What if Trump DOES drop out?

[nelsondogg]

Not only is he not going to drop out, he's going to claim he actually won when he loses and was the victim of fraud, dirty tricks, etc. He'll contest the election, file multiple lawsuits and start a huge **** storm of epic proportions.

 

[Ladewig]

I'd like to hope this whole fiasco will lead a shift wherein the Presidential election is more than simply choosing between the two ordained candidates that the two parties have deemed to tell us peasants we are allowed to vote for, but that's probably wishful thinking.

How did you conclude that the Republican Party "ordained" Trump as the candidate? Also, if you want to change how the system puts a nominee on the ballot, what do you think should replace 50 state primaries?

They may not nominate anybody. Just take the loss, reflect on what went wrong and move forward.

The Republican Party and the right-wing radio personalities have spent 30 years describing these elections as a battle for the soul of America, a fight that will determine if America prospers or dies an ignoble death, a contest between true patriots and people who want to destroy every positive aspect of a great country. I think you are gravely mistaken if you think that this group of people will decide to just take the loss.

As others have said in this and other threads, reflecting on what went wrong and moving forward is the exact opposite of what they have been doing for the past few election cycles. The rational folks have continually advocated this strategy and have always been drowned out by the folks crying "further right, we must move further right to gain enough voters to win elections." I am very, very doubtful that they will either insightfully reflect on what has happened or will move forward in a direction that brings new people into the party.

ETA
on the other hand, this has been an election will with many firsts. Perhaps now is the time that they can do a 180.
Time will tell.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

We've already had one weirdo presidential election in my lifetime, where the results weren't clear and the Supreme Court had to step in. That seemed pretty strange, and an obvious breakdown of the process that should have been figured out. When a process breaks you analyze it and set in place either safeguards to prevent that same kind of thing from happening again, or a policy of how to deal with it when it does--a policy everyone knows ahead of time so it doesn't come as a hideous surprise.

A second weirdo election shenanigans surely would justify a complete examination of the entire process and new consideration of every step and imaginable outcomes.

I actually disagree. Because trump himself is the aberrant element, the GOP doesn't need to look at themselves or the process as flayed, just Teh Donald. Look at how Mitch McConnell has clung to his party despite this idiot. They're blind, and don't see that he's the symptom of themselves.

In other words, I suspect they'll change they system as little as possible and themselves not one iota. Some minor mechanism will be trotted out next election that won't seem a big deal gives them some leverage on a candidate. Not much leverage, and probably not enough to deal with the next crisis.

 

[acbytesla]

I

It is not supposed to be a paragon of democracy. It is supposed to be a paragon of freedom. As long as the people believe in, understand, and defend the Constitution, the institutions will be strong, and it will matter little who the President is. To take an American football analogy, the President will be restricted to playing between the 40 yard lines. Democracy as a method for choosing the optimal leaders is idiotic. There is no wisdom of crowds at work because of the enormous cognitive biases which candidates can exploit. However, Democracy is a very effective mechanism for providing what most people can accept as a fair result. Bestowing legitimacy on our elected leaders is far more important than getting the best leaders.

Wow! I really don't agree with this. I'm reminded of the Churchill quote about democracy. "It's the worst form of government, except for all the others". This of course does not mean that the best possible leader wins, but every other method lacks legitimacy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless no concept of either democracy or freedom requires us to have only two de-facto choices when it comes to President.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Not only is he not going to drop out, he's going to claim he actually won when he loses and was the victim of fraud, dirty tricks, etc. He'll contest the election, file multiple lawsuits and start a huge **** storm of epic proportions.

I predicted this would happen during the primary
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10878653&postcount=2002#JREF_Forum_top

and have been variously confused and frightened by actual voter results.

I agree with this prediction, that should he lose (when he loses, I hope) he will not concede and will make a big stink. But it will be a stink in a bucket because the GOP will weasel out of this somehow, so his stink doesn't stick to them.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

It is not supposed to be a paragon of democracy. It is supposed to be a paragon of freedom.

Any system that is not democratic by definition is not free. it is a system where few rule without the mandate of many. So yes, I want a system that is the paragon of upholding the social contract, our version of which includes democratic rule.

 

[acbytesla]

Regardless no concept of either democracy or freedom requires us to have only two de-facto choices when it comes to President.

No offense but you have had a lot more choices than 2. There were 11 candidates running in the Republican primaries and 3 in the Democratic party. The Libertarian and the Green party I believe are also on the ballot in all 50 states. So your complaint isn't really valid.

 

[sunmaster14]

Regardless no concept of either democracy or freedom requires us to have only two de-facto choices when it comes to President.

It's actually quite a good system to narrow the choices down to two. The winner can then point to the fact that a majority of the electorate affirmatively chose him. From that he derives a large measure of legitimacy.

How we narrow the choices down to two perhaps could be done more optimally. A better way might be to require all primaries be fully open to all, regardless of political registration. That way, Republican voters could moderate the Democratic choice, and Democratic voters could moderate the Republican choice. I doubt that gamesmanship would be a serious problem.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

While I agree with the last part, I'm not so sure of the first. In the extraordinary event that a state party defied the national party and circulated nominating petitions for someone other than the national nominee, I wonder what laws would govern it?

This actually happened in Arizona with the Libertarian party in 2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Neil_Smith#Politics

 

[Foolmewunz]

The Republican party has a set of published bylaws governing it and it's nominee. The party has its name on the ballot in all 50 States and Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

<snip>

The Republican Party has never received a single vote in any presidential election in the territories.
















Neither have the Democrats. The territories have primaries and caucuses, but aren't allowed a vote in the Presidential election.

 

[acbytesla]

The Republican Party has never received a single vote in any presidential election in the territories.

I agree, but try as you might, you can't as an individual just have your name on the ballot in your states. It's a long process.

Neither have the Democrats. The territories have primaries and caucuses, but aren't allowed a vote in the Presidential election.

I believe you're mistaken. There are 535 electoral votes split between the 50 States. The territories have 3 between them. What's very unfair is that DC has a population the equivalent of the populations of ND, SD, WY, and MT all which have 3 votes, DC has none.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I agree, but try as you might, you can't as an individual just have your name on the ballot in your states. It's a long process.



I believe you're mistaken. There are 535 electoral votes split between the 50 States. The territories have 3 between them. What's very unfair is that DC has a population the equivalent of the populations of ND, SD, WY, and MT all which have 3 votes, DC has none.

No. DC has three. The territories have zero.

 

[acbytesla]

This actually happened in Arizona with the Libertarian party in 2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Neil_Smith#Politics

That's interesting, I wonder if there was a court challenge? I imagine there wasn't.

I could be wrong and of course I haven't read everything, I would imagine the RNC would challenge the actions of any state party wildcatting it. I also don't see how State officials could justify their actions in court.

 

[acbytesla]

No. DC has three. The territories have zero.

My mistake, you are right. They just don't have representation in Congress.

 

[dudalb]

Perhaps there will be a Constitutional amendment completely laying out and refining the election process. Standardizing it, making provisions for various possible scenarios, and allowing a do-over in cases of complete crazypants meltdown.

And filling the most obvious gap in electing a President....there is no clear stated procedure for what happens if the President elects dies between the time he is elected and when he takes the oath. The assumption is the Veep electee would take over, but nowhere is that clearly stated.

 

[dudalb]

My mistake, you are right. They just don't have representation in Congress.

Territories do have official representatives in Congress,but they can't vote.

 

[acbytesla]

Territories do have official representatives in Congress,but they can't vote.

I was referring to DC.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And filling the most obvious gap in electing a President....there is no clear stated procedure for what happens if the President elects dies between the time he is elected and when he takes the oath. The assumption is the Veep electee would take over, but nowhere is that clearly stated.

When that happened to James Monroe the question was shelved because he rose again as a vampire. But that's unlikely in the current election, since Trump's orange blood is unpalatable to vampires and Clinton has all her blood stored on a private server in her basement.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There 535 electoral votes split between the 50 States. The territories have 3 between them. What's very unfair is that DC has a population the equivalent of the populations of ND, SD, WY, and MT all which have 3 votes, DC has none.

No. DC has three. The territories have zero.

Which makes it even more unfair. Puerto Rico has ~3.5 million people and would be 29th in overall population if it where a state proper. DC on the other hand has only 600,000.

But yeah the whole territories/district/incorporated areas/other things which are states but aren't (which is actually vastly oversimplifying it) thing needs to go away. It sorta vaguely made sense with D.C. at least on a conceptual level but we're not empire building anymore.