A Solution To The Trump Elector Silliness If It Got That Far

[Rule of Claw]

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

We got that. that does not mean on a whim. the directions of appointment only count before an election.

BUT say they didn't. Say the courts lost their minds.

14th Amendment Section 2-

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

We find out how many 21 year-old males were disenfranchised, count them, create a ratio to their vote overall, and get the courts to REDUCE valid electors from said state.

In ANY state. Get it? Disenfranchised in FL? Reduce electors. Disenfranchised in AZ? Reduce electors. On and on it goes until the majority of available electors is determined. Only four hundred electors left?

Joe needs 201 Evs. Follow me?

[Miguelito Loveless]

1. I would expect Barr

arguing before the Kavanaugh Court that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, and Blacks be counted as 3/5s of a person. I see them upholding that view 5-4.

[Rule of Claw]

2. Seriously,

election law in PA is signed off by the Governor. There is no way a legislature could change said law without Governor approval. No court would allow it.

[Miguelito Loveless]

22. Can I have $10 for every court that has allowed things

“no court would allow”?

[Rule of Claw]

23. They would not even grant it Cert

[Thekaspervote]

3. You're joking right?

[Miguelito Loveless]

29. We are talking about Trump

[hedda_foil]

4. Have you read the full Barton Gelman article in The Atlantic?

All of your points are discussed and a lot more. It's well worth the time to read. Then come back and let us know what you think.

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

[Rule of Claw]

6. Adios MIO!

No laws change without a Governor's signature. The legislature of PA decided long ago to pass a law saying how electors in that state are appointed.

LONG AGO they chose to involve the Governor in the process, by said Governor signing off on law. They can't pass a law without a Governor nor can they invalidate one, so what court would let them choose the FREAKING President without a signature?

To wit-part of how they determined to appoint electors was to pass a LAW not a resolution involving the Governor's approval. Maybe had they passed a resolution before locking the Governor into the process it would work.

But the notion is fantasy.

[Doremus]

26. Read the article mentioned above.

I guarantee there are things in it few here have given any thought to.

[Rule of Claw]

27. I read it.

These are not credible concerns. The suggestion is outrageous, but he is essentially ensuring his nominee for the court will be delayed until after the election. Think about it-"Are you confirming (whomever) to assist Trump with his re-election gambit?" Gardner, Collins, Tillis, none of them want that tied to them.

Also no legit nominee would want that projected upon them.

It will likely be delayed.

[YessirAtsaFact]

7. I am not required to read all the sensational click bait that comes along

My duty is to donate all the money I can afford, take my opinions to that nasty rathole that is Facebook and post all the liberal information I can so maybe I sway a couple of other people.

Oh, yeah, and vote regardless of how many green-toothed hillbilly bullies are standing outside the polling place.

[Thekaspervote]

16. I know you addressed your comment to rule of claw..but I have read the whole article

And it does not cite law, there are a lot of scenarios played out that are I suppose possible. If they could make it all happen. Which is really a stretch especially considering the states involved. Yes, maybe FL with that nut case governor. But Fl alone still won’t win it for him.

Bottom line according to cook political dotard can’t get to 270 without winning all the toss up states, AZ, NC, Maine 2nd, GA and 40 more electoral votes from the lean dem column Fl, Mi, MN, Nebraska 2nd, NH, PA, WI. So he would have to win FL, MI and NH at the bare minimum, or some other combination as well.

The odds are just to far out there. Take a look at the 2nd link here that shows how states have voted over the last 24 yrs. all the real swing states PA, WI, MI, NH have only voted gop once.


Here are the links

https://cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/EC%20Ratings.072320.2.pdf
https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/63bc59bd-7b47-4c04-bd20-c6e7dbb9221f/1/publication-web-resources/pdf/Presidential_Voting_by_State_(1992-2016).1.pdf


Now tell me again why you think any of these state legislators would go along with this, again maybe minus FL, or anyone would think even a conservative SCOTUS would go with such a hare brained scheme?

[Thekaspervote]

5. Thx.. this has been like a freight train from hell!

Despite pointing to law written by SCOTUS, basic facts of how electors are chosen and who chooses them, the sheer craziness of how dotard could sweep into a state, even reds one and overturn the will of the people is just nuts.

Anyone..anyone really thinking that the Roberts court would go along with this? Really?

[wryter2000]

8. Trump likes to throw out BS like this

Remember when he was going to postpone the election? I don’t know if they’re trial balloons or owning the libs, but he eventually moves on to something else.

[world wide wally]

11. Trump is a PROFESSIONAL liar so he says everything just to cover all bases later

[Laelth]

9. Get the Courts to do that?

We, on the left, can’t get the Courts to do much of anything.

Most likely, the Federal District Courts would rule in favor of the State legislatures. The SCOUTS is likely to back Trump. I seriously doubt that “the Courts” could or would save us from the doomsday scenario that you call “silliness.”

That said, I hope you are right.

-Laelth

[Rule of Claw]

10. So you envision the courts just arbitrarily

throwing out a duly elected popular vote based set of electors to allow an overthrow of democracy.

Are you seriously losing sleep over this?

This is a mind game to depress turnout, that is all.

[Laelth]

13. Arbitrarily? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

States are sovereign. They control their own elections. Federal Courts are extremely reticent to interfere in politics, as is, but they’re even more reticent to interfere in states’ rights. The Constitution clearly says that the states are free to choose their own method for selecting the electors that they send to the electoral college. The Courts would not be inclined to overrule the decision of a state legislature on that subject.

The SCOTUS could. It did so in 2000 in Bush v. Gore, but the current SCOTUS is even more Republican than the Court that decided Bush v. Gore. I see little hope for democratic justice there. At this point in time, the Courts are not on our side, and your proposal (which REQUIRES an activist Court—or two, or three, or four—to rule in our favor) seems very unrealistic to me.

-Laelth

[Rule of Claw]

15. But the legislatures in those three states can't do squat to

change a law that previously required a Governor's signature to pass.

It would be like a judge not signing off on a plea bargain but the defense and DA ignoring it and making up their own sentence.

[Laelth]

19. Basic law. Everything is legal until someone complains.

Those legislatures can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. By definition, everything that a legislature does is legal because legislatures write the laws. The only question is, who can stop them?

Governors could veto. Courts could (but probably won’t) stop them. Otherwise, those legislatures can come up with any method that they want to determine what electors that they want to send to the electoral college, and they can make such new rules ex post facto if they want. Unless there’s a way to stop them, arguments about how illegal, unconstitutional, and evil their actions may be are moot.

-Laelth

[Rule of Claw]

21. No they can't.

Governor doesn't sign off, elector slate does not change.

You can't invalidate a law that required a Governor's signature without, you know, a revision of the law that requires guess what?

Such a claim brought by Trump would not get standing in the lowest Circuit.

[Laelth]

24. I am not losing sleep over this (to answer your earlier question).

I am expecting a Biden landslide that is sufficiently convincing to make this discussion moot.

However, I am pretty confident about my description of how this would play out in the event of a close election. I can see Republicans trying a stunt like this. The Governor of Pennsylvania is already on record admitting that the Trump administration has approached him and asked him to do it. It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

-Laelth

[Rule of Claw]

25. Tom Wolf

is a Democrat. And I have read that nowhere.

[Dr. Jack]

14. Thank you!

Yes be weary of what Trump might try but Jesus Christ the drama over that Atlantic story is insane. Just because there are right leaning justices on the supreme court doesn't mean they are going to say "Trump wants to be a dictator? Sure! Congratulations Emperor Trump!". Are you fucking kidding me? I don't trust Republicans either but fucking hell the things people are worrying about is batshit.

[Thekaspervote]

18. This!

[Me.]

12. Didn't THe SC Rule JUst Last Month THat Electors Have To Follow THe Will Of THe People?

[Thekaspervote]

17. The rule had to do with faithless electors, but it does address the issue

Look about half way thru the article

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

[Me.]

20. This

"And second, the Court’s decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate receives the most popular votes inside the state, and there are no additional requirements placed upon the elector"

[Thekaspervote]

28. Yes!