POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

Trump's efforts to have state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors. Most states have enacted laws that obviate "faithless" electors link, including AZ and MI, making it impossible for the college itself to be "gamed" simply by bribing electors or what not. Only by getting the legislatures to obviate the vote and select electors of their choice -- which would violate state laws in many cases, regardless of constitutionality -- would allow the College vote to be shifted to a Trump win or a tie vote (also a Trump win as the GOP controls 26 of the 50 states in the US HofR).

So far, the legislatures appear to be telling Trump to 'piss up a rope.' As they should. Trump's efforts along this line are anathema.

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

[spmetla]

It's not that simple, with all due respect to spmelta. And judging from your statement, and your self-admitted lack of not only knowledge, but skills of state planning and the desire to learn it, you didn't read The Atlantic article linked in post #525. So I'll give you a bonus turn to rectify that, by giving you a link to a paper published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (which was the basis for The Atlantic article):

I agree, it's not that simple and as Montmorency has pointed out it'll be partisan electors. So if the State legislatures do no shenanigans then the Democratic electors will be voting on 14DEC20. With Michigan's GOP reps stating yesterday that they'll do the 'normal' procedures that's pretty it for Trump's trying to fenagle the electoral college system.
I'm glad you pointed out the Atlantic article again because it's actually something I'd wanted to cite in my earlier post (but didn't know how far back it was) on the electoral college because of the the thin possibility that a State legislature send to a separate "Certificate of Vote" to the joint session of congress in January and contest the one cast by the normal electors.

Rival slates of electors could hold mirror-image meetings in Harris­burg, Lansing, Tallahassee, or Phoenix, casting the same electoral votes on opposite sides. Each slate would transmit its ballots, as the Constitution provides, “to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” The next move would belong to Vice President Mike Pence.

Thankfully yesterday's news from the Michigan folks though has made all the above just a mental exercise as without them then there's zero chance for trump doing anything. I'm just glad the electoral vote count is a large a difference as it is, if it were down to one state like in 2000 then the above scenarios might play out.

I'm looking forward to Monday and what reasons Emily Murphy will give for not ascertaining the election results yet. The leaks and rumors of her friends of course have been circling about on CNN and MSNBC about "just following orders" and other piss poor excuses. It better not be the usual round of "I cannot recall" and "that's subject to executive priviledge." The GSA procedures, or lack there of definitely show yet another thing that needs to be codified into law so as to not allow any sitting president to stop the transition process.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...team-access-to

[ReluctantSamurai]

state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors

That statement requires that the meaning of the word "Legislature" as stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 is perfectly clear....which it appears that it is not.

Does this use of “Legislature” refer specifically to the lawmaking body or does it refer to a state’s entire lawmaking process? In the latter case, the legislature and governor must act together to determine the manner for appointing electors. Also, voter referendums would be able to override the legislature in some circumstances. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question. This vagueness has allowed room for individual states to determine the meaning of the word "Legislature". Each state has differing certification laws, most require the governor's seal:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...PTtruZJHXfH_pQ

I agree, it's not that simple

After reading my comments again, what came after wasn't directed at you, but at the individual that I was quoting.

So if the State legislatures do no shenanigans

Aye, there's the rub. We'll just have to wait and see if the legislators in the contested states do as they say they will.

[Pannonian]

Trump's efforts to have state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors. Most states have enacted laws that obviate "faithless" electors link, including AZ and MI, making it impossible for the college itself to be "gamed" simply by bribing electors or what not. Only by getting the legislatures to obviate the vote and select electors of their choice -- which would violate state laws in many cases, regardless of constitutionality -- would allow the College vote to be shifted to a Trump win or a tie vote (also a Trump win as the GOP controls 26 of the 50 states in the US HofR).

So far, the legislatures appear to be telling Trump to 'piss up a rope.' As they should. Trump's efforts along this line are anathema.

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why? If the vote count in the electoral college is just a formality, why can't they be virtual votes that are just tallied without an need for flesh and blood electors physically voting? It's not like a Parliamentary system where there is a regular need to prove authority with lawmaking votes (as that part is played by your Houses).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump's efforts to have state legislatures select electors and functionally obviate the vote may, in the most literal sense, fall within the framework of the Constitution -- which empowers the state legislatures to select electors. Most states have enacted laws that obviate "faithless" electors link, including AZ and MI, making it impossible for the college itself to be "gamed" simply by bribing electors or what not. Only by getting the legislatures to obviate the vote and select electors of their choice -- which would violate state laws in many cases, regardless of constitutionality -- would allow the College vote to be shifted to a Trump win or a tie vote (also a Trump win as the GOP controls 26 of the 50 states in the US HofR).

So far, the legislatures appear to be telling Trump to 'piss up a rope.' As they should. Trump's efforts along this line are anathema.

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to change the rules of how the electors are picked after the election has already been held. Constitution is pretty clear on ex post facto laws being prohibited.

EDIT: Literally 5 seconds after I posted this a Cornell law review told me this actually only applies to penal and criminal statues. Oh well, i am leaving this up as a lesson to everyone.

[spmetla]

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why? If the vote count in the electoral college is just a formality, why can't they be virtual votes that are just tallied without an need for flesh and blood electors physically voting? It's not like a Parliamentary system where there is a regular need to prove authority with lawmaking votes (as that part is played by your Houses).

The reasons why are because the system is from back horse transport days with no mass media, in a nation even as large as the 13 colonies with the poor roads and effects of weather from November to January the many steps of the electoral process are to help accommodate that.

Changing things in the US Constitution require Constitutional Amendments which require strong majorities in either Congress or the State Legislatures to enact. With our ever increasing deadlock and failure to compromise even updating things that both sides agree on is very difficult.

As for the history, here's just the 2016 ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...hless_electors

[Pannonian]

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to change the rules of how the electors are picked after the election has already been held. Constitution is pretty clear on ex post facto laws being prohibited.

EDIT: Literally 5 seconds after I posted this a Cornell law review told me this actually only applies to penal and criminal statues. Oh well, i am leaving this up as a lesson to everyone.

A criminal statue

[ReluctantSamurai]

What is the rationale behind faithless electors, and has it happened in the past and why?

It was argued just this past May in SCOTUS:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l-college.html

The plaintiffs in Chiafalo and Baca are “faithless electors” who sought to buck these laws in 2016 and select a different candidate than the one chosen by voters of their state. They argue that the Constitution grants electors the right to vote for whomever they want. In their view, the statewide vote is essentially advisory and states have no power to punish electors who go their own way.

“Those who disagree with your argument,” Justice Samuel Alito told Lessig, “say that it would lead to chaos”—that in a close election, “the rational response of the losing political party” would be “to launch a massive campaign to try to influence electors, and there would be a long period of uncertainty about who the next president was going to be.” Lessig told Alito he did not “deny it’s a possibility,” but it’s one that hasn’t happened yet—and even if it does, that’s the Constitution’s fault.

Which is pretty much what's occurred six months later.....

As to the why? Hooaguy put it best...."GOP Fuckery."

[Montmorency]

An important parable for our time.

the marketplace of ideas has once again delivered us some real winner ideas; love to see Republicans these days having spirited civic debates on ideas like "should we count the black votes?" and "what if no elections?" and "seize government buildings and execute Democrats on TV?"
It's important to know that while some Republicans are for all these ideas, other Republicans are NOT for these ideas, and intend to cluck their tongues and shake their heads *very* firmly while allowing all these things to happen, and also quietly helping out where they can.
Also very important to remember that many of the Republicans who want to do these harmful things aren't doing it because they want to harm people, but only because they want money and feel anxious about it.
"What you need to understand about me," said The Strangler, tightening his grip, "is that I'm killing you for an *economic* reason. Calling me 'The Strangler' is just increasing the sort of resentment that got you strangled in the first place."
"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."
"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."
"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"
"It's hard to imagine anything more disturbing and violent than this strangling," said The Strangler's partner.

"Get his wallet," snapped The Strangler.

"Okee doke," said The Strangler's partner, obeying.

"The Strangler's partner offered a sharp rebuke," observed the pundit.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "We become as bad as the Strangler himself."

"How true," said another man in the room, one of a large crowd.

"I would simply have not put myself in a position to be strangled," said another.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "that would be very unfair to all the people he's already strangled."

"And their families!" the man in the room said.

"My father got strangled," said another. "And I turned out fine."
"I've got the wallet, boss," the Strangler's partner said.

"Bless your brave statement a minute ago, in favor of civility," said the pundit.

"I'm going to write a book about civility!" the Strangler's partner said.

"I will give it a glowing review!" cried the pundit.
"You are still strangling that man," came a voice from the back of the room. "You're taking his life."

"That is the most divisive thing I've ever heard," The Strangler huffed. "ALL lives matter."
"Join me on my show this Sunday," said the pundit, "when my topic is strangling and the politics of divisiveness practiced by a growing anti-strangling crowd whose rhetoric of fighting strangulation has suburban voters nervous. My guest will be three Stranglers and nobody else."
"The real problem is not the stranglings," said The Strangler. "What concerns me is the violent extremists in Antistra."

"Antistra?" exclaimed the pundit. "Who are they? They sound violent and extreme."

"They are," the Strangler insisted, in a terrified hush. "They really are."
"How do you feel when people call you a 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"Strangling mad!" The Strangler cried.

"You feel aggrieved," the pundit said. "Demonization is no way to win you over. People should appeal to your better angels."

"They also strangle," said The Strangler.
"Being called a 'strangler' is the worst thing you can be called nowadays," said The Strangler.

"The problem with it," enjoined the pundit, "is that it just shuts down conversation."

"Exactly!" said The Strangler. "It's reverse strangulation—the worst kind of strangulation."
"If somebody calls you a 'strangler' it's all over for you," the Strangler complained.

"It's a very scary time to strangle," the pundit intoned.

"VERY scary!" said the Strangler. "You can't say ANYTHING."

"nnkk" said the Strangler's victim.

"Shut up, you!" the Strangler said.
"What's the worst part about being called 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"It's so reductive," said The Strangler. "They write me off by calling me a name. I love my family and my friends and I'm a very nice person."

"You've certainly never strangled *me,*" the pundit offered.
"THANK YOU!" exclaimed The Strangler. "The truth is I haven't strangled *most* people."

"Statistically speaking, you've basically strangled nobody at all," the pundit suggested.

"YES! It's the people who call me 'strangler' who are the REAL stranglers," said The Strangler.
"Well, that's all the time we have today," said the pundit. "This has been very enlightening, and you've given us a lot to think about."

"I love to teach," said The Strangler. "Aaaaand strangle!"
"What do you want me to do with this?" The Strangler nudged his victim's body with his toe.

"Hmm?" the pundit asked.

"This one," the Strangler said. "I think it's all done."

"Oh, I never even saw her," said the Pundit. "Just put her anywhere. Anywhere at all."

It's a fallacious analogy since in the USA there is no foreign meddler.

You will recall there is, and the same entity, but that is beside the point as to the implications of your attitude across contexts.

You are so wrong (at least about Ukraine) that I don't know where to begin.

So before drawing any analogies it is good to learn the subject deeper.

This would be my entire point. Your premise relied on obdurate mischaracterization, so I showed you how it would manifest in Ukraine's context.

- Who are you to tell me about my clothes? Are you a dry cleaner? Are you a sanitary engineer? Do you live in my neighborhood? If not, beat it and don't poke your nose into the issues that are beyond your understanding.

It's not about who you are, it's not even that you don't know what the you're talking about, it's that you're so smarmy, condescending, and self-assured about the drivel you say while refusing to learn anything that would lend some merit to your ideas.

Unlike you regarding Ukraine, I never pretend to have a deep understanding of current divisions and sentiment in the USA. Yet, I don't have to. Even the most ignorant onlookers can see the almost equal distribution of votes and conclude that about half of the population doesn't like Democrats. But this half will NOT DISAPPEAR after the elections are over. And your talks of subjugating, apartheid, killing, biting throats are too bellicose to let me believe that the peaceful co-existence of the two political Americas looms or is promoted by the winners.

The bold instantly outs you as unserious. The Democratic Party has consistently gone out of its way to affirm the principle and practice of power-sharing to the point of notoriety. That you take issue with them rather than Republican actions and rhetoric that genuinely offend the standards you wish to portray yourself as concerned about proves that you have no such interest. If one segment of society and its political representation is losing all restraint against the illegitimate use of power to enforce permanent political and economic control over the rest of the population, you do not "coexist" with that, precisely because the instigators do not permit mere coexistence - you either* win or lose. It takes minimal world-knowledge to successfully grasp this principle.

In a group of five deciding what to have for dinner, two cannibals demand the bodies of the rest. You titter at the non-cannibals' alarm.



*Low-grade instability and violence under indeterminate conflict are also possible for a time but it's not a durable equilibrium (see: much of the MidEast and Africa).

You are idealizing Democrats. Do I have to remind you what epithets Hillary Clinton has earned even among those who "traditionally" vote for Democrats? "Liar" was the mildest of them.

See above.

Example, please.

Major examples of single-party hammerlocks in rising democracies include:

US (pre-Wilsonian Republicans)
UK (Whigs, Tories)
Germany (CDU/CSU)
Japan (LDJ)
Mexico (PRI)

But if you resort to giving personal characteristics I believe that gives me the right to respond in the like manner: you are getting increasingly hysterical. Emotions dim your wit (as it was the case with the previous argument of ours).

Your personal characteristics are not relevant but you insisted on interjecting them. One can lead a dummy to reason but one can't make him think.

This Twitter thread seems made for you:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

the marketplace of ideas has once again delivered us some real winner ideas; love to see Republicans these days having spirited civic debates on ideas like "should we count the black votes?" and "what if no elections?" and "seize government buildings and execute Democrats on TV?"
It's important to know that while some Republicans are for all these ideas, other Republicans are NOT for these ideas, and intend to cluck their tongues and shake their heads *very* firmly while allowing all these things to happen, and also quietly helping out where they can.
Also very important to remember that many of the Republicans who want to do these harmful things aren't doing it because they want to harm people, but only because they want money and feel anxious about it.
"What you need to understand about me," said The Strangler, tightening his grip, "is that I'm killing you for an *economic* reason. Calling me 'The Strangler' is just increasing the sort of resentment that got you strangled in the first place."
"You need to stop struggling and fighting so much," the Strangler murmured, "and understand my motivations, so we can work together on solutions."

"Acckkkkkkk" said The Strangler's victim.

"Hmm," said The Strangler, "you really need to do better at convincing me."
"Glllllkkkk," said The Strangler's victim.

"That's all very well and good in a *perfect* world," said The Strangler. "But we don't live in a perfect world. You're not taking human nature into account. Stranglings are going to happen."
"nnnnngk," said The Strangler's victim.

"But how will you PAY for that?" the Strangler chuckled, strangling away, strangling away.

"Both sides are fighting," said the pundit, from the armchair.

"We sure ARE!" said The Strangler. "Good point!"
"It's hard to imagine anything more disturbing and violent than this strangling," said The Strangler's partner.

"Get his wallet," snapped The Strangler.

"Okee doke," said The Strangler's partner, obeying.

"The Strangler's partner offered a sharp rebuke," observed the pundit.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "We become as bad as the Strangler himself."

"How true," said another man in the room, one of a large crowd.

"I would simply have not put myself in a position to be strangled," said another.
"If we stop the Strangler from strangling people," the pundit remarked, "that would be very unfair to all the people he's already strangled."

"And their families!" the man in the room said.

"My father got strangled," said another. "And I turned out fine."
"I've got the wallet, boss," the Strangler's partner said.

"Bless your brave statement a minute ago, in favor of civility," said the pundit.

"I'm going to write a book about civility!" the Strangler's partner said.

"I will give it a glowing review!" cried the pundit.
"You are still strangling that man," came a voice from the back of the room. "You're taking his life."

"That is the most divisive thing I've ever heard," The Strangler huffed. "ALL lives matter."
"Join me on my show this Sunday," said the pundit, "when my topic is strangling and the politics of divisiveness practiced by a growing anti-strangling crowd whose rhetoric of fighting strangulation has suburban voters nervous. My guest will be three Stranglers and nobody else."
"The real problem is not the stranglings," said The Strangler. "What concerns me is the violent extremists in Antistra."

"Antistra?" exclaimed the pundit. "Who are they? They sound violent and extreme."

"They are," the Strangler insisted, in a terrified hush. "They really are."
"How do you feel when people call you a 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"Strangling mad!" The Strangler cried.

"You feel aggrieved," the pundit said. "Demonization is no way to win you over. People should appeal to your better angels."

"They also strangle," said The Strangler.
"Being called a 'strangler' is the worst thing you can be called nowadays," said The Strangler.

"The problem with it," enjoined the pundit, "is that it just shuts down conversation."

"Exactly!" said The Strangler. "It's reverse strangulation—the worst kind of strangulation."
"If somebody calls you a 'strangler' it's all over for you," the Strangler complained.

"It's a very scary time to strangle," the pundit intoned.

"VERY scary!" said the Strangler. "You can't say ANYTHING."

"nnkk" said the Strangler's victim.

"Shut up, you!" the Strangler said.
"What's the worst part about being called 'strangler?'" the pundit asked.

"It's so reductive," said The Strangler. "They write me off by calling me a name. I love my family and my friends and I'm a very nice person."

"You've certainly never strangled *me,*" the pundit offered.
"THANK YOU!" exclaimed The Strangler. "The truth is I haven't strangled *most* people."

"Statistically speaking, you've basically strangled nobody at all," the pundit suggested.

"YES! It's the people who call me 'strangler' who are the REAL stranglers," said The Strangler.
"Well, that's all the time we have today," said the pundit. "This has been very enlightening, and you've given us a lot to think about."

"I love to teach," said The Strangler. "Aaaaand strangle!"
"What do you want me to do with this?" The Strangler nudged his victim's body with his toe.

"Hmm?" the pundit asked.

"This one," the Strangler said. "I think it's all done."

"Oh, I never even saw her," said the Pundit. "Just put her anywhere. Anywhere at all."

The Electoral College -- enacted to minimize tyranny of the majority and to work against Demagoguery -- is being subverted into a tool to do precisely the opposite. Trump's blind ambition will, I hope, create the impetus needed to amend the College back to its original concept (one elector from each federal HofR district selected by majority from that district; two votes designated by the legislature as they deemed fit). That version never quite made it into the document and though they did attempt to improve the early inanities with the 12th amendment, they sowed the seeds for the potential debacle we see today).

You know I'll always have to come out strong against this, Seamus.

Why would we need elected delegates to mediate presidential selection, let alone state legislatures? What is the applicable argument in favor of it? What is the prospective benefit or principle of political philosophy satisfied? We know the EC was never intended to minimize tyranny of the majority except in the sense of white Southern m being a minority, and it was an instant failure in operation such that it had to be amended for the party system. Just eliminate it, one of the worst elements of constitutional design ever implemented anywhere and one no other country has subjected itself to, to my awareness.

I like the concept of the college to prevent the problems associated with a tyranny of the simple majority (which could well devolve into "Cities rule, country-folk should stfu.") Yet it is clear that, as framed, a would-be dictator has a chance to not merely game the system of EC votes but to suborn it entirely. This is unacceptable.

I'm afraid this is wrong coming and going though. It has always been! There has been tyranny of the majority in this country through all of its history, with the partial exception of the post-civil rights era. Moreover, cities rule right now because 80-90% of the American population is urbanized. Urban states like Texas, Michigan, Florida, and California determine the results of elections. Rural voters are largely ignored under this system because there is no incentive to campaign for them; the return on investment of resources and time isn't there. On the state level, the vast majority of states are ignored entirely, and as it turns out those states tend to be the most rural ones. Oops! Although we can see that the sitting president cares deeply for his rural constituents, having handed out billions in relief money to compensate their losses in the trade war.

All arguments for an electoral college I have ever seen presented are either wrong or Not Even Wrong, about the intent of the Framers, about the operation in practice then and now, and about any theoretical value of such an indefensible system. It's quite shocking, especially given that the Electoral College has basically always been unpopular (in terms of public sentiment). It's just another one of those shibboleths, like that abuse of language "a republic, not a democracy" which arose not out of any assertion of content but merely because Republicans = good, Democrats = bad, whereby the same valence must attend the morphology elsewhere.

The Electoral College is so profoundly unjustifiable on independent grounds that the Supreme Court in Reynolds v Sims implied that to establish one anew or in the states would be unconstitutional (despite the existing EC being 'grandfathered in'). Speaking of which, Mississippi voted in a referendum this month to disestablish its own quasi-EC. It won with 80% of the vote. In Mississippi.

A "yes" vote supported the following:

*removing the requirement that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 House of Representatives districts (the electoral vote requirement);

*removing the role of the Mississippi House of Representatives in choosing a winner if no candidate receives majority approval; and

*providing that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote of the people to win and that a runoff election will be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote.

As for subversion of democracy, while our system is moribund there is none in abstract that can save a nation that has disavowed Liberty and Reason in great numbers. A good start in the medium term would be to allow majorities or pluralities to govern, since our entire trouble comes from a faction that has dedicated itself to preventing just that!!!

I'm looking forward to Monday and what reasons Emily Murphy will give for not ascertaining the election results yet. The leaks and rumors of her friends of course have been circling about on CNN and MSNBC about "just following orders" and other piss poor excuses. It better not be the usual round of "I cannot recall" and "that's subject to executive priviledge." The GSA procedures, or lack there of definitely show yet another thing that needs to be codified into law so as to not allow any sitting president to stop the transition process.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...team-access-to

This election has been a lesson in how those things that are chiefly regarded as structural or systemic, such as electoral administration, are ultimately instantiated by individuals. They are the bureaucrats and public officials we ought never to know anything about, but when they gum up the works...

All the harder to believe in Great Men when single no-account individuals among millions can, should they choose, bring an entire country to a standstill. The emergent ghasts of layers and knots of Authority and Law.

It was argued just this past May in SCOTUS:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l-college.html

Which is pretty much what's occurred six months later.....

As to the why? Hooaguy put it best...."GOP Fuckery."

Just as an example toward the question about faithless individual electors, people like Bill and Hillary Clinton are electors for this cycle. Literally. Hillary Clinton and her husband are going to meet for the Electoral College to vote for Biden as part of the NY delegation. Those are the sorts who get to be electors for a Democratic slate. I doubt they could be persuaded to defect to a Republican, and vice versa for Republican electors. 2016 was a special circumstance in which large swathes of the public and the political/media establishments felt comfortable treating both candidates as equally vile (an intensification of the 2000 dynamic in some ways) and it's unlikely to recur. Not to mention that the faithless votes cast in 2016 couldn't have affected the election and were purely symbolic individual gestures.

As for fuckery, I can't recall what I read but IIRC most of the relevant states here have explicit laws on the books that would preclude a legislative maneuver to override or interfere with certification. Unfortunately I can't be more specific and am not willing to go looking again, but the bottom line is that this election is not close enough to steal and by the winking and wheedling behavior of most Republicans (we should grant Raffensperger a sinecure just so that integrity can be seen to be rewarded btw), we can be sure that in a close election they would unite to steal it regardless of any Constitutional provision or state law. They're feeling out weak points for the next time; bet your sweet bottom the next election won't run as remarkably-smooth as it has happened to this time. So it's all academic.

[Hooahguy]

A sobering article from the point of view of a Sri Lankan: I Lived Through A Stupid Coup. America Is Having One Now.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Two years ago, I lived through a coup in Sri Lanka. It was stupid. The minority party threw chili powder at everyone in Parliament and took over by farce. Math, however, requires a majority and the courts kicked them out. They gave in. We’d been protesting for weeks and yay, we won.

No.

I didn’t know it at the time, but we had already lost. No one knew — but oh my God, what we lost. The legitimate government came back but it was divided and weak. We were divided and weak. We were vulnerable.

Four months later, on Easter Sunday, some assholes attacked multiple churches and hotels, killing 269 of us. My wife and kids were at church, I had to frantically call them back. Our nation was shattered. Mobs began attacking innocent Muslims. It was out of control. The coup broke our government, and four months later, that broke us.

The coup was a farce at the time but how soon it turned to tragedy. They called it a constitutional crisis, but how soon it became a real one. Right now, the same thing is happening to you. I’m trying to warn you America. It seems stupid now, but the consequences are not.

You’re being coup’d.

1 | You’re being couped

What is a coup? It’s literally a cut. Someone taking government power that doesn’t belong to them, and cutting legitimate power out. In our case it was occupying Parliament without a majority. In yours it’s denying the President-Elect after an election. This is a cut, it’s a wound. Whether it fails or not, deep structural damage is done. At the time, however, it just feels dumb.

Frankly, I expected more epaulets and tanks, but this is all you get. A bunch of dumbasses throwing chili powder. Someone at Four Seasons Total Landscaping, next to a dildo shop. What a fucking stupid century. This is what our coups look like.

As a recovering coup victim to another, let me tell you this. The first step is simply accepting that you’ve been coup’d. This is hard and your media or Wikipedia may never figure this out (WTF does constitutional crisis mean? Is murder a legal crisis?), but it’s nonetheless true. The US system is weird, but people voted for a change of power. One person is refusing to accept the people’s will. He’s taking power that doesn’t belong to him. That’s a coup.

What else do you call Donald Trump refusing to leave, consolidating control of the military, and spreading lies across the media? That, my friends, is just a coup. You take the power, you take the guns, and you lie about it. American commentators say “we’re like the third world now” as if our very existence is a pejorative. Ha ha, you assholes, stop calling us that. You’re no better than us. The third world from the Sun is Earth. You live here too.

America, in fact, is worse than us. America’s democracy is a lightly modified enslavement system that black people only wrested universal franchise from in 1965. It’s frankly a terrible democracy, built on voter suppression of 94% of the population, full of racist booby traps and prone to absurd randomness. For example, your dumbass founders left enough time to get to Washington by horse. Four months where a loser could hold power, later reduced to two. This is a built-in coup.

Think about it. Your system gives the loser all the power and guns for two whole months. Almost every modern democracy changes power the next day, to avoid the very situation you’re in.
America constitutionally coups itself every election and it only doesn’t go bad by custom. America is a shitty and immature democracy, saved only by the fact that they didn’t elect equally shitty and immature Presidents. Until now.

Here’s how you would describe the same events happening to us:


Coups happen to white people too. As Ashton Kutcher would say:
You've been coup'd!

2 | You’ve already lost

It’s absurd, because the whole thing seems like a clown show. Coups are supposed to be orderly, authoritarian, not this dumb shit. It honestly seems like a grift to bilk supporters out of more money. You can just roll it back, right? Right?

No. No no no. Oh God no.

The tragic thing which you do not understand — which you cannot understand — is that you’ve already lost. You cannot know exactly what — that’s the nature of chaos — but know this. You will lose more than you can bear.

We lost our children, playing at church. We lost our friends, sitting down to brunch. Muslims lost their dignity and rights. Your Republicans have set forces into play they cannot possibly understand and certainly cannot control. And they don’t even want to. To them, chaos is a ladder.

This is the point. You have taken an orderly system balancing a whole lot of chaos and fucked with it. I don’t know how it’s going to explode, but I can promise you this. It’s going to explode.
This is precisely why we have elections, and why both sides accept the results. To keep the chaos at bay. The whole point is that you have a regular, ritual fight rather than fighting all the time. Once one side breaks ritual then you’re on the way to civil war. Once you break the rules then chaos ensues. What exactly happens? I don’t know. It’s chaos.


This year America had fascism on the ballot and nonwhite people mercifully said no. The fascists, however, are now saying fuck ballots. And enough of the population is like fuck yeah!
This is a major problem, and it won’t just go away on a technicality. I’m telling you, as someone that’s been there, you’ve already lost. It doesn’t matter if you get Trump out. He and the Republican Party are destroying trust in elections in general. This is catastrophic. You have no idea.

Your media are covering this like a high school dance, but it’s not funny. See this headline in the NYTimes. It’s wildly irresponsible. All your local coverage is.


Ha ha ha, they lede, who’s going to tell him? Bitch, who’s going to tell you? An illegitimate leader has got all the guns and 40% of your population is down to use them. And y’all got jokes.
What I can tell you — what anyone who’s experienced this can tell you — is that it’s going to be bad. I didn’t know that churches and hotels would blow up on Easter Sunday, but I know now. I’m trying to tell you in advance. You’ve opened up a Pandora’s box of instability. All kinds of demons come out.

I have lived through a coup. It felt like what you’re feeling now. Like watching something stupid and just waiting for it to go away. But it doesn’t go away. You can forget about it, but it doesn’t go away.
There’s a ticking bomb at the heart of your democracy now. Your government, the very idea of governance is fatally wounded. Chaos has been planted at its heart. I don’t know what this chaos will grow into, but I can promise you this. It won’t be good.

Please understand.

My wife and children were at church that day. Our regular church (where they hadn’t gone) had bombs on either side. I couldn’t understand the news when I first got it and you cannot understand the fear until they were safely home. I do not want you to understand but I fear one day you must. You have fucked with chaos and soon chaos will fuck with you. To quote Yeats,

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

I’ll close with the one thing that kept my own family safe.

Good luck.

[edyzmedieval]

Until the 14th of December, when the electors finally call out the election, this whole thing will not be done. Plus, the speculation is adding to the fire quite a lot and you can see a lot of splintering, doubts, agitation and straight up bizarre reactions from all sides.

Also - I learned in detail about Parler this week. A free-speech app apparently.

There will be faithless electors by the way on the 14th, you can be sure of that. Just like it has been in a lot of elections.

[Montmorency]

I need to correct an error in transcription I made in an earlier post. When referencing a recent YouGov poll and its findings on questions about the election, I printed

At the moment it appears that the Senate and the President may be of different parties and favor different policies. Would you rather they...
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
[Biden voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%

I mixed those up; it should read

[Biden voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 94%
[Trump voters]: Work together in order and compromise in order to get more done - 54%



Pennsylvania GOP is suing against a state law expanding absentee balloting, alleging that it is unconstitutional and therefore the absentee votes (which gave Biden the state) must be invalidated in their millions.

This is the same law that Pennsylvania Republicans passed last year along party lines. Classic Orwellianism. I mean wow. The purpose is of course primarily to advance the degradation of public trust in the political and electoral process in a way that redounds to the benefit of the Republican "chaos is a ladder" Party.

Not only is consciously-vexatious litigation with no merit or standing or legal theory a sanctionable offense among the bar, it is criminal barratry by Pennsylvania statute. Not that anyone will suffer consequences for the several dozens of fake lawsuits levied by Trump and Friends since the election.


But we should grasp by now that Republicans are by and large not "savvy" operators who know what's "really" up in the style of Orwell's Inner Party. They're all drunk on Kool-Aid by now. They're looking for harder stuff.

Not only did Rudy Giuliani direct a circus-like hearing to advance his theory that Zombie Hugo Chavez stole the 2020 election, but Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also held a hearing to promote the benefits of hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19.

Johnson is one of Trump’s more energetic defenders in the Senate, and has used his committee to promote the president’s unfounded claims that Joe Biden was up to no good in Ukraine. He has also spent months assailing public-health officials for refusing to support the use of hydroxychloroquine.

If you have already forgotten the whole hydroxychloroquine thing, Trump used to tout it as a miracle cure, and members of the Trump cult fervently insisted he was correct, seizing on any scrap of positive evidence to support his case. But evidence piled up against its efficacy. By June, the FDA revoked emergency-use authorization for the drug, concluding it was ineffective. Trump hasn’t mentioned hydroxychloroquine in weeks and weeks.

Johnson, though, hasn’t forgotten. Yesterday’s hearing featured a stacked witness list, with three of the few remaining oddball supporters of the drug arguing against well-regarded Harvard public-health expert Ashish Jha. Johnson railed against “the disinformation, the scaremongering, and the prescription log jam that has been created by bureaucrats.”

One might wonder why Johnson, whose committee covers homeland security, would probe questions of medical efficacy that lie far beyond his realm of pseudo-expertise. One might also wonder why he would revive this claim long after Trump himself has walked away from it. (When the president contracted COVID-19, he did not bother to take, or even claim to take, hydroxychloroquine.)

One answer is that many Republican elites do not support Trump out of fear, or even merely out of a shared political interest, neither of which would be reasons for Johnson to hold a hearing after an election Trump has lost. In many cases, they consume the same right-wing news sources and believe in the same conspiracy theories.

A sobering article from the point of view of a Sri Lankan: I Lived Through A Stupid Coup. America Is Having One Now.

I mentioned another post by the guy a couple months ago. It's also linked as suggested reading at the bottom of this one.
https://gen.medium.com/i-lived-throu...e-ba1e4b54c5fc

Until the 14th of December, when the electors finally call out the election, this whole thing will not be done. Plus, the speculation is adding to the fire quite a lot and you can see a lot of splintering, doubts, agitation and straight up bizarre reactions from all sides.

Also - I learned in detail about Parler this week. A free-speech app apparently.

There will be faithless electors by the way on the 14th, you can be sure of that. Just like it has been in a lot of elections.

It doesn't really happen, I can assure you. See for yourself and consider the present environment. Wanna bet?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You know I'll always have to come out strong against this, Seamus.

Why would we need elected delegates to mediate presidential selection, let alone state legislatures? What is the applicable argument in favor of it? What is the prospective benefit or principle of political philosophy satisfied? We know the EC was never intended to minimize tyranny of the majority except in the sense of white Southern m being a minority, and it was an instant failure in operation such that it had to be amended for the party system. Just eliminate it, one of the worst elements of constitutional design ever implemented anywhere and one no other country has subjected itself to, to my awareness.

Why do we need a Republic at all instead of a direct democracy. The intuition is that you need some sort of elite class, whether chosen or not by the people, to make the assessment on who will be making decisions.
Not that EC is even serving that purpose either, but chances are even people living in cities will find it hard to swallow a direct election of a president simply because we know 48% of the population can be made willing to vote for overt fascism. Too close for comfort.

[Gilrandir]

It's not about who you are, it's not even that you don't know what the you're talking about, it's that you're so smarmy, condescending, and self-assured about the drivel you say while refusing to learn anything that would lend some merit to your ideas.

Again playing the ball, as you believe? You are so arrogant, dismissive, and raving that I even won't bother to remind you that peaceful coexistence isn't my idea but the basic principle of democracy.

The bold instantly outs you as unserious.

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

Your premise relied on obdurate mischaracterization, so I showed you how it would manifest in Ukraine's context.

A nice weaseling out attempt. Instead of admitting it when your ignorance became patent you just say that your purpose of giving analogies didn't presuppose awareness of the subject.

The Democratic Party has consistently gone out of its way to affirm the principle and practice of power-sharing to the point of notoriety. That you take issue with them rather than Republican actions and rhetoric that genuinely offend the standards you wish to portray yourself as concerned about proves that you have no such interest.

You still don't understand. It is not about one party or the other doing this or doing that. It is about PEOPLE of the country who will still live side by side even if both parties miraculously disappear tomorrow. And the people will have to connect somehow. Fomenting hatred won't bring you anywhere.

And for your information, my concern is minimal. My life won't change even when highways in Georgia are lined with crucified Republicans and their voters. If you are fine with it, break a leg.

one segment of society and its political representation is losing all restraint against the illegitimate use of power to enforce permanent political and economic control over the rest of the population, you do not "coexist" with that, precisely because the instigators do not permit mere coexistence - you either* win or lose. It takes minimal world-knowledge to successfully grasp this principle.

So you don't wish to live next door to Republicans or traveling to Florida for a vacation to meet them in a roadside cafe. And? What are you gonna do about it? This is the question that you fail to answer. And this is the crucial question for those who believe that after Biden's victory Republican voters could be just disregarded, segregated, discriminated, and pushed into the background.

Major examples of single-party hammerlocks in rising democracies include:

US (pre-Wilsonian Republicans)
UK (Whigs, Tories)
Germany (CDU/CSU)
Japan (LDJ)
Mexico (PRI)

UK (Whigs, Tories) - two parties at least.
Japan
Germany
Mexico

And I hope you realize that steering towards a one-party system will automatically strike your country out from the list of democratic ones turning it into a Democratic one. Or hammerlock is what you are aiming for?

Your personal characteristics are not relevant but you insisted on interjecting them. One can lead a dummy to reason but one can't make him think.

Like I insisted by being so stupid that you HAD to mention it? It's like a bully grabs an arm of his victim and hits him with the hand repeating "Why are you hitting yourself?" I thought that you were an adult person.

Evidently this, and your subsequent name calling makes any debate with you a waste of time. Go pack your rifle to hunt the evil Republicans across Midwest. Once it is over, the USA will have a new happy life "без козлов, которые мешают нам жить", as Yanukovych used to say.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 clearly notes "the legislature thereof" as part of a subordinate clause to the primary sentence components of "State" "appoint" and "electors." The term was and is not used as a reference to the process.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 notes that the (outgoing) President of the Senate shall open the votes of the electoral college after they have been sent to the Senate.

The Electoral College was the compromise choice of the Constitutional convention, said convention having already voted down two proposals for direct election by popular vote and two proposals for election by Congress. It was flawed from the outset, lasting in its original version (highest vote getter POTUS, second highest VPOTUS) only very briefly when it was apparent that political parties were the new norm and that the old method guaranteed (in practice) the election of a VPOTUS who was the direct political opponent of the POTUS.

The direct election of a President/Veep team would beget a profound change. I am not sure where the consequences thereof would take us. It would certainly be a step towards pure democracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You know I'll always have to come out strong against this, Seamus.

Why would we need elected delegates to mediate presidential selection, let alone state legislatures? What is the applicable argument in favor of it? What is the prospective benefit or principle of political philosophy satisfied? We know the EC was never intended to minimize tyranny of the majority except in the sense of white Southern m being a minority, and it was an instant failure in operation such that it had to be amended for the party system. Just eliminate it, one of the worst elements of constitutional design ever implemented anywhere and one no other country has subjected itself to, to my awareness.

I know you will, have, and will likely continue to do so unless and until the Electoral College is abolished.

Of course it wasn't generated as a result of clear and consistent political philosophy. It was a compromise put together -- in analogous fashion to the "Great Compromise" of Senate/HofR representation levels in the legislature -- as a means of power balancing. They'd already approved a representation basis that accounted for 60% of the enslaved population to count towards the total for each state, making the largest of the Southern states, Virginia, virtually equal to the next two combined. How the heck would they manage a national popular vote when Virginia had 169k or so worth of population that couldn't vote but were being "counted?" [Please note the bitter sarcasm with which I refer to counting people as .6 humans] The goal was to make each states slate of electors important enough so that you couldn't ignore very many of them and still secure election (more or less). It NEVER did this perfectly and certainly does not today.

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

To remove elected Congressmen and Senators is to basically re-write the Constitution entirely. If the president goes direct vote, that is where it will end. Never will Congress as a republican institution dismantle itself for pure democracy.

[Idaho]

America suffers from biblical fundamentalism when it comes to the Constitution. The faith that this was the word of God and can never be improved, only clarified. Ridiculous.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

Turning that around, why do you continue to comment in this thread, when it's patently obvious you do nothing more than piss in everyone's cornflakes and then stonewall being called out for trolling?

And for your information, my concern is minimal. My life won't change even when highways in Georgia are lined with crucified Republicans and their voters

Good. Then you won't mind staying out of the conversation until you have something actually informative or constructive to say.

The term was and is not used as a reference to the process.

I'm no legal eagle, but it seems there is a question as to who 'legislature' refers to when the "State" appoints electors. As is currently implemented, most states require the governors seal to validate the results.

[Hooahguy]

Mod note: guys, lets tone it down. Please don't make me actually do my job.

[a completely inoffensive name]

America suffers from biblical fundamentalism when it comes to the Constitution. The faith that this was the word of God and can never be improved, only clarified. Ridiculous.

Three misconceptions here:

1. Generally every American thinks the Constitution can be improved, the difference is obviously in what people consider 'improved'. We have had 27 amendments after all.

2. For what it's worth, given the brevity and historical context, the document is a pretty big deal in the history of ideas. So there is a certain justification for why it should be revered.

3. Rule of law does not emerge from the strength of a text, but from the strength of people's belief in the text. Every country operating under a liberal democratic constitution would do well in the long run to treat their foundational laws as sacred. The difference between the collapse of other countries utilizing a similar Presidential systems and US is the fundamentalist attitude that underlines a civic spirit. Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

[Idaho]

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.

Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.



I think you've had only 50-odd years of credible democracy by any sensible reckoning.

Anything developed pre-internet is obsolescent at best then?

[Idaho]

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).

We had "peaceful transfers" throughout the 18th and 19th century, with voting and elections, but the UK wasn't a credible democracy until the 1920s.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Who knew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LedDTrWGWeg

“Unfortunately, Carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount, and we’re still fighting with Carrots,” he said. “I will tell you we’ve come to a conclusion. Carrots, I’m sorry to tell you the result did not change.” "This was a fair election… unfortunately, Carrots refused to concede and demanded a recount."

[edyzmedieval]

My point is that, in any group of Americans, you will always have a few who consider the Constitution and it's creators to be sage fathers of the nation. In England, anyone who even knows the name of an 18th century politician, and has an awareness of the political laws of the time is merely considered as someone with a quaint interest in a particular patch of history.

Sir Idaho, I will have to let you know, particularly on these terms, that Sir William Pitt was a remarkable politician and Prime Minister!

(couldn't abstain, British Constitutionalism is my study focus)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger

[Hooahguy]

So the head of the General Services Administration has finally formally started the transition process for Biden (right after which Biden's transition website went from .com to .gov which was neat to see). And then Trump followed with a tweet about how he's not conceding but also sorta is?

Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.

My guess is that he is keeping up this charade to keep his options open for 2024. If he can keep up the "it was stolen" shtick he could lay the foundation for a 2024 run.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We had "peaceful transfers" throughout the 18th and 19th century, with voting and elections, but the UK wasn't a credible democracy until the 1920s.

What are you defining as a democracy? If it's the inclusion of universal suffrage, congrats, you did the exact thing I just said not to do.

[Gilrandir]

Turning that around, why do you continue to comment in this thread, when it's patently obvious you do nothing more than piss in everyone's cornflakes and then stonewall being called out for trolling?

Like "what do you care if my cornflakes have exorbitant amount of sugar in them and my milk is curdled. Let me have them and keep your nose out". Right?

Good. Then you won't mind staying out of the conversation until you have something actually informative or constructive to say.

With this attitude to your opponents you will only deepen the existing divides and war shall you have and hatred undying, as Feanor used to say.