Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fiendish Thingy

(14,324 posts)
10. The CT that has been posted over the weekend is that Trump will challenge the popular vote
Mon Jul 6, 2020, 10:18 AM
Jul 2020

In several swing states, and that the republican legislatures will refuse to certify the electors, but, as has been noted, it doesn’t work that way in many/most states.

The CT also stipulates that Trump will declare a state of emergency due to the “fraud” in order for the DOJ to investigate/interfere with the SOS certification of popular vote tallies, which trigger the appointment of electors in many places, in the hopes of throwing the election to the House, where each state gets one vote.

While Trump/Barr may attempt such a strategy, I doubt it has much chance of succeeding. For one, the streets would fill with protestors who would make recent marches look like picnics, and this uncertainty would also cause the markets to crash. Trump/Barr would only have about 5weeks to interfere with the appointment of electors in the four states the CT claims would be challenged, which the CT claims would prevent either candidate from getting to 270, and throw the election to the house.

Not so fast.

The 12th amendment states:

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

So on January 10 (IIRC), the new Congress unseals and counts the ballots from electors who were appointed and cast their ballots on Dec. 14. The winner is whoever has a majority of electoral votes among the those votes sent to the House for certification. The only time it goes to the house is if there is a tie, or if 3 or more candidates split the electors and none have a majority. With a two way election, that is not mathematically possible (maybe that’s why Kanye declared his candidacy )
Trump could block the appointment of electors in all 50 states, and the 3 from DC would then decide the election.
I thought they didn't want to touch elections with a ten foot pole /nt bucolic_frolic Jul 2020 #1
Copy of the Court's 9-0 opinion (.pdf).... PoliticAverse Jul 2020 #2
States have a lot of leeway in handling their electors. Kaleva Jul 2020 #3
"States May Require" jayfish Jul 2020 #4
There is no constitutional requirement that mandates a state's electors vote for the winner. Kaleva Jul 2020 #5
No, but there are state laws with penalties nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #8
If the penalty is financial, then elected offices are up for auction lindysalsagal Jul 2020 #14
They either do, or they don't. not_the_one Jul 2020 #9
The "electoral college" doesn't say anything FBaggins Jul 2020 #12
Precisely. Igel Jul 2020 #27
... There has until now been no such stipulation, Ghost Dog Jul 2020 #6
Here is the list of states that require electors to vote for the winner in their state Kaleva Jul 2020 #7
Thank you Ghost Dog Jul 2020 #30
The CT that has been posted over the weekend is that Trump will challenge the popular vote Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #10
It isn't up to the legislature to certify the electors in several swing states. Kaleva Jul 2020 #16
That's my point - the CT doesn't take that fact into consideration Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #19
My hope is AC_Mem Jul 2020 #25
The only reason he wants to win is to avoid jail and the label of "loser" nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #26
This is good for us. BGBD Jul 2020 #11
This doesn't impact the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the consortium FBaggins Jul 2020 #13
It goes beyond that BGBD Jul 2020 #15
It does not appear to do so FBaggins Jul 2020 #18
It does BGBD Jul 2020 #20
Nope FBaggins Jul 2020 #22
Wrong BGBD Jul 2020 #24
Two of the most important people, Madison and Hamilton, who devised the Electoral College marie999 Jul 2020 #17
Hamilton and Madison BGBD Jul 2020 #21
'The court said states may require members of the Electoral College to vote elleng Jul 2020 #23
So what happens if an elector votes "against" her state's choice? JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2020 #28
This Wikipedia page has an excellent list of all past faithless electors... PoliticAverse Jul 2020 #29
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court says states...»Reply #10