[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8100

File: 1605744308043.png (89.61 KB, 599x304, 599:304, Screenshot from 2020-11-18….png) ImgOps Google

What options does the American Federal Government have if the state's electors are considered invalid in their selection of the next President?

Much of partisan politics is commonplace, but this would seem to be new territory for the American Republic.  Or is this all just hyperbole and everything stays the same?

 No.8102

>>8100
>What options does the American Federal Government have if the state's electors are considered invalid in their selection of the next President?
This is addressed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
But there is very little probability of this needing to happen.  Enough states are on track to certify their results by the "safe harbor" deadline that there won't be an issue this election cycle.  Recall that the Constitution gives states the authority to select their electors (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2).  

>Or is this all just hyperbole and everything stays the same?
Trump is just throwing another temper tantrum.  The discrepancies in Detroit are most likely simple clerical errors, like they were in 2016.  See https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Combined_Detroit_Audit_Exec_summary_551188_7.pdf

 No.8104

>>8102
So, I gather the President of the Senate is obligated to count votes from electors from states whose governors have transmitted a Certificate of final determination, even if the sitting President, at that time, does not believe the state electors will make a legitimate vote.  Interfering with the election process can not legally extend the Presidential term beyond Jan 20, however it can move the election of President to the House of Representatives.

>just throwing another temper tantrum
Which is to say you expect no effective response to his belief in unjust votes and vote counting.  I see.

 No.8105

It appears that the system is currently predicated on the good moral character of the electors and relies on the general assumption that a wannabe fascist dictator who intends to cling to power until death can't just ring up electors one by one in order to cajole or threaten them to obey his demands. In terms of 2020, that assumption appears valid. I think. Too many Americans sincerely don't believe in having a Constitutional Republic anymore, but they're still a disproportionately loud and powerful minority rather than a governening majority.

However, it's going to be quite a problem moving forward. You can't unscramble an egg, so to speak. Now that we are where we are as Americans, frankly, we need to either a)abolish the Electoral College completely or b)create ironclad rules that mandate every single elector act ethically based on how their state voted under severe penalty.

 No.8110

>>8105
>just ring up electors one by one
Some states will invalidate votes if electors do not vote as pledged.  I guess not all, though.

>Americans, frankly, we need to either a) or b).

Yeah, probably.

Perhaps a dumb question, but may Trump simply have the electors he suspects will vote in ways he finds wrong arrested.  The charges probably don't matter as long as the votes are not cast.  Biden fails the majority, the election goes to Congress, and Trump wins the majority of states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/politics/trump-election.html

 No.8112

>>8110
>Perhaps a dumb question, but may Trump simply have the electors he suspects will vote in ways he finds wrong arrested
No.  But the states may punish faithless electors.  Chiafalo v. Washington (2020).

 No.8113

I kind of wanna see what would happen if Trump somehow can declare himself the winner.

Then goes brag on Twitter that he's the best president ever and almost everyone totally voted for him to remain in office.

I know it will not happen, but it would be... amusing?

 No.8115

>>8113
>I kind of wanna see what would happen if Trump somehow can declare himself the winner.
Hopefully he would be impeached and removed by Congress or via the 25th Amendment.  Things would get ugly if the people need to take up arms to remove Trump from power.

 No.8117

>>8115
They already tried to impeach him and it didn't work. We can't count on that, it's already shown to be ineffective.

 No.8138

This might be naive, but so if/when Trump orders members of law enforcement to interfere with the Electoral College vote... wouldn't the law enforcement representatives simply refuse? They're not robots. They have a higher loyalty to the Constitution of the U.S. and its general statutory lawbook beyond what any one random official may demand.

 No.8143

>>8138
>refuse -- a higher loyalty to the Constitution of the U.S.
So you would say it often depends on their beliefs about what is an affront to the Constitution.  If the voting was largely fraudulent and rigged, violating their loyalty may be allowing the election to proceed when they had the power to stop it.  I'm not saying that's so, of course, just that interpretations can be flexibly influenced in politics.

 No.8144

>>8117
There is a difference, though.  Back in January, there was no threat of a civil war if the Senate failed to convict Trump after the House impeached him.  Although, given the Dems' dislike of the Second Amendment and failure to properly arm themselves for removal of tyrants, perhaps the Republicans wouldn't feel the need to remove Trump.

>>8138
>This might be naive, but so if/when Trump orders members of law enforcement to interfere with the Electoral College vote... wouldn't the law enforcement representatives simply refuse?
Yes.  The FBI, Secret Service, and other federal law-enforcement agencies are staffed with people who would very likely recognize an attempt to unlawfully usurp power and refuse to obey it.

>>8143
The federal Constitution leaves discretion to the several states concerning how to select their electors, including discretion about how to handle allegations of fraud in the state's popular vote.  There is no role for the federal executive branch to question the process by which the state chose its electors.

 No.8146

>>8144
What is it with you people and guns...

There's always been a threat of Civil War, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

 No.8147

>>8146
>There's always been a threat of Civil War, I'm not sure where you're getting that.
Sorry, I spoke imprecisely.  What I meant to say was that the probability of civil war was low enough that it wasn't noticeably reflected in the stock market.  In contrast, if Trump were to try to unlawfully stay in power past the end of his term, the stock market would most likely drop noticeably to reflect the likelihood of large-scale violence.

 No.8148

>>8146
>What is it with you people and guns...
What do you mean by that?  The right to keep and bear arms has long been understood to be one of the last resorts against tyranny.  Would it not to be expected to come up in discussion of a tyrant trying to seize power?

 No.8150

>>8144
I see.  I suppose when I see President Trump criticizing the events in the states, it's possible he's doing it as a private person -- merely a 1 in 300 million sort of opinion.  If he's doing it as President, Trump feels the federal government has a role in...helping the states, I guess.  Otherwise, he would simply accept their election process without feedback.

 No.8151

>>8148
Trump has already used the US military against civians and the 2A nuts said nothing. The people with the most guns are going to be the ones HELPING the tyrant, not stopping him.

 No.8152

>>8151
>Trump has already used the US military against civians
So?  George Washington called forth the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

>The people with the most guns are going to be the ones HELPING the tyrant, not stopping him.
Well, hopefully the Democratic Party will learn its lesson and change its stance on gun control, so that there are enough armed Democratic-leaning civilians to oppose a future Republican president from tyrannically usurping power.

 No.8153

>>8152

>So?  George Washington called forth the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

That's also really bad.  He kind of went and fucked up a bunch of farmers.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]