• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,381
www.vox.com

Trump’s attempt to overturn the election result is ramping up. Here’s what comes next.

Watch the state certifications, the state legislatures, and the courts.

Wisconsin state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R), has already endorsed this idea. "You either have to toss this election out and have a whole new election, or we have our delegates to the Electoral College vote for the person they think legitimately should have won," he said this week. Sanfelippo is on the committee that Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) has told to investigate the election. (Though Vos himself said Tuesday he doesn't expect the investigation to change the outcome in Wisconsin.)

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Republican Senate majority leader, Jake Corman, has long claimedthat the state legislature plays no role in selecting electors. But in recent days he has begun to hedge that statement somewhat, saying this would be the case "in normal circumstances." ("Pressure has begun mounting on Corman and other GOP state leaders to reverse course and somehow overturn the results of the race," Politico's Holly Otterbein reported Tuesday.)

Yet in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there is a process codified in state law for choosing electors, and it gives the legislature no part. (As Corman wrote just last month, "Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state's electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth's voters.") Furthermore, both states have Democratic governors, so the legislatures can't pass a new law changing these rules after the fact.

But there may be one more catch. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recently embraced a legal theory that, in Gorsuch's words, "state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."

If three other Supreme Court justices agree with this line of thinking, they could potentially grant partisan state legislatures far more leeway to do what they want with elections, without having to worry about governor's' vetoes, secretaries of states, or elections boards. And if those partisan state legislatures want to appoint electors who will give Trump a second term — well, maybe the Supreme Court will let them do it.

It's a far-fetched scenario. Biden appears to have secure leads in too many states for this to work out.

But it's difficult to outright declare it won't happen. Partisanship can be a powerful thing, and Trump is trying to make "the election was stolen" the standard Republican position. If Republican voters believe him, and demand their representatives take action, then it will become harder for state legislators to explain why they're not doing anything about it.

So to get an idea of what may happen in the coming weeks, watch the state certifications, the state legislators, and the progress of the Trump campaign's various lawsuits.

If the certification process and the elector appointment process remain on track, the rhetoric from Trump's allies will be just that: empty rhetoric. But if we start to see certifications being delayed by the courts, or state legislators preparing serious efforts to appoint their own electors, then an attempt to steal the election from Biden could really be taking off.
 

Mar Tuuk

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,566
It's not enough faithless electors for anything to happen or matter. Didn't a faithless elector vote for Bernie in '16?
 

ned_ballad

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
48,262
Rochester, New York
Remember when we thought faithless electors would stop Trump and give Hillary the lead and then she ended up having more faithless electors than him?

That was fun
 

ragolliangatan

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Aug 31, 2019
4,496
it would set a very dangerous precedent if they were to do it, it would effectively mean that they are overriding the will of the majority of the people in their states
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,903
Dunedin, New Zealand
For anyone that didn't read the OP: electors are chosen by their own party. Democrats have chosen their electors. It's rare for a faithless elector to exist, and it would be wildly unprecedented for 30 or more Democrat electors to choose Trump over Biden.

It just will not happen.
 

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,203
Technically this isn't about faithless electors, it's about selecting entirely new electors after the election and having them vote for Trump.
 

Deleted member 44129

User requested account closure
Banned
May 29, 2018
7,690
I will not be able to breathe until Biden is in the White House. Nobody should be shrugging GoP shit off. No matter how ridiculous their schemes seem, the is unprecedented and scary.
 

Aurica

音楽オタク - Comics Council 2020
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,500
A mountain in the US
Technically this isn't about faithless electors, it's about selecting entirely new electors after the election and having them vote for Trump.
They'd still be faithless electors. They'd just be Republican-installed faithless electors.
edit: I suppose not, actually. You're right.
 
Last edited:

Tk0n

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
56
Trying that would provide a nicepathway for getting rid of the electoral college once and for all.
 

Tbm24

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,329
If they did that, cities burn.



They would send their own electors instead of the Dems electors in PA, for example.
The only way for PA to actually do that would involve a case making it up to the Supreme Court and then them ruling in a majority to allow the current law in PA to be bypassed for funsies.

It's so far out there that this is just a hypothetical. Article mentions it's a far-fetched scenario.
 

lt519

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,064
Never going to overturn the vote but you'll see a lot of faithless electors doing it because they know it won't change the results but will buy them political clout with their constituents. Zero chance he can steal the election without a straight up war at this point.
 

CerealKi11a

Chicken Chaser
Member
May 3, 2018
1,959
I used to worry about faithless electors, but then I realized that in the "blue wall" states, a faithless scenario would require the state legislature to pass laws. Problem being each state has a Democrat Governor, so those laws would get vetoed quick I imagine. Now I don't worry about it anymore.
 

ragolliangatan

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Aug 31, 2019
4,496
yeah, i think the important thing that people need to remember is that the Governor's and Secretary of State for each state have to sign off on the list of electors.
 

Pirateluigi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,883
This is a dangerous fantasy. Even if all pieces somehow align to make this happen, it would signal the end of democracy in this country. Cities would burn to the ground.

The GOP is evil, but they're also greedy. There's no money to be made in destroying the country.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,462
Yeah these fools will say anything to rile up their base, they don't actually have a plan or an understanding of the mechanics of what this means
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,549
I mean it's basically a tradition at this point for someone, after every election, to go "what if we just... didn't"



there's no actual danger of this happening
 

Thordinson

Banned
Aug 1, 2018
18,129
The only way for PA to actually do that would involve a case making it up to the Supreme Court and then them ruling in a majority to allow the current law in PA to be bypassed for funsies.

It's so far out there that this is just a hypothetical. Article mentions it's a far-fetched scenario.

Oh, it's far unlikely that it will happen.
 
OP
OP
spam musubi

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,381
I used to worry about faithless electors, but then I realized that in the "blue wall" states, a faithless scenario would require the state legislature to pass laws. Problem being each state has a Democrat Governor, so those laws would get vetoed quick I imagine. Now I don't worry about it anymore.

Read the article/quotes.
 

SirKai

Member
Dec 28, 2017
7,407
Washington
Didn't Trump JUST sue Pennsylvania to keep them from certifying their electoral results? There's no chance of that lawsuit succeeding at all, but that's completely at odds with a faithless elector strategy.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,716
*deep sigh*

I wonder how many of them actually know they're fascists and how many of them have rationalized it into something else.
 

Hecht

Blue light comes around
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
9,737
The fact that this keeps coming up makes it a perfect argument for switching to a popular vote
 

Fushichou187

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,316
Sonoma County, California.
it would set a very dangerous precedent if they were to do it, it would effectively mean that they are overriding the will of the majority of the people in their states

It would also add accelerant to the movement to toss the electoral college and move to a popular majority vote, which would 10000000% mean no Republican President would ever be elected again.

So.. shoot your shot I guess? Be a reallll shame.gif if it backfired spectacularly.
 

Nobility

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,020
Yeah, that won't happen.

But still need to move America to using popular vote for president.

This nonsense comes up every four years now.
 

Relix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,230
I can see them doing this. GOP giving no fucks at the moment, they now they are toast with the demographic changes.
 

Tbm24

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,329
Didn't Trump JUST sue Pennsylvania to keep them from certifying their electoral results? There's no chance of that lawsuit succeeding at all, but that's completely at odds with a faithless elector strategy.
Trump's strategy with his lawsuits have all been terrible. That's why they've been failing left and right.
 

MasterYoshi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,063
I'm in a sea of red and I'm really afraid if shit hits the fan. I have 3 kids, 2 under the age of 5, I worry about what we would do if these outlandish civil war scenarios played out.
 

HStallion

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
62,262
Isn't the whole faithless electors idea basically impossible as an actual avenue for Trump considering the states where it needs to happen have laws specifically about said event or just have electors from the winning party meaning Dems would have to suddenly turn on their own... for Trump.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,929
Elector candidates are selected by the party of the popular vote winner in the state.

All but two states appoint electors from a roster of people loyal to the party of the popular vote winner, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Maine and Nebraska appoint electors by congressional district, saving the last two votes for the statewide winner. A total of 538 electors will meet at their state capitals in December to cast their votes.

www.usatoday.com

Fact check: State legislatures choose electors, but electors vote how state dictates

Legislatures — which name electors — cannot usurp the popular vote. A claim that they can do so isn't true.
 

Deleted member 16657

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,198
What percent of electors would need to flip away from Biden to actually get Trump in? I can't imagine 50+ votes defecting to Trump unless something insane happens.