How Trump will Steal the Election

[SLD]

Civil War is big talk, but even bigger action. And there are no real boundaries to abide by. The original civil war had the state secession drive it. The NE and W/SW isn't leaving, and it isn't as if the interior/South is leaving either. Violence in the post-election US isn't a certainty, even if Trump loses. Trump riles a lot of people and he only had a relatively small showing on January 6th. And many of them are in jail now. Committing to political violence is difficult. I would only think the threat real if Trump offered pre-emptive pardons before January 6th.

So are you saying we should just accept a Trump coup and ignore it? If not, what is the appropriate action?

Typically, this would be protest in DC thing. But there are a lot of steps that would need to be required for Trump to pull off a coup and plenty of opportunities to pressure Congress via protest not to do something illegal.

If we don't resist it, then we the Republicans will control everything permanently.

You are getting ahead of yourself here. Trump can't become President without Congress. And it would appear the Dems will control the House. That will make an electoral steal much much harder, potentially impossible. Let's put our energies within the current scope of issues.

I hope you're right. But frankly, we need to be prepared to be wrong. No one is predicting a clear winner of the House. The Senate looks likely to flip Republican. If Republicans keep the House and win the Senate, we have to seriously consider the possibility that they will try to steal the election. They will try to cloak it in some shade of legitimacy. But we must be prepared for it regardless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

stealing an election isn't easy.

That’s not true if you have two key ingredients:

1) Sufficient number (26) of State legislatures dominated by your party, and

2) Sufficient number of congresscritters to send the decision “to the States”.

I’m pretty sure the Cheato Party has both.

I think that's the plan.

And I think Biden should use that power that SCOTUS handed him to decree that in areas of sufficient ballot chaos to question the results shall be decided against the party that caused the chaos. (Same as in a civil trial, if you destroy something you shouldn't have it is presumed to have been of benefit the other side.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I say nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Nuke what?
If Jeffrey was alive he could get fucktard to go back to his island and we could nuke it and him.
But alas, Jeffrey has taken his leave, and even scumbags like sleepy joe are not enamored of nuking our own Country.

Washington DC? It was joke. Maybe you never watched Aliens?

And while it's standardly presented as overkill she was actually right. Nuking the site from orbit would have been a better outcome and no more destructive than what happened.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

Is "putting pressure on electors" perfectly legal? How exactly would he put the pressure on?

 

[Elixir]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

Is "putting pressure on electors" perfectly legal? How exactly would he put the pressure on?

Maybe suggest nine rifles pointed at their face?

 

[SLD]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

I think that’s a harder way for Trump. The rogue elector would be in serious danger if he ever returned to Pennsylvania. I think it would be incredibly difficult for him to get one to back out. I think his best hopes lie in having a Republican or Senate majority where he could through it into chaos.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't the parties generally select the slate?

Let's just get to the election first, hope nothing bizarre occurs (hadn't needed to do that before), and work from there based on the results, both Exit Polls (early indicators which are usually very reliable) and vote tallies.

 

[ideologyhunter]

See the wikipedia article called Faithless Electors. It has happened in Presidential voting 90 times in our history (and as recently as 2016.)
As for pressure, Trump didn't blush at calling electors back in 2020 and inviting them to Washington to meet him. If he names electors publicly and tells them to do their duty for the good of the country, it will inspire a tsunami of extra pressure from the MAGAhordes. It could be done secretly as well -- imagine a Trump-supporting elector getting personal strokes from the Orange One.
We're potentially talking about the need for only one or two votes out of 538.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

I think that’s a harder way for Trump. The rogue elector would be in serious danger if he ever returned to Pennsylvania. I think it would be incredibly difficult for him to get one to back out. I think his best hopes lie in having a Republican or Senate majority where he could through it into chaos.

Under Federal law, an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during the Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators and one-fifth of the members of the House of Representatives. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

20 GOP Senators have to vote to question the veracity of the claim. Then a majority of both Houses (that seems low), is required to reject the EVs. This would mean every Republican voted against the election. I find that possibility quite unimaginable. Granted, McConnell did steal a SCOTUS chair, so, who the fuck knows.

 

[jonatha]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

2 should be no trouble since the lists are public.

3 will likely be difficult since the candidates pick the electors beforehand. (If Harris wins all the electors will be different people than if Trump wins)

 

[SLD]

Trump could flip a close election and do it perfectly legally.
If Harris ends up with the barest majority -- 270 -- and has won Pennsylvania, here's what will happen:
1. PA is one of 16 states that do not have a law binding its electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote.
2. Trump gets ahold of the PA electors list.
3. He publicly or privately exerts pressure on electors, one by one, to find one that will go rogue. How hard would that be? All he needs to do is to find one who buys his 'Democrats evil' line, who truly loathes Kamala.
4. If Harris has more than 270, it just means the search goes on for enough rogue electors to put Trump in. We would be the laughing stock in what is left of the free world, and we would have our own laws to blame for it. Incredibly fucked.

I think that’s a harder way for Trump. The rogue elector would be in serious danger if he ever returned to Pennsylvania. I think it would be incredibly difficult for him to get one to back out. I think his best hopes lie in having a Republican or Senate majority where he could through it into chaos.

Under Federal law, an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during the Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators and one-fifth of the members of the House of Representatives. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.

20 GOP Senators have to vote to question the veracity of the claim. Then a majority of both Houses (that seems low), is required to reject the EVs. This would mean every Republican voted against the election. I find that possibility quite unimaginable. Granted, McConnell did steal a SCOTUS chair, so, who the fuck knows.

Should be at least 2/3 to throw out a state’s votes. Seems unconstitutional to simply deny a state’s electoral votes. It totally disenfranchises a whole state. There’s nothing in the constitution that provides for that. I can see the state suing and winning. There votes must be counted.

 

[bilby]

Seems unconstitutional to simply deny a state’s electoral votes.

What "seems unconstitutional", or feels like it ought to be unconstitutional, is a very poor guide to the actual contents of a constitution.

Constitutions are essentially abitrary; the things they prohibit (or mandate) are whatever their authors thought would be a good idea, and nothing else (no matter how good an idea it might be).

If it is, in fact, unconstitutional to simply deny a state's electoral votes, then you should be able to quote the part of the constitution that says so.

 

[SLD]

Seems unconstitutional to simply deny a state’s electoral votes.

What "seems unconstitutional", or feels like it ought to be unconstitutional, is a very poor guide to the actual contents of a constitution.

Constitutions are essentially abitrary; the things they prohibit (or mandate) are whatever their authors thought would be a good idea, and nothing else (no matter how good an idea it might be).

If it is, in fact, unconstitutional to simply deny a state's electoral votes, then you should be able to quote the part of the constitution that says so.

You’re right. The text is clear:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Amendment XII.

There is nothing that gives power to the Congress to deny a state’s electoral votes. Congress’s role is purely ministerial - to count the vote.

Once certified by the state, those are the votes.

It doesn’t seem unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional.