfield, wrote a relevant counterpoint.
FTFY, you had the bracket/parenthesis backward.