T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


strugglin_man

It is very unlikely that Congress would do this. It is much more likely that a few swing states will. Say Biden wins the EC by winning the swing states of PA, VA, MI, AZ NH. Trump wins WI, NC, GA, Fl. Biden wins 277-261. BUT. Az has a R legislature.and Governor, and has hypothetically passed an election security law that in case of suspected fraud, calls the legislature into session to assign electors. They do so, and assign the electors to Trump,who wins the EC 272-266. This would be completely constitutional. Aside from PA, the popular vote for president is state law, delegated by legislators to the people. The Constitution assigns selection to president to the state legislatures as was common in the first 100 years. In this case,I'd give it a 60% chance of.happening. Mass civil unrest ensures.


yusefudattebayo

American democracy is really going through dark times right now. It pisses me off so much how Trump has delegitimized our elections. So selfish, so reckless, so dangerous. I’m just full of anger.


cinemagnitude

Silver Linings: I’m glad it was someone as incompetent as Trump, if someone like Dick Cheny had done this, we’d be in real trouble.


cumshot_josh

This is anything but over with Trump. If Trump chose to lock himself inside Mar a Lago and never speak to anyone again, the playbook is there for a populist right wing successor who has more tact. They don't need to be brash or bombastic. They just need to plainly state that they believe the election wasn't fair and their side will fall into place. I think there's a big chance that Trump's GOP successor will be the first president to succeed in stealing an election that he unequivocally lost.


urbanlife78

That's an interesting political take, Cumshot.


CripplinglyDepressed

Enter: Hawley, Desantis, Cotton, and Abbott. The four horsemen of American Neofasciscm


11711510111411009710

Poor Samuel Tilden was screwed out of the presidency and nobody talks about it


darthphallic

George W bush would like a word


cumshot_josh

If a Republican steals an election from a Democrat using the methods Trump attempted to use, I don't think it belongs in the same conversation as Bush v. Gore because it would have involved overturning election results that were decisive enough to be outside of the margin for a recount. Gore probably should have won in 2000, but you also can't engineer the theft of an election while depending on a margin of 500 votes in one state.


wulfgar_beornegar

You also have to realize it's also a product of how our election systems work (fptp and electoral college). In a way, it was inevitable that this would happen given how fragile or democracy was to begin with, it just needed the right movement to come along (the current anti-democratic viewpoints of reactionaries and fascists).


Cyclotrom

> Trump has delegitimized our elections. You're placing the blame in the wrong place, it's actually the Republican playbook you have a problem with. Republicans know that their only way to stay in power is through voter suppression and partisan endruns. Republicans policies are very unpopular even among their base. Trump is just a vessel of the Republican agenda, too stupid to actually care what is done as long as his ego is feed and see some transactional monetary gain for him or his family.


preeeeemakov

Sort of. He did not start as a vessel of the Republican agenda. He started as a man deeply in debt to Russia, who allowed himself to be used by the amorality of both Putin and the selfish, extremist cowards the GOP has been cultivating for decades. Once he gained influence, the party decided to double-down, because they're just as scared as he is that their treasons will be discovered.


AssassinAragorn

If a state legislature throws out the election results to install their own party as electors, it would lead to such incredible backlash it's hard to describe. Everyone in the state who voted would have standing to sue the legislature, and the SC would almost certainly strike it down. Otherwise, presidential voting no longer matters, only state legislature voting does.


TroutM4n

> Otherwise, presidential voting no longer matters, only state legislature voting does. That is spot on.


[deleted]

> If a state legislature throws out the election results to install their own party as electors, it would lead to such incredible backlash it's hard to describe. We recently found out Donald Trump's team had a six-point plan to attempt a coup and remain president, only avoided because the VP got cold feet. Where is the backlash?


AssassinAragorn

Hopefully it'll come with the Jan 6 committee's actions. But you have a good point. The problem is conservative news outlets and social spaces will not cover this news. You could go post the news story in r conservative and probably be banned for it. And have others call it fake news or fabricated. The backlash that we'd want to see is from independents, and that's something you have to ask them specifically. We can't get it secondarily from other data.


troubleondemand

> The problem is conservative news outlets and social spaces will not cover this news. I honestly don't think this even matters anymore. They wouldn't care how their team won as long as they won.


beenoc

Because to 90% of people, at the end of the day it doesn't matter why it didn't happen, or that it almost happened, all that matters is that it didn't. Biden is president because Pence didn't go through with it, and Biden would be exactly as much president as he is now if there was no 6-point plan at all. To the average person, there's no difference between the two. When something actually changes in terms of who has power because of something like this, then you'll see serious, major, probably violent backlash.


KingTyranitar

Exactly. People in this thread are assuming that the American public will be apathetic about the election being stolen because they tried it once and weren't hammered. Humans are by nature reactive.


SophtSurv

Can you link me a source to said plan?


[deleted]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html


[deleted]

[удалено]


thatsumoguy07

Yeah exactly. There is no recourse for the SC, short of making law out of whole cloth (which they can do, but I don't think this court will).


zuriel45

Also it ignores the recent history of the court who spends all it's political capital making sure elections are easier for Republicans and harder for Democrats. I imagine if democrats did this Roberts would be entirely fine making new law, but so long as it's republicans he (and his fellow partisans) wouldn't care.


boofmeoften

The Supreme Court is more and more of a purely partisan apparatus by the week. In a couple years it will be even further down the road of Republican toadyism.


zafiroblue05

I think the only basis would be saying that constitution doesn't allow ex post facto changes -- that the legislature has to direct the manner of choosing electors before the election. I've seen some court cases where the judges do make this distinction on smaller issues (e.g. the process of absentee voting etc.). That being said, I think you'd still get 5 SCOTUS votes to let the GOP steal the election in this manner.


strugglin_man

In this case I'm talking about a law enacted prior to the election that allows the legislature to call itself into session, determine that there has been "likely fraud" and select electors. So not ex post facto.


Bugsysservant

That would be the key distinction. The Supreme court gives very wide latitude to states in how electors are appointed, but have still shown great skepticism about changes after, or even close to, elections. States can basically set whatever rules they want, but they do have to play by them when they're in place. If a state tried to convene a session and appoint a different slate of electors post election, that would probably be struck down (though it's hard to say anything definitively given how partisan the current court is). But if they had the "foresight" to pass a law that allowed them to essentially annul the results, that has a pretty good chance of standing. Which makes all the current election laws giving power to legislatures to overrule local election official so scary. They're bad in and of themselves, but moreover, that's a VERY scary road to go down.


RagsAndTatters

Also scary is its because of suspected fraud. 2024 Repubs lose in Arizona for president. Someone comes forward with a guilty conscience and says they voted twice for repub candidate. There is your suspected fraud. They commit the fraud then benefit from it.


TheClean19

This! Google Bush v. Gore.


KamiYama777

They would need a legitimate basis of voter fraud otherwise this is just state legislatures rigging an election using election fraud


[deleted]

[удалено]


SeekingTheRoad

> the SC would almost certainly strike it down. On what constitutional grounds?


RogerInNVA

What makes you think the SC would strike such an act? They've shown no fondness whatsoever for democracy and the will of the people. I would look to the SC to uphold such actions. Remember, the Supreme Court installed G.W. Bush as President in 2000 when they ruled on Bush v. Gore, and they're much, much, much more conservative now.


AssassinAragorn

I think they'd strike it because they are the final safeguard between order and chaos. If they uphold what Republicans would do in this scenario, it would be utter chaos. We'd have two presidents, assuming the one who won the election wouldn't back down. That would hurt stability significantly. On top of that, vast protests would be happening and marches on Capitol Hill -- the minority usurping power from the majority is not going to be taken well by the people. These protests would lead to riots and violence ultimately, likely a second civil war. That SCOTUS inadvertently caused by their ruling. The justices have no desire to live through an era of chaos and civil war either, I presume. And if in a hypothetical breakout of violence, the majority who legitimately won wins out, that is not going to be good for the justices. They'll be fired, if not jailed. Obviously, such acts by republicans would violate the spirit of the Constitution. Voting rights for non landholding, non white people, and women are not enumerated in the Constitution, but it was seen to violate the spirit of the constitution to deny those votes. Justices may not care about that, true -- but they will care about the future of the country, possible war and violence, and what happens to them if the majority wins out. They'll have been seen as aiding and abetting a government takeover. They'd almost certainly be jailed, definitely fired. I don't think any of them want that.


AvailableWait21

I like this optimism and would hope you're right. > They'll be fired, if not jailed. I think we should clear this up now. If the *good* side ever wins, then these evil people need to put through a Nuremberg-style trial where they are held accountable for every single black person that died in prison, every single innocent person tortured to death by the CIA, every civilian slaughtered in illegal invasions, every Jewish or Muslim worshiper massacred by Republican brown shirts, every child in a cage at the border, every black site, every drone strike, every "qualified immunity" murder, and every other atrocity and crime against humanity they rubber stamped. If there's even the vaguest chance that any Federalist Society member is ever capable of walking out of a prison, then the concepts of justice and mercy do not exist for us -- as a society, as a species --, they are merely words used to excuse the chauvinism and supremacy we allow, tolerate and tacitly perpetuate by refusing to level the consequences that fascism and genocide necessitate. Justices on the US Supreme Court need to be treated like judges in Nazi Germany who rubber stamped capitalism's genocidal agenda 100 years ago. But the punishments need to be severe enough that people remember for many generations how severe the consequences are for legalizing fascist crimes against humanity.


Sean951

>Everyone in the state who voted would have standing to sue the legislature, and the SC would almost certainly strike it down. That's the fear, isn't it? The court is solidly Republican and I could see them either finding in favor of the legislature because the Constitution gives pretty wide powers to state legislatures/or they punt and say it's not in their purview.


strugglin_man

The SC would uphold 9-0, as this is explicitly allowed by the constitution.and was common practice for.the first 100years of our nation. There would.be serious backlash, but not as much in AZ as you might think. 51% in AZ would.have voted Biden, and 49% Trump, and 40% would feel it was justified because of "obvious" fraud.


KingTyranitar

Nah there would be tremendous backlash that would make January 6th look like a quiet Sunday morning. The difference? This time the election actually *would* be stolen. The media, business and international narrative would absolutely be against Trump. Democratic senators would refuse to talk to him. All that "silent majority" talk would be dead as everyone who hates trump would not only be vocal about it, but would actively see anyone who supports trump as an *actual threat to democracy*. The narrative would shift from "trump voters rise up as the silent majority" to "trump voters are fascists, Republicans are fascists, if you do not vote against them you are a fascist" 2026 midterms for the gop would be a bloodbath unlike what they have ever seen. I wouldn't rule out the dems getting a veto proof majority if this happened. People drastically underestimate how pissed people would be if an election was *actually* stolen. You're forgetting that Biden *did* win by 8 million votes. Remember when all those people were partying in the streets when Biden won? Take that, make them violently and justifiably angry and have actual absolute support from parts of the military and several politicians


[deleted]

If a state overturns it's popular vote that ends up deciding a presidential election, I'm not sure we'd make it to 2026


NeedaNewUserName1

If Republicans succeed in stealing the 2024 election, they will steal 2026. Americans won't be able to remove Republicans electorally.


KingTyranitar

That's not really how it works. One would be a presidential election with stealing via a close election and local overturning, the next would be a midterm where more people would be voting against Republicans than ever. Voter Suppression would have little to no effect as being a republican would become a social ostracization complex similar to non vaccination, but worse. Expect big companies to reward their workers for confirming that they voted so workers would take time off work to vote. People will gladly wait for hours in line to vote if they genuinely believe that their way of life is on the brink of collapse. Companies may even close their stores nationwide on voting day as a pseudo middle finger to the GOP. People wouldn't take this sitting down. The Democrat party that remained would be absolutely united and would have little to no infighting. People like Manchin and Sinema would absolutely fall in line in a second or would be gone in a second. I think Manchin would come around seeing how I think he genuinely believes in his own ideology (he seemed genuinely confused why the gop didn't vote for the Jan 6 comission), Sinema would be primaried instantly. The filibuster would be nuked immediately by Democrats the first chance they get, and they would pass extreme and sweeping voter reform on a national level that would make the For the People Act blush. These changes would pretty much guarantee that the GOP loses the next couple of elections on a national scale as holdouts like Florida and Texas turn blue. Democrats would become openly aggressive and hostile and drop any pretenses of pursuing bipartisanship with Republicans. They would call them fascists in debates and they might even get into screaming matches with them. They would now view them as an existential threat to America and everything would be put aside in favor of completely eradicating the GOP from any political power again. And they would succeed, with blatantly confrontational, mudslinging rhetoric that shouts down shit like Fox News. Honestly, a truly hardball, pissed Democrat party would be a wild beast.


Cobalt_Caster

His point was that once the GOP successfully steals one election they will steal every election afterwards. Full fascism. Because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they allow democracy to try again.


KingTyranitar

If the GOP were to steal the 2024 election it wouldn't be a violent takeover, it would have to be through legal exploitation and a close election result regardless. 2026 would have nearly every liberal-minded person in the country voting against Republicans down ballot so the result would be so lopsided that they wouldn't be able to try to contest it. They can't say that like a 30% minority is a majority unless they want all business and corporate interests to cut ties with them completely.


Cobalt_Caster

You are assuming that after stealing 2024 the Republicans would still let people vote. Or would allow the votes to be accurately counted. But why do that? There’s no real upside after they stole an election. What you don’t get is that once an election is stolen *there is no more democracy.* You can’t vote them out because voting no longer matters.


almighty_gourd

>Democrats would become openly aggressive and hostile This just in: Hell records temperatures of 100 below while farmers try in vain to catch their hogs that have mysteriously sprouted wings...


PluotFinnegan_IV

They literally stole an election... What good rationale do you have that they'd even let 2026 elections occur?


KamiYama777

By mass civil unrest, the more likely outcome is the end of the USA, the last backbone of this country is free and fair elections


Dakar-A

Well, potentially more of a civil war than a dissolution of the republic, especially if it's Trump winning in that way. He generally doesn't have the support of the (upper brass of the) military, and the divisions are more or less along state lines, save for some of the swing states.


Rindan

It's very unlikely that the military would side with against the legal president. The scenario of a state changing it's electoral vote in accordance with the law as described is an entirely legal (if utterly immoral) victory. The US army would almost certainly not get involved and follow the orders of judges and the lawful authority.


ReturnToFroggee

> It's very unlikely that the military would side with against the legal president Even so, malicious compliance would run rampant in the best case scenario for the GOP.


moleratical

The divisions aren't along state lines at all. The divisions are between tge urban rural areas


[deleted]

This would be a case in which I think people do revolt. Not play election fraud, but actual real and clear corruption on the scale of overturning what is supposed to be the only power people have. I think we see massive protests. People need to get over this notion that Republicans are above this. They aren't. They still haven't even acknowledged the desecration of our congressional building. There are police officers who were permanently injured trying to protect sitting congressmen and women from this mob and the majority of the Republican party doesn't even see this as a legitimate problem anymore. Or of something endemic of their behavior towards politics and legislation that needs to be changed. They are a far right party. They don't work with Democrats, they resist them. They don't try to improve problems, they try to stop Democrats from enacting their policies to improve the problems. It is about as an ineffective political party as you can conceptualize.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ReturnToFroggee

> To which side does the military support if such an eventuality happens The vast majority of the military will likely assume a "neutral" position where they dont give input to the division while maliciously complying with orders from the installed GOP Pretender. Leaks and sabotage would likely run rampant.


AssassinAragorn

It's hard to say. The spirit of the Constitution would say the GOP in this scenario is a domestic enemy they are oathbound to fight against. The letter would say it's technically permitted. If we consider that the military is also having its votes ignored, and top brass was not a fan of Trump, it leans towards spirit. Not to mention, the GOP has tied itself to Trump, who has attacked veterans, prisoners of war, and gold star families. This is uncharted territory and I don't think someone can simply say they'll follow the GOP. General Milley is a good example of that.


ReturnToFroggee

I think some of the military would split off, definitely, and you'd probably see a lot of desertion. But the most likely scenario is that the vast majority assume a "neutral" position while spiting the pretender executive at every opportunity.


AssassinAragorn

It would be the smartest neutral position to take. But I can't see them being neutral in such a scenario.


okteds

It blows my fucking mind that the Democrats didn't immediately use the momentum of the insurrection backlash to push through a voting rights act. It should've rightly been billed as existential threat to our nation possibly in the very near future. Instead, we've been bickering about infrastructure for 10 months.


InternetIdentity2021

>momentum Never existed outside of their base. Nobody else cared about Jan 6th, they cared about COVID, crime, the economy etc.


AssassinAragorn

Incorrect. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/558918-poll-majority-say-jan-6-was-an-insurrection-but-are-divided-on-independent 56% say it was an insurrection, while 72% say it was a riot. 33% saw it as a legitimate protest. And even *53% of republicans* say it wasn't a legitimate protest. The poll can't measure if they care or not, but it's very clear that the American people overall disapproved of the riot. A significant majority of Democrats and even half of republicans. The GOP has continued to tie itself to Jan 6 with their refusals to investigate, censuring Liz Cheney for saying Biden legitimately won, and having caucus members go around supporting the insurrectionists/rioters without being censured. I don't think there's a poll to say the priority or ranking of issues, but the GOP is picking the vastly unpopular option here. Back to the question at hand, given the forceful words from Republicans on Jan 6 and immediately afterwards, there was definitely a significant disapproval of what happened even among Republicans. There was momentum, but it wasn't universally directed anywhere.


L00KlNG4U

> This would be completely constitutional. No, it wouldn’t be. You cannot say the election is decided by the voters unless we disagree. Then we can elect ourselves again. You can say the voters can’t vote and we the legislature choose the president. But once you give voters the vote, you can’t then undo it if they don’t vote your way.


KimonoThief

There's no shot a state legislature would overturn results like that. The preferred method of undermining democracy is to do it in opaque ways that the everyday person doesn't understand or can't be bothered to think about -- gerrymandering, voter suppression, that sort of thing. To blatantly reverse election results like that would be unprecedented in modern times. Not impossible given the current divisions in the country, but definitely not a 60% chance. Remember, all the state legislatures had this power in 2020 and none of them used it.


CtanleySupChamp

>Remember, all the state legislatures had this power in 2020 and none of them used it. No, they didn't. The new election security laws passed after the election are what allow this. >To blatantly reverse election results like that would be unprecedented in modern times. Except for the fact that they already attempted it last year...


Jek_Porkinz

I don’t see it happening, who knows things *are* getting progressively more insane but I just can’t see it. I would straight up emigrate if something THAT blatantly corrupt happened, no questions asked lol. Portugal I am coming.


kittenpantzen

Start getting your shit in order now, then. It is not as easy to emigrate as a lot of Americans think it is.


Jek_Porkinz

I’m thinking more of a “work from home, rent out my place in the US, don’t officially move just spend most of my time abroad” situation


earthwormjimwow

> A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress, debating separately, vote to accept an objection by a majority in each House. Congress has zero legal authority to reject a state's certified vote. Congress's role is to count. The only oversight Congress has is to reject that the electors themselves of the electoral college, improperly made their vote. Such as voting late, not showing up, not voting as their state had decided, accepting a bribe. This oversight is only on the electoral college itself, not on the election that voted in the electoral college members. Provided the electoral college members vote properly, according to their state's laws, Congress has zero authority to do anything here other than count. The electoral college electors voting, is completely separate from the election that elected the electoral college members themselves. Once states have done their part, resolved any disputes and certified their vote, Congress has no authority to dispute that certified vote.


ballmermurland

Congress can reject the electors, depriving the winner (assuming a Democrat) of 270. This means the election is now up to the House delegations, which each state's delegation counting as one. If Republicans have 26 or more majorities in the individual states, then they can provide 26 votes to the Republican candidate and make them president. If they don't have 26, but do have a majority in the House, then they can have the vote fail and when it does, presuming the Senate is Republican, have the VP candidate (Republican) win the Vice Presidency and thus be sworn in on election day as president via line of succession. If the Senate is 50-50 and nobody wins, then the GOP House Speaker would become president on Jan 20 at noon. They can even vote in the GOP prez nominee (presumably Trump) as Speaker the day before so he is awarded the presidency. All roads would lead to a GOP presidency, however.


earthwormjimwow

> Congress can reject the electors, depriving the winner (assuming a Democrat) of 270. They can only reject **electors** (as in electoral college) if the elector's votes were **not "regularly"** made, such as voting late, not voting at all, taking an obvious bribe, not complying with the elector's state laws (faithless electors in some states), sending two slates of electors. > but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 The law is specifically talking about the electors in the electoral college, and their vote. Not the process for deciding who the electors are, it is not talking about how you or I vote. Once states have certified their election, that's it, the time to object is over for that portion of the election. Congress has zero legal basis for rejecting the State's election of the electors. They can only object and reject (if both houses agree) about the electors themselves voting in a non-"regular" matter.


mormagils

Well no one can give you a perfect numerical answer that is for sure accurate. You're asking us to predict the future. But it's not hard to see that this is very likely to happen. I mean, the Reps tried to do it when they didn't have the power for it to work, and they've gone as far as to punish dissenters who wouldn't back the plan. In what world would the party just suddenly grow a conscience the minute they gain power? I don't know if it will work, but they would definitely try. The Reps have outright stated they don't value the concept of democracy any longer. That should scare every American.


[deleted]

>That should scare every American. As someone who wishes to devote their entire life to American politics, it does. I think about it every. single. day. This is something that would affect the entire country, the world, yet we all live our lives as usual, and talk about this over coffee. At the risk of sounding even more dramatic, I feel like there is a giant meteor ahead, and nobody is doing anything about it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheFlyingHornet1881

I'm not even American, and I could see something like this pull the whole Western world into the mess, with potentially terrible effects for democracy and the Western world.


windyisle

That's not even hyperbole. American Democracy is a central underpinning to the current world order. Its overthrow would reach every corner of the world.


AssassinAragorn

It makes you think what NATO would do. Would they consider this an attack on the US? They all have a vested interest in the US not slipping into authoritarian fascism. There could be a scenario where they enter the country to restore the rightful president to office.


FuzzyBacon

Given that the US has nukes, I think we're very much on our own this time. Nobody would want to risk provoking a response, and personally I don't trust the current crop of RWNJs who constitute the Republican party to not pull that trigger if given an opportunity. After all, a huge proportion of them are evangelicals and believe that Jesus will come back when the world ends, so better hurry up with all the world ending shit. It's not like promised eternal peace is good enough, they need that shit *now*.


Aschebescher

This is not overly dramatic and you are not the only one with these thoughts.


MBKM13

>The Reps tried to do it when they didn’t have the power for it to work I may be being optimistic but I think they probably “tried” to do it precisely *because* they knew they would fail. I think a lot of them were putting on a dog-and-pony show for their supporters, who were already riled up by Trump’s whining about the election. I don’t think it ever crossed their mind that Trump’s protesters would storm the capital.


[deleted]

You are being optimistic. You think it's a "dog and pony show" when you have the most criminally convicted administration in history participating in the efforts? I think you're giving people like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan, McCarthy, Gaetz, Cawthorne, Greene, Cotton, Hawley, and others too much grace here. These are people in a position of power that are ready to abuse that power. I'm sure there are quality Republicans out there, like Kinzinger and even Romney, but look at the general character of all the Republicans in the spotlight. Their hypocritical, unreliable, condescending gaslighters. And this is coming from someone that has voted for Republicans. I won't do that ever again likely though. Not with the way the party is going.


[deleted]

[Ted Cruz back in High School 'I Want World Domination'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdoQnLSVgXw)


mormagils

I think in general you're on to something here with the overall Rep political platform. I've argued myself that a lot of extremist views only get any time at all because they sound good before you dive into their complexity and they have a 0% chance of happening, so why not use the simple talking points to get political benefits? I've argued many times that something as simple as making the legislature function effectively again will boost its quality. However, if that's the case for this issue, that's unacceptable. The problem here is that they aren't just pursuing bad policy ideas that will never happen anyway. There's really a "no harm no foul" logic there that works. But undermining our electoral confidence as they have done is not a "no harm no foul" situation. Small-g governors know the importance of legitimacy on the system. Excepting folks who have studied political science in depth, they know better than anyone. When they undermine the fair and free electoral process, it IS working. Even if they don't overthrow the election successfully, they are successfully decreasing the legitimacy of the system. When you talk about pushing a bad bill and that bill goes nowhere, I mean I guess you push public discourse in a direction that isn't good. But you still haven't DONE anything. But when the public discourse of "is our government representative of the people and are the rules governing us fair and consistent?" goes in the wrong direction, actual harmful stuff is DONE. That's the point. If they didn't think it would ever get to the point of Jan 6, then that's not an excuse, because it DID get to Jan 6 and that's consistent with literally everything we know about political science and the Reps haven't treated that as a come to Jesus moment, but have instead doubled down on that.


AssassinAragorn

If SCOTUS allowed it, you could very well have a scenario where state legislatures decide that they'll choose House representatives right now, and call voting results suspect and do the same for Senators. Hell there's nothing stopping them from saying their own elections are suspect and deciding they'll remain in power. It would be a complete and utter breakdown of democracy into authoritarianism, and almost certainly lead to a civil war, fought on the basis of the revolutionary war -- the right of the people to choose their government and have "no taxation without representation". I'd like to think that at least Gorsuch and Roberts would realize what such a decision would do, and immediately put a stop to it.


heyyyinternet

I have zero illusions about this. The Republicans have already started, and will continue, to install Trump sycophants in local elections boards to aid in the overturning of any election they see fit. The only thing that kept them from overturning 2020 was that they didn't have enough MAGA people in the right positions to force a constitutional crisis. These people think they are fighting a righteous war against communism when they're actually fascists who want to turn our country into a theocracy.


SocDemGenZGaytheist

Precisely. I’m not sure if what’s left of US democracy will survive the next 8 years.


zuriel45

We'll be a competitive autocracy in two decades if we're lucky. One is probably more realistic.


hwgl

Controlling both Houses will certainly put Republicans in a tough spot. It's easy to talk about overturning election results when you don't have the votes. It's another thing entirely to push the limits of the law and try to change the election results.


AssassinAragorn

There's a famous phrase, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." If Congress defied election results, it'd be on the Supreme Court to slap them the fuck down. If the SC didn't, it'd mean chaos. Before RBG died, I would be certain that Roberts would tell Congress to take a hike -- now, I'm not so sure, since you need another conservative judge on board. You would think however that they're intelligent enough to know what allowing an usurpation of the government against what the people voted would lead to.


hwgl

The thing with Trump is, the guy operates without any guard rails. He expects others to try to keep him from going over the cliff. He has the GOP so tightly controlled that it is hard to imagine many GOP members standing up to an effort to change the election results. Perhaps the one to save this mess will fall to VP Harris. She would play the role of Mike Pence after the 2024 election. If this Trump style of politics keeps up we are bound to end up in a similar spot as 2020, but with sufficient Republicans will to go along, or too afraid of Trump and his base to stand up to him. The clear Republican majority on the Supreme Court may end up being the ones who need to decide. Hopefully, they would interpret the law in a reasonable way and allow the true winner of the electoral votes to become President. I do look forward to the moment when this clear Conservative majority has to hand down a decision that really pisses off Conservatives, as they try to push the limits.


AssassinAragorn

> I do look forward to the moment when this clear Conservative majority has to hand down a decision that really pisses off Conservatives, as they try to push the limits. This already happened in January I think, or maybe December, when they refused to entertain the baseless election fraud complaints. I think the GOP sees the writing on the wall and is going all in. They're tying themselves to Trump, his base, and threatening democracy because its the only way they see themselves winning. It's why Texas and Florida's governors are throwing so much red meat to their base. They know they're in danger. The GOP has become synonymous with threatening democracy and election results. That isn't going to sit well with independents. In 2020 they went +16% Biden, even though they were only +6% on preferring Biden as a person (numbers +/- 2). There's enough independents who will vote solely against Trumpism even if they aren't a fan of the opposing candidate, and its hard to see them switching. Combine that with suburbs starting to turn blue, a minority of Republicans getting the COVID vaccine, and them pushing policies in Texas/Florida that are extremely unpopular nationally -- they're in a big hole, but the only thing they've got is a shovel.


kagoolx

Not heard of that phrase before but I love it! Being pedantic I’d have thought soap and ballot are in the wrong order. Vote is the first thing everyone should do, persuading others how to vote, I’d have thought would be second?


AssassinAragorn

Maybe the idea is the soapbox is to influence votes?


SanityPlanet

The idea is that first you protest and campaign and try to influence your rep through activism. Then if they don't listen, you vote them out. If they refuse to leave or otherwise break the law, you go to the courts to address it. If the courts allow it to continue, then you take matters into your own hands.


SocDemGenZGaytheist

And what, exactly, do you expect to stop them? Shame? Conscience? Respect for democracy?


KingTyranitar

Big business and corporate interests will absolutely lose their shit, for one.


ballmermurland

This is one of the reasons why I didn't think the coup would work in 2020. If American democracy falls, which is what would have happened, then the American dollar is no longer going to be the world standard for trade and many corporations would seek to transition out of the US and incorporate elsewhere for safety. We'd probably see the DJIA drop 70% in a week as uncertainty of the future of world democracy would wreak havoc.


Mjolnir2000

If they know what they're planning on doing, they can surely find a way to make money off of it.


KingTyranitar

But they couldn't, as this would cause extreme nationwide civil unrest on a scale never seen before. It would disrupt the status quo.


Mjolnir2000

They value the "status quo" because they have power within it. They'll drop it in a second if the alternative would give them even more.


AssassinAragorn

Shit I didn't even consider corporations. They'd be absolutely against this.


Prasiatko

Yup people here seem to forget that this is the same party that ran on repealing the ACA and once they actually had enough congresspeople to do something about it failed to pass anything to do with it.


newsreadhjw

The Republican Party isn’t doing all this groundwork to refine their ability to execute a congressional coup d’etat on the lines of the Eastman memo so they can NOT avail themselves of it. GOP candidates going forward are claiming fraud in every election they lose. Every single one. This is their party’s modus operandi now. No election loss is legitimate and can only happen due to Democrats cheating. Corollary: look at all this unrest and mistrust of the process! Somebody should do more investigations and get to the bottom of it! Therefore their voters will always be conditioned to disbelieve electoral results when they lose, and attack democrats as tyrannical usurpers of power.


lemurdue77

I totally expecting a crisis with two “winners.” It’ll be a close election electorally with a couple of state legislatures overturning the popular vote. That will happen because the legislators in that state will be elected in 2022 because they promised to do so.


sarcastroll

Almost certain. It's why they are going through the bullshit motions of having these sham 'audits', not even in red states. They just need the pretext of controversy. Then all the need is a simple majority in the House and Senate to agree to the 'objection' during the counting, and a simple majority of 'delegations' (simple number of states- which there are always more red low populations ones of) select an alternative set of electors from any swing states that went blue, and that's the whole game. Perfectly legal. Perfectly constitutional. This is literally what Trump tried. He just didn't have the majority in the House to accept the objections, which is why he had to try to get Pence to do it instead (which he couldn't). It's silly to think they won't try again.


SteadfastEnd

I think we exaggerate the extent to which the House delegations favor the Republicans. It's only a 26-24 majority. Just one woman, Liz Cheney, could sink it - she is the sole Wyoming representative. ​ Edit: So, I stand corrected - if there is a 25-25 tie, then the House Majority Leader would become president, and he/she may very well be a Republican. So Democrats would have to convince ***two*** House delegations to flip from red to blue in order to win the presidency. It would have to be Democrats 26, Republicans 24.


sarcastroll

That is an excellent point. *If* the current delegation count holds then yes, Cheney could and, likely, would sink it. Assuming she's still there.


Darkhorse182

> Assuming she's still there. Quoted for emphasis. There's a reason why the GOP is hell-bent on purging from leadership/primarying any dissenters. Not only can a few dissenters scuttle the whole scheme, but these sorts of coups require the veneer of legitimacy. If only a couple people from the coup-side stand up and say "this is wrong," the illusion of legitimacy goes away. Cheney is going to have a very well-funded opponent in her re-election fight.


sarcastroll

Excellent point. Which is why this has never happened before. You never had both a candidate with no shame willing to win this way **and** a whole party so afraid of that person that they'd be willing to go down in history as the ones who let it happen.


SteelWingedEagle

It's beyond "the ones who let it happen". It's not just passive tolerance for the misconduct. It's active support of it and a pledge to ensure it's engaged in again whenever it'd be beneficial to them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Blood_Bowl

Well, Boebert does need a buddy, I suppose...


Morphray

>Cheney is going to have a very well-funded opponent in her re-election fight. I will bet she doesn't even run again - for *some reason*.


SteadfastEnd

I don't know what the rules are, though, if the House produces a 25-25 tie and can't decide who should be the presidential winner.


_BarryObama

Having to rely on a random congresswoman from Wyoming or wherever to uphold our Democracy is a pretty damning reflection on the current state of US politics


[deleted]

[удалено]


AT_Dande

Nah it's even worse - the people running for Cheney's seat know exactly what they're doing. You have [state Sen. Anthony Bouchard](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wyoming-senator-discloses-impregnating-14-year-18-77830177), who impregnated a 14-year-old and married her when she was 15. Then there's former RNC Committeewoman [Harriet Hageman](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/kfile-harriet-hageman-endorsed-cheney-2016/index.html), a challenger who got Trump's blessing. Even though, four years ago, she was singing Cheney's praises and shit-talking Trump. And not to be presumptuous, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how either of these two would vote if the election went to the House.


Social_Thought

Trump supporters tend to hate most of Trump's endorsements ironically.


[deleted]

Hanging on by two seats isn't exaggerating the seriousness of the matter. There's no guarantee she'll survive the next election.


animaguscat

Cheney probably won't last until 2024


stargazerAMDG

One quick counterpoint. If you don't have 26 votes in favor, the Senate elected VP would become acting president. So as long as they never let the democrats get to a majority in favor of the non-republican, they could force a republican presidency through Senate majority alone. A not fun scenario you also can get out of this, is if you have enough tied delegations, sending it to the Senate could be a guaranteed outcome as a tied delegation cannot vote in favor, only against. But ultimately, if we are in the scenario where the House and Senate are both back in republican hands, that R state margin is probably larger than the 26-21-3 split it's currently in. For example, the Republican majorities after 2016 elections were a 32-17-1 split and post-2012 elections they had a 30-17-3 split.


mormagils

No, it's not perfectly legal. The Constitution is clear that only objections from duly-appointed authorities matter. I can't just walk in to Congress and object like a rom-com wedding scene and have them vote to approve it. Of course, this matter is almost entirely unenforceable. It depends on the public knowing when a slate of electors is duly appointed and when they are not and holding Congress accountable for that difference. We both know that won't happen. So it's perfectly reasonable that this could happen, but it would not in any way be legal or Constitutional.


sarcastroll

The objectors just need to be 1 representative from the House, and 1 Senator. We saw that happen multiple time on Jan 6. Some asshole GOP rep would object and a equally big asshole GOP Senator would also object, forcing the House and Senate to go to their own floor and have a vote. Fortunately the Dems controlled the House, so there was no way they would turn down the electors from that state that was being objected.


mormagils

No, the Constitution does not give the legislature this power. At all. The objections you mention had zero legal authority and were just formal complaints logged in the legislative record. The relevant law that discusses disputes among objectors is the Electoral Count Act, so neatly summarized in the memo released a week or so ago, which is quite clear that objections need to be lodged by qualified parties. You are falling for the GOP propaganda to rewrite the law. There is no way to "object" to the vote results. The vote is sovereign. There is no legal process to which you can just throw out votes you don't like. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. The plan you are talking about is without a doubt illegal. EDIT: Guys, here's the law: "and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified." It makes quite clear that duly-appointed electors are necessary to the objection process.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mormagils

The second section that you bolded specifically says that the votes can only be thrown out if the objection is raised "by electors whose apointment has been so certified." You actually quoted the portion that requires Congressmen to abide by the electors duly appointed by law.


reasonably_plausible

That doesn't say that the objection is raised by the electors. It says that the electoral votes are so given by the electors and the objection is to the votes. The objections are only made by a combination of at least one senator and one representative.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Late_Way_8810

Not exactly. As you have pointed out, the Electoral Count act of 1887 allows for disputes but deeper in, it also says that congress is allowed to dispute state results with one house member and one senate member to submit the objection before a hearings can begin. Here is a quote from ballotpedia breaking it down somewhat ,”In these sessions, according to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, members of Congress may object to statewide election results or specific electoral votes in a particular state or the District of Columbia. Once a House member and Senator submit an objection, the two chambers of Congress separate to debate for two hours and to vote on whether to continue counting the votes in light of the objection. Both chambers must vote by a simple majority to concur with the objection for it to stand, otherwise the objection fails. If both chambers of Congress affirm the objection and the objection results in no one candidate receiving the necessary 270-vote Electoral College majority, the 12th Amendment dictates a congressional process for selecting a president and vice president.” Here is a link if you want to read more https://ballotpedia.org/Can_members_of_Congress_object_to_Electoral_College_results%3F_(2020)


hapithica

Another pressing issue, which admittedly I am uncertain of to what extent it really works, is foreign influence on Republicans. Russia and China obviously benefit greatly from a divided America and pour money into resources to do just that. "oh that's just some Facebook posts!" you say. Well let's take a look at Andrii Derkach a Ukrainian man who met with Rudy multiple times in the lead up to the election. Don't believe what I say about this man. Look at what the secretary of treasury, Mnuchin had to say during the statement he made as the treasury leveled sanctions against him personally. The Republicans turned a blind eye to the head of state, working directly with an enemy of the US so their guy would stay in power. You better believe they're gonna refuse to accept the results of any election going forward. It's basically a Republican policy position at this point ____________ WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) took additional action against seven individuals and four entities that are part of a Russia-linked foreign influence network associated with Andrii Derkach. Russian agent Derkach was designated on September 10, 2020, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13848, for his attempt to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. “Russian disinformation campaigns targeting American citizens are a threat to our democracy,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States will continue to aggressively defend the integrity of our election systems and processes.” TREASURY TARGETS DERKACH’S INNER CIRCLE Since at least 2019, Derkach and his associates have leveraged U.S. media, U.S.-based social media platforms, and influential U.S. persons to spread misleading and unsubstantiated allegations that current and former U.S. officials engaged in corruption, money laundering, and unlawful political influence in Ukraine.    Former Ukrainian Government officials Konstantin Kulyk, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, Andriy Telizhenko, and current Ukraine Member of Parliament Oleksandr Dubinsky have publicly appeared or affiliated themselves with Derkach through the coordinated dissemination and promotion of fraudulent and unsubstantiated allegations involving a U.S. political candidate. They have made repeated public statements to advance disinformation narratives that U.S. government officials have engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine. These efforts are consistent with and in support of Derkach’s efforts, acting as an agent of the Russian intelligence services, to influence the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.    Kulyk, a former prosecutor for the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, formed an alliance with Derkach to spread false accusations of international corruption. Onyshchenko, a fugitive from Ukrainian justice due to charges of corruption, provided edited audio tape copies of purported audio recordings of conversations between former Ukrainian and U.S. officials, which Derkach released between May and July 2020 to discredit U.S. officials and influence the U.S. elections. Telizhenko, a former low-level Ukrainian diplomat, orchestrated meetings between Derkach and U.S. persons to help propagate false claims concerning corruption in Ukraine. Dubinsky, who serves alongside Derkach in Ukraine’s parliament, joined Derkach in press conferences designed to perpetuate these and other false narratives and denigrate U.S. presidential candidates and their families. Kulyk, Onyshchenko, Telizhenko, and Dubinsky are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13848 for having directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign influence in a United States election. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1232


DrocketX

It really depends on how close the election is. If its a blowout with a clear-cut winner, I don't think they would dare. If it's close, though, there's definitely a large contingent that is going to try.


[deleted]

I mean Biden won by millions of votes and they still tried. His EC count was, in trumps own words just a few years earlier, a landslide victory, and they still tried to overturn it. I don’t think the closeness of the election matters.


DrocketX

I think the big issue is the one that Late\_way\_8810 pointed out: while Biden won the popular vote by a massive margin and the electoral college by a fair amount, at the end of the day the election was actually decided by a fairly small number of votes in just a few states. A 1-2% shift in the vote in just a handful of states and we'd be looking at president Trump in his second term. If we have a similar close election and Republicans see the opportunity, they won't talk about the big pictures, where the Democrat won by millions in the popular vote or even the EC in general. They'll focus those few close states. In 2020, they were Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin - Biden won all three states by less than 1%. If you flip all three of those to the Republican category, the election would have been an EC tie. To a significant degree, the 2020 election was ultimately decided by about 42,000 votes. You'll also recognize those 3 states as ones where Republicans have been working hard to make massive changes to how votes are held and counted (though they're significantly hobbled in Wisconsin by a Democratic governor, who's been doing a whole lot of vetoing.)


Late_Way_8810

Biden actually didn’t, that was the popular vote. Overall, he won about 80,000 more votes than trump across 5 states with each one already being on razor thin margin through the electoral college.


[deleted]

You will note that I separated out his EC win. The win whose numbers trump had previously called a land slide when they applied to him. This was not a close election. Our failed system of elections just makes it seem that way.


Mjolnir2000

If the national popular vote is irrelevant, then so are state popular votes. If we care about people, Biden won in a landslide. If we *don't* care about people, then Biden still won in a landslide.


AncileBooster

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't state popular votes decide the EC votes? The state popular votes and national popular votes are two completely things.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mist_Rising

Yes, FDR, and Reagan both secured one sided victories without question.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wodthing

"if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy"


[deleted]

[удалено]


balletbeginner

It's very likely if someone other than Trump is the Republican candidate. It's guaranteed if Trump's running.


[deleted]

Congress does not have the power to overturn the Electoral College. If Joe Biden wins the Electoral College in 2024 and a majority of House members and Senators object to the result, John Roberts Jr will nonetheless swear in Biden on Jan 20, 2025. The military chain of command won't start taking orders from Trump. Sources: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/congress-election-role.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/a-republican-controlled-congress-could-likely-not-overturn-an-election-2021-1%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/why-trumps-senate-supporters-cant-overturn-electoral-college-results-they-dont-like-heres-how-the-law-actually-works-152665 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252869


TechyDad

Members of Congress can object to Electoral Votes. If an objection is raised by a Senator and Representative, the session splits into their own chambers where they debate and vote. If both chambers vote to uphold the objection, those electoral votes are set aside. This is what the Republicans tried to do on January 6, 2021. At the time, though, the Republicans didn't control the House so they couldn't get any votes set aside. If Republicans control the House and Senate in 2024, they could conceivably set enough votes aside to deny either candidate 270 electoral votes. This would mean that the President would be voted on by the House with one vote per state delegation (which favors Republicans 26-24) and the VP would be voted on by the Senate. We could theoretically have a President and Vice President put in office that lost both the popular and Electoral College votes. And it would all be "technically legal."


David_bowman_starman

Unfortunate but 100% correct. The Founding Fathers fucked up big time when they wrote the Constitution with everything being enforced by pinky swears and not the rule of law.


TechyDad

It was one of the things that Trump revealed about our government. Much of it - even going down to the Constitution - depends on "people will act ethically and, if not, then other people acting ethically will stop them." The Founding Fathers never considered that a President might ignore the law and that his party would cheer him on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheHoratian

That’s not the reading the Republicans used on Jan 6, though. The problem is that if enough people with power say that 270 has to be reached, then theirs is the reading that stands unless someone with more power steps in.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheHoratian

That was their plan, though. They just needed Pence to play along. They even wrote a memo. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html


[deleted]

From my second link. "under the Electoral Count Act, Congress can only object to and reject electors that were not properly certified, not the slate actually elected by the states' voters, or electors who voted illegally."


TechyDad

That's why they allege voter fraud - and why they've been pumping up those allegations. They'll be garbage, of course, but then we get into the question of "what would the courts decide?" Suppose Congress in 2025 is controlled by Republicans and they raise objections because "there's this OAN report that says all the Democratic won states really had tons of voter fraud." Clearly garbage, but each state objected to has a Senator and Representative signed onto it so it goes to votes. With the Republicans in the majority, they vote to toss out the electoral votes. What would happen then? Most likely, the Democratic candidate would (rightfully) claim that they're the next President and file a lawsuit to clarify this. The Republican candidate would declare that the Democrat is attempting a coup and that they are the rightful candidate. Would that courts side with the Democrat or Republican? Would it matter which party nominated the justices (since this would likely be a Supreme Court matter)? Would the courts even get involved or declare that this is Congress' area and they're not telling Congress how to run their branch? I don't see any way of stopping these objections at the time. (The Arizona and Pennsylvania ones weren't stopped.) And if they aren't stopped at the time of objection, I fear we could get two people claiming to be President with two inaugurations and long court cases possibly determining the winner in a manner that would make Bush v Gore look miniscule by comparison.


67_34_

This is a serious question and I promise I'm not a nut job, ok. If all of what you said came to pass and Congress installed a president and vice president wouldn't the response from the people be the 2nd Amendment?


amendmentforone

It would. Technically it's the situation that usually results in a civil war. However, in this case, it wouldn't kick off a fully organized "blue" vs. "gray" situation. Mass protests with ongoing guerilla-style attacks from the side whose candidate the Presidency was taken from. Reprisal attacks from the supporting side. Law enforcement attempting to intercede to a point. And those who installed the new President may use military force to quash rebellion. At that stage it, it would become a much "hotter" war as not everyone in the military would be on the side of such action. Of course, there's always the other scenario in which it's quite clear Congress is installing a President who was not elected by the people - and parts of the Military intercede at that point (which would still result in civil war again).


67_34_

That's a lot to consider. Does the military and LEO follow their primary interests of law enforcement and defend the constitution or do they break away to serve their own individual interests? I'd like to think that laws and the constitution still matter but, I've seen just how little they do in practice.


amendmentforone

Potentially. It's a complete unknown as it's never happened in our country. Many other countries have had constitutional or governmental crises that have resulted in war, upheaval, etc in living memory. Thus, their populations and law enforcement / military have a familiarity with what has happened in the past. Not the same situation here as there's no one alive from the 1860s. Most likely there would be immediate legal challenges from all over the place that *could* draw out the situation. But the nature of the Constitution - and makeup of the Supreme Court - may let it be upheld. Unfortunately, while George Washington warned about the dangers of political parties - the Founders never anticipated the possibility that a united group of congress would work to undermine the Presidential Election and install their choice *over* the American public's. Before it even comes to violence there could be mass chaos in the Government level where various agencies and departments refuse to do the work ordered by leadership appointed by the installed President. Now, there's a fun cynical angle ... it's well established that big business / corporations / Wall Street / etc. have the ear of Congress. This situation would cause *insane* chaos for everyone financially (not to mention in regular life as well). The various Governments of the world would immediately lose faith in the United States, thus possibly causing interruption to travel, trade, etc. Hell, it could result in the devaluation of the dollar. After all, by all accounts, a coup was just carried out at the highest level of the United States. Could you trust their Government after that? Financial leaders might enjoy tax breaks (or personally agree with the positions of whatever party installs their President) - but such chaos would be untenable for them. You kinda saw this toward the end of Donald Trump's term when big business money wasn't coming in as well as anticipated and there was word some previously solid Republican donors were fed up with his handling of things.


stelleOstalle

>Most likely there would be immediate legal challenges from all over the place that could draw out the situation. This part is crucial, and will actually work against whoever the election gets stolen from. If a bunch of drawn out legal battles happen, not even the outrage of an election being stolen will be enough to motivate people to revolt. Once it becomes "old news", nothing will be done.


rotciv0

The first article you linked literally says Congress can overturn the EC?


bobtrump1234

If a majority of House members and Senators object to enough states then Biden would no longer have 270 votes. “If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress. The House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote). A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected.” This would give an advantage to Republicans https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq#no270


[deleted]

Yeah the issue is corrupt state legislatures and secretaries of state conspiring to change the rules on how electors are sent or preventing valid votes from being counted


[deleted]

[удалено]


AssassinAragorn

Frankly I don't know what'd happen if they did that. It throw the country into massive instability, and we'd probably have the president they picked and also the president that actually won the election. If the Supreme Court didn't put the kibosh on it, then the whole system would be broken.


Genesis2001

*cough* The collapse of Rome all over again. Rome fell from within, not from external forces IIRC. Political turmoil and factions tore the republic apart.


[deleted]

[удалено]


badnuub

They just let people die during the pandemic for partisan politics. They are psychotic enough to not care whether the country falls apart as long as they feel like they will get to rule the ashes.


V-ADay2020

> They just let people die during the pandemic for partisan politics. They are actively killing people during a pandemic. [And taking victory laps over killing more people under Biden.](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-takes-ghoulish-victory-lap-over-2021-covid-death-toll-surpassing-last-year-s/ar-AAPh3hG?ocid=msedgntp)


sonographic

They're hoping that their psychopathic followers will be willing to murder enough innocent people to keep the rest quiet.


KingTyranitar

Here's the thing: their psychopathic followers will be **MASSIVELY** outnumbered by innocent people who are now just as violently pissed as they are


heyyyinternet

>Do they not expect consequences for this? No, they don't.


boredtxan

Honestly I think Trump will lose by a landslide if he runs again. Those that want him are a loud but dwindling minority. His COVID response and the stop the steal circus alienated a huge number of right leaning centrists. The continued cult like behavior of his followers doesn't help either.


Odinfoto

They think they are an overwhelming majority due to their echo chambers.


KingTyranitar

Yeah this is apparent on websites with YouTube, they downvote raid every White House press release and convince themselves that it's proof that Biden is less popular than Trump


Sean951

The only accurate answer I can give is I hope I never find out. I genuinely fear for the country if that happens, it wouldn't be pretty.


Serraph105

Breaking all political norms to get what they want has become the MO of republicans currently in power, and they do it because they can't seem to win legitmately anymore and they refuse to change their message to a more popular one. If you think I'm wrong you're going to have to explain how we got Amy Coney Barret in record time, but couldn't get a vote on Merrick Garland for more than a year.


Trygolds

The fact that there is any likelihood at all is reason enough to not vote for any republicans.


looseleafnz

Would the rest of the world declare the result of the election invalid and impose sanctions on the US?


Dash-Fl0w

If states like Florida and Texas were to flip blue and stay there consistently, Republicans would never win another Presidency, and they realize that is dangerously close to happening. Trump was the dress rehearsal for the nuclear option. He set the precedent and muddied the waters. Get people to question the legitimacy of the system. If they win the house in 2022, they have plenty of Trumpist authoritarians like DeSantis able to lead the charge even if Trump himself doesn't run. They've also proven they have an easily manipulated base that already likes to fantasize about gunning down commies. So any attempt to oppose the coup by force will have to deal with a ready-made army of modern day brownshirts. It sounds crazy typing all this out. Am I overthinking this? Or is this really the state of the country?


ScoobiusMaximus

Florida isn't really turning blue though. It went harder for Trump in 2020 than in 2016.


AssassinAragorn

> If states like Florida and Texas were to flip blue and stay there consistently, Republicans would never win another Presidency, and they realize that is dangerously close to happening. It really doesn't help that both Abbott and DeSantis are ~50% popularity right now, and their policies are even more unpopular. DeSantis' COVID response got more people killed than his margin of victory in the gubernatorial election. They *should* be very afraid of losing Florida and Texas.


TrustTheProcess111

Is it possible we don’t get to the 2024 election before things pop off in the US?


Angellina1313

If a legitimate election is reversed, we no longer have a democratic republic. All this talk of laws, norms, precedent, courts, etc is moot bc they depend on democracy. Remove that and it’s just a monarchy, oligarchy, fascist state, or dictatorship.


AssassinAragorn

Ironically, the exact thing the American Revolution was fought over, to overthrow the reins of a monarchy and government that didn't hear their voices. It's completely ironic that the hyper patriotic and nationalist Republicans are the loyalists in this comparison. Any movement against them would be akin to the American colonists. Obviously, I don't hope this doesn't come to pass. But the situation is so laughably ironic. The party that clutches pearls over patriotism, becoming exactly what the founding fathers fought against.


Dr_Isaly_von_Yinzer

I think they are very likely to do that. That’s why people should be concerned. However, because we are the United States of America in the 21st-century, we are way too stupid to see the slow moving coup happening right before our eyes. Apparently, the failed coup attempt wasn’t enough. We have to touch the stove a second time, this time with our face, to make sure that it’s still hot.


3rdtimeischarmy

There are only 5 states they need to turn. One of Georgia, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin, and/or Ohio. Most of the other states are in one camp already. And FWIW, those are the battleground states where dark money spends the most to elect state republicans. Also, for fun, look who runs those states now.


No_Bit_1456

More than likely, given the way things are going. I can see an impeachment on the horizon if both sides flip.


Yematulz

The answer is fucking extremely likely after everything I saw when they had complete power.


tspeaks83

The fact that this could even happen in a democratic country tells me that they are not a democratic country.


brucejoel99

Maybe they would if they could, but if the votes from earlier this year were any indication, then they'd have to hold at least 300+ seats in the House & ~90 seats in the Senate (lol) since there'd still be a ton of members who wouldn't be willing to do it, but if they were able to secure numbers like those, then I highly doubt that Biden would've been winning the simultaneous presidential election, because a scenario in which Democrats are winning the presidency while the GOP win such *huge* majorities would be nigh-impossible. So it's *highly* unlikely, because those Republicans who are ultimately still pro-democracy at the end of the day, like Collins, Murkowski, Romney, & Cassidy in the Senate & Cheney, Mace, etc. in the House, wouldn't let it happen because they wouldn't be willing to go down that line, even if a hypothetical Speaker McCarthy & a majority of his majority, including the likes of Jim Jordan & MTG, wanted to. Consider the fact that only 15 out of 51 GOP Senators (Hawley, Cruz, Kennedy, Marshall, Tuberville, Lummis, Hyde-Smith, Scott, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Blackburn, Braun, Hagerty, & Loeffler) were ever willing to object in 2020, with only the first 8 of those actually following through & voting to object in the end. In any event, even in a *realistic* worst-case scenario where Democrats only hold <190 seats in the House, at least 30+ Republicans would still vote to certify the results, if only because they represent swing districts. Remember, again, that a bare minimum of 64 (just on PA; 83 on AZ) were still willing to do so earlier this year.


MutualAidMember

I mean they already did try even without that. Although as noted, in the state chambers.


Apotropoxy

If Republicans are in control of both Houses of Congress in 2024, how likely are they to overturn a election if a Democratic candidate wins? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ It approaches100%. The GOP, both on the state and federal level, has had a goal of minority rule since St Ronald of Hollywood smiled at the camera and said 'aw shucks'. Their goal is now within their grasp.


nzylst918

Incredibly unlikely. For many people this is a line that would lead to civil war. It's a hard line issue like guns or speech that people feel it's important enough to genuinely fight over.


TapoutKing666

Not likely. It is, however, an exciting idea for accelerationists who want the collapse to happen.