Trump's plan to "bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states"

[Miles Archer]

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.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

[GeorgeGist]

1. So it goes.

[hadEnuf]

2. If there is a way for Trump to do something like this, he will.

No question.

[safeinOhio]

3. One Party Rule.

The final stage.

[Rule of Claw]

4. Ya that is not

a concern. We have the Gov. mansion in MI, WI, and PA. And after what Trump did to DeSantis don't expect him to be willing to end his political career for him.

[roamer65]

17. Governors don't decide it.

It is a purely state legislature function.

[Rule of Claw]

19. Maybe maybe not, a matter for courts perhaps.

But they will make sure that the vote is counted. They try to overrule valid votes, well, ya. Suffice to say ugly is an appropriate word for such a scenario.

[roamer65]

22. Extremely ugly.

It will tear the country apart.

[Grins]

34. Civil war. NM

[TommyCelt]

49. Unfortunately...

I agree. This would lead to the Union's Second Civil War.

[onenote]

33. the actions of the state legislature are subject to veto by the governor.

[DownriverDem]

41. And Michigan's

state legislature is repub controlled. The Dems control the Governorship, Lt Governor, Attorney General & Secretary of State.

[roamer65]

54. I think we are going to take the state house this time.

[Turbineguy]

5. Trump knows he's for the slammer.

Unless he makes himself president for life.

[Evolve Dammit]

42. That is a huge part of this. He has limited future unless he stays in power. Any way he can.

[not_the_one]

59. He has ways to leave the country.

He has those plans in place. He only has to decide WHEN he tucks tail...

[Nexus2]

6. More Electoral College BS

God, what a F'ed up bass ackward system

[Quemado]

21. +1

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[niyad]

7. Mango mussolini thinks he is invincible. So many dictators make that erroneous assumption.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. This is what our Founders gave us

A system setup for and by men of property that appeared to be a democracy until you got into the details where the final say on power was held by men of property who knew how to rig the system.

It's just like the stock market. The masses are always the fools.

[jayschool2013]

14. Boom!

Truth. Thanks.

[Harker]

16. Yes. The idea being that

a peasant could be easily corrupted by a buck or a beer to sell a vote... unlike a man of means.

That worked out great.

[PatrickforO]

37. This is why part of what needs to be addressed is end-stage capitalism.

The system we have now is not geared for our benefit, at all. In fact, if you look at the constant reductions in government services to the American people, and the fact that individual taxpayers pay in $0.86 out of every dollar collected in federal income tax while corporations only pay in $0.06, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion we are taxed without representation.

[PRETZEL]

9. Sorry, pure bs

I think one of his lawyers may need to explain this to him.

At least for PA, the Sec. of State (a Dem) will be the one to certify the election results and which party controls the electoral votes. The state legislature could bitch and complain all they want, but the only way for them to even have any say would be to sue the Sec. of State, which I don't see any way shape or form that the state Supreme Court would even entertain that.

And the process won't even begin with them. The Trump campaign would have to call for a recount (assuming the margin of victory is greater than .5%). They can either do a targeted recount (like Jill Stein did in 2016) or a state wide recount. Either way, it would be up to the campaign to pay for any recount first.

If a recount is done and Biden is still declared the victor, then that's it. I really don't see where the legislature would have standing in this type of lawsuit.

[getagrip_already]

12. I'm not convinced....

In any normal year this would have blown up in their faces. This year the press is playing a game of weighted positions, looking at it as though there really are two sides to consider. That in itself tells you that illegal means are being normalized.

The AG can't operate in a vacuum, and neither can a governor. They work under a system of rules and boundaries which, if violated brazenly and forcibly wold go to the courts to resolve, and ultimately scotus.

A 6-3 scotus where not even a potential swing vote by roberts would matter (though he has shown nothing but scorn for voting rights anyway).

If this gets messy, it goes to scotus. We would lose every decision on a partisan basis. No middle ground.

Just as in Florida, what seems to be a states rights issue of state law and state constitution falls away and is laid bare to the exercise of power.

The ONLY path we have is for people who intend to vote by mail to get their ballots in ASAP. Using drop boxes where possible. We can't risk any ballots coming in after the 3rd being seized or spoiled by the courts.

Nothing will work the way it has in the past. No decisions will go our way.

[ecstatic]

10. This would only work if we went along with it

And if we did quietly accept such a coup due to a long forgotten technicality, then fuck it, we deserve it.

[getagrip_already]

13. said millions of people who were killed at the whims of insane leaders........

"We" can only try to get ahead of this. "We" won't have the power to accept or not accept it in the end. Because millions of us will die in not very pleasant ways when we don't accept it.

But we NEVER deserved it.

[ecstatic]

15. Unfortunately we might face the toughest decision

of our lives: liberty or death. It doesn't mean we have to go charging at the White House or anything crazy like that, but at the very least, we would need to be moving forward with a secession plan, which in of itself, could be a deadly endeavor depending on how tRump Co decides to handle it.

It really sucks, but in my opinion, silence suggests consent and/or complicity.

[dalton99a]

11. Kick

[roamer65]

18. That would be the end of the United States.

CA and NY and New England secession will happen under this scenario.

[mdelaguna]

50. True. And refuse to pay federal taxes en masse

[highplainsdem]

20. I caught a few minutes of one of Mark Levin's radio shows a week or two ago where he was talking

about this. These authoritarian RWNJs have no respect for the Constitution and American democracy.

[Evolve Dammit]

44. None at all. Power corrupts absolutely.

[Fullduplexxx]

23. Well the dems better learn how to do it and the set it up for the next election

[Demsrule86]

28. Make mores sense to show up in person and vote. We won't be allowed to secede and all

this talk is silly...

[LiberalFighter]

24. Then there will be a revolt to take back the country.

[ancianita]

27. Will there? Only 3% own guns. What do the other 97% do when labeled "terrorists" & "anarchists"?

Americans. Are they who they think they are?

[ancianita]

25. This article is an important unpacking of how a tyrant tweaks democracy to unfold a coup.

[demmiblue]

29. K&R

[bluestarone]

30. IF RUMP and the rethuglicons DO THIS then

Maybe our only option is for NY AG. to indict a sitting president? It has to be decided. Could be the last shot fired to rid us of this fucking nightmare!

[TommyCelt]

52. If trump does this...

...do you think he will pay any mind to an indictment from the NY AG?

[bluestarone]

53. NY. STATE court ( i'm thinking)

Yes i do if STATE the charges are in the State courts. Tax evasion money laundering as so on! His whole family!

[ancianita]

31. Buying legislators' decisions has been the corporatist game all along. Trump is just the pretext

for the longer game -- own America.

Corporatist fascists have their chance to shred the Constitution and that's what they're about to do.

Secession requires major lawyers, guns and major money with global bank backup.
A "succession plan" and a bus token will get us across town. This won't happen.

More likely is state by state guerilla resistance, already labeled "anarchist" and "terrorist."

That kind of war of attrition has to have media, most of which is corporate, on its side.

[SKKY]

32. The Supreme court just unanimously ruled that this scenario couldn't happen...

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-faithless-electors-lawsheres-how-they-voted-2016-1515740

Am I reading the ruling wrong?

[Thekaspervote]

39. I remember reading a similar article. After reading the article it looks like dotard can't do that

Any legal experts here care to weigh in?

[Grins]

35. ANOTHER reason to dump the electoral college.

That these traitors are actually considering this...!

[iluvtennis]

38. + 1. nt

[droidamus2]

36. How about

If the opposition to what the Republicans were doing is enough as it should be one tool that could be used is a general strike. Sure you would still have the die hard conservatives that would continue working but if enough people refused to work it would bring the eoonomy to a halt and a lot of those big money contributors would start losing big money. At that point I think you could generate enough pressure to keep them from moving forward with their plan. At least we can hope they wouldn't.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

40. Won't happen. GOP will abandon him because Trump is a useful idiot to them, hence the court play.

Don’t underestimate that a lot of those clowns would love to be free of him but don’t want to upset the lunatic base. An election loss and a 6-3 Supreme Court that can neuter a lot of Democratic policy and lead to a more competent Republican asshole in 2024 is an outcome with which they’d be quietly pleased - I dare say Mitch & co would be more motivated to do all they can to contest and save a couple of senate seats than this presidency.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

43. He can't do that.

Each political party in each state selects its own slate of electors. There is not one slate that is then supposed to vote for whichever candidate got the majority vote in that state. There are two or more slates, party loyalists all of them. Which is why "faithless electors" are so galling.

I think it was Kanye West who got thrown off one ballot for not having a properly selected slate of electors.

Trump cannot simply appoint his own electors. That's not how it works.

[Thekaspervote]

47. Oh gosh..thx for weighing in! This just threw me, but you're absolutely right

[Laelth]

56. Trump can't, but the state legislatures can.

And they can choose Republicans, if they want, without regard to the popular vote in their state.

-Laelth

[angrychair]

57. Not exactly true

it has never happened and there is Constitutional grounds to do it
Here is a NY Mag article that breaks it all out:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/could-legislatures-hijack-the-2020-presidential-election.html

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

58. In theory they could, but in reality it has never happened.

I don't see Republican legislatures doing that. Heck, most state legislatures aren't in session this time of year.

[angrychair]

60. I hope your right

this has me more freaked out than anything else.
I'm usually pretty calm about all this but this actually got my anxiety level up.

Not so much that I doubt republicans would do it but what that act would do to the country has staggering implications.

An act that could legitimately led to civil war, on a Dem/reb divide

[BadgerMom]

64. I am where you are.

I woke up this morning and an earlier post led me to the article. My day was ruined.

This could explain why so many seem so calm in the face of a loss. I absolutely believe Republicans would do this. The Wisconsin legislature, for instance, has proven their anti-democratic bent over and over.

The idea that this ploy is Constitutional literally makes me feel sick to my stomach. What good do my small donations and postcard-writing matter? What does my vote matter? (Don’t lecture. Of course, I’ll vote.) If this can be done-and apparently it can-we have never been a democracy. We have been a sunny, ignorant autocracy. The blindfolds are being taken off.

IF we avoid this outcome, I have found the issue I will spend the rest of my life working on-getting rid of the electoral college, a racist, democracy-stealing monstrosity.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. You can throw norms out the window.

And, according to the reporting, they are already pretty much openly talking about doing just that.

Don’t forget, as bat shit insane as the National Republicans are, there are hundreds of LouiS Ghomerts and Steve Kings filling seats in state legislatures around the country.

40 years of ginning up their kooky constituents has left the inmates running the asylums.

I wish I had your optimism. Anything short of an Election Day drubbing of trump is going to be a mess.

[johnthewoodworker]

45. Republicans are a cult of personality. All actions that help pussy grabber are good.

Popular vote vs. electoral college, doesn't matter. All republicans will support any action that insures pussy grabber maintains the presidency.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. He would have to succeed in multiple states in order to win the EC- not likely nt

[melman]

48. This is a very long article but well worth reading

The potential outcome described seems terrifyingly likely.

[brooklynite]

51. North Carolina, Arizona and Pennsylvania State Houses are in play...

...if our candidates have enough financial support.

[BannonsLiver]

55. Meh

Last edited Wed Sep 23, 2020, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[scipan]

61. If we take the Senate

Trump will not be able to do a lot, at least legally. In that case Republicans may not want to go along with him. I hope and think.

[treestar]

63. What swing state of blue state

is so captured by Republicans at state level that they would do this? Not to mention how pissed off that state's voters would be, given that the majority of them voted for Biden in the scenario.