Just spitballin' here, if some repub states delay vote....

[IowaGuy]

or don't hold election to mollify the orange ones ego, doesn't all that mean is they don't get to send electors to the electoral college?
How does that help any Republican? They also would not have people voted in that could legally sit in Congress not to mention the chaos within their own state governmental apparatus. Either Donnie is playing some kind of brilliant 6 dimensional chess I don't understand, or...he just didn't think this through and is blowing it all out of his ass.

[AndrewRN]

1. I vote on "Blowing it all out of his ass" n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Don't forget that Trump's term expires on January 20, 2021,

no matter when or whether there is an election.

[Bobstandard]

5. You meant January 20, 2021. Interesting concept...

If Trump delays election past the constitutionally mandated end of term he becomes the ex president. There is no provision for continuing in office after that date. Would some other method of selection then come into play? Perhaps the dreaded ‘each state gets one vote’ alternative we’ve been hearing about? Diabolical but frighteningly possible.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Fixed it.

If there's no new president and Trump's term expires, the job would go to the next person in the succession.

[Thekaspervote]

10. Which is the speaker of the house

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. But won't her term expire also if there are no elections at all?

Could get complicated. If there's no speaker, the job would go to the next person in line who still holds their office. That would be the president pro tem of the Senate, Chuck Grassley, who isn't up for re-election until 2022.

[dansolo]

15. Nancy would still be Speaker

Even if there was no election at all, Pelosi would remain Speaker until a new Congress is sworn in and a new Speaker elected. There are no term limits for Speaker, and the Speaker isn't required to even be a member of Congress.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. House members are elected for two years and their terms expire

per the Constitution on January 3, so Pelosi would no longer be a member of Congress on that date. However, the fact that the Speaker does not have to be a member of Congress - though that's never happened - could be the loophole.

[Dave in VA]

11. Exactly! And Pence's term also

Then the succession would go to the Speaker of the House...

OK, I'm good with that!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. If no federal elections are held, the speaker's term will also expire

on the second Monday in January. So under the Succession Act the job would go to the president pro tem of the Senate, Chuck Grassley, whose term won't have expired because he's not up for re-election unntil 2022.

[Layzeebeaver]

20. If that happens, then may (insert your favourite Deity) help us all

Grassley? Please no... Make the stupid stop...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. That would be galactically awful, wouldn't it?

Except that I was just reminded that technically the Speaker of the House doesn't have to be a member of Congress (though that's never actually happened), so even if Pelosi's term as a member of Congress expires, her position as Speaker wouldn't. At least it would be litigated.

[dchill]

3. I'm going with "didn't think this through..."

[roamer65]

4. No. It means the state legislatures vote on the slate of electors.

Just like Colorado in 1876. Colorado decided not to hold a vote and the state legislature chose the electors. It resulted in Rutherfraud Hayes being President.

With the amount of state legislatures under Repuke control, it would be a disaster for the republic.

[ret5hd]

6. The "6 dimensional chess" is the collapse...

of the federal govt.

Who’s pulling trumps strings? Putin. Putin feels the u.s. humiliated/caused the collapse of the ussr, which led to the member states splitting off. Putin wants the same thing for us...the original 13 colonies and 37 independent nation states.

Trump wants that too, but needs guidance/mentoring on how to accomplish that. The biggest hindrance to outright corruption/kleptocracy is a strong federal government.

Just my $.02

[unblock]

7. Date is set by federal law, so they can't delay the choosing of the electors

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2020, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

However, states could theoretically replace elections with gubernatorial appointments or some other method because the *manner* of choosing the electors is up to each state. In practice, though, canceling elections is politically very unpopular....


More plausible is that Republican secretaries of state refuse to certify the outcome of the election if Biden win (blaming "election irregularities", of course). The legislature could then pass a law declaring who the electors will be or specifying the method of choosing them.

Possibly, they fail to resolve this by December 14 (the date the electors actually vote for president and vice-president -- the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December) and that state simply forfeits its electors.

In the election is close enough, this could deprive Biden of a majority of certified electoral votes. If no candidate has a majority, the house (after the new Congress is seated) votes, but each state delegation only gets a single vote for this purpose. So California gets the same influence as Wyoming. Currently, republicans hold more state delegations, so donnie would win. Hopefully, we flip enough states in November to prevent this.

[dansolo]

17. This is false. Stop spreading misinformation.

If a state forfeits it's electors, then they don't count towards determining the majority. The only time where state delegates get involved is if there is a tie, or if a third candidate were to get enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from getting a majority.

[unblock]

22. "stop spreading misinformation" is rather harsh.

the whole of social interaction works better when people recognize the mistakes happen. politely pointing out the correct facts, ideally with a link or reference, works better than such accusations.

that said, thanks, i did check article ii section 1 and yes, it's a majority of *appointed* electors, so 270 isn't the magic number if some states don't appoint any or all of their possible electors.

however, the substantive points stand. it is possible that such shenanigans change the outcome of the election. biden might have a majority, but without a key state or two, donnie might have a majority of the smaller group of appointed electors. it is also distantly possible for the election to be thrown into the house without a tie or a major third party candidate if there are any faithless electors. alternatively, it's theoretically possible for a state to appoint electors and require them to vote for neither biden nor donnie. obviously this has never happened before and it's only theoretical, but it is possible. it could change a biden majority into a biden plurality, throwing the election into the house.

the faithless elector scenario is rather unlikely; it's rare enough already and has never changed the outcome, and the recent supreme court case makes it even more unlikely, but in theory at least, it's still possible.

[bluestarone]

19. Question here

Would the SC become involved in this at some point?

[unblock]

23. sure, they did in bush v. gore.

and i think it's a solid bet that this court would also find a way to throw the election to donnie if they could.

[moose65]

9. It wouldn't work, anyway

Elections take time to plan and administer. The states are already doing that. Early voting in some states will start in late September, I think.

Plus, remember that the three states that gave Trump the presidency - Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania- now have Democratic governors (and possibly Secretaries of State)?? There’s no way that a state would postpone the elections without the governor signing off on it.

Besides, didn’t I read that only Congress has the power to alter the election? No way will that happen!

[Thekaspervote]

12. Yes! Now... Could we all please just stop with he's going to cancel the election!!

[avebury]

18. Even if Trump thinks that he can stop a Presidential election he CANNOT

stop each State from holding state elections which would allow a state to vote for their US Representatives and US Senators (where it applies). I seriously doubt that he could keep Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected and the more he tries to money with the Federal Government, the better chances that Nancy Pelosi would be chosen to be Speaker again. Pelosi has proven that she is the most effective member of the House to deal with Trump.

All the Democrats need to do is work towards making sure that enough States have elections to hold onto the house (and hopefully take the Senate).

And just how pissed off do you think that he would make the American people?

[lettucebe]

24. Not how it works

States cannot decide to not hold the election.

[mcar]

25. Also means they can't elect state representatives

mayors, school board members, etc.