2020 Presidential Election

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then what does this mean?

It means not counting votes because of some 'time' issue is a fabrication (of Trump's imagination).

What happened in 2000 was completely different and not relevant to 2020.

 

[angrysoba]

It means not counting votes because of some 'time' issue is a fabrication (of Trump's imagination).

What happened in 2000 was completely different and not relevant to 2020.

*sigh*

Are we even talking about the same thing? The issue is that Trump is trying to stop ballots being counted.

He is not complaining that they aren't!

 

[acbytesla]

If you can't count all the voters received in time, that's a flaw in the counting system, not of the voters.

It may not be either. It might just be the Postal Service.

 

[SezMe]

I just assume any republican who claims "Party of Lincoln" is lying to themselves so they can look at themselves in the mirror every day.

Maybe you just explained why Cruz is growing a beard.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

No doubt. What I don't know is if she voluntarily recused herself, or if it was simply the case that she was not present for the arguments and therefore could not, by court rules, take part in the decision.

And "Supreme Court Rules" are kind of interesting creatures. How would a justice challenge them? Suing the Supreme Court? Who would hear the case? Suing the Chief Justice?

The Rules are mostly rules on paperwork. Administration stuff. Applying for admittance to the bar, how certain petitions must be filed, how certain information is recorded, what the Clerk and Marshal must do, etc. The Chief Justice would make any determinations on those issues, but there isn't really anything controversial.

The Rules don't affect Justices very much. Supreme Court Justices are even not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They don't dictate rules for recusal or anything like that. Justices can pretty much do what they want.

Even selection for which cases to hear is not covered by the Rules. There are traditions that are followed. All of those kinds of things are up the the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is the administrator of the court.

If it is something significant, it might be different. For example, two Justices do not participate in a case at all and the Chief Justice says he knows how they would vote and casts votes for them to flip a decision. Or a group of Justices start ignoring set selection of cases and schedule and just start issuing opinions on heir own. Those types of things would likely result in impeachment and removal, followed by petitions for rehearing.

I recall a case where a Justice retired. A short while later, before his seat was filled, he started showing up at the courthouse and doing a lot of the behinds-the-scenes stuff that Justices do. He was basically acting like he was still a Justice. There aren't (or at least weren't) specific rules on what constitutes a declaration of retirement. The Chief Justice didn't want to cause a big stir, so he simply ordered the court staff to stop working with him until he eventually got discouraged and stopped showing up.

 

[SezMe]

Trump Tweets

If you vote for Biden, your kids will not be in school, there will be no graduations, no weddings, no Thanksgiving, no Christmas, and no Fourth of July!

Trump's desperate alright but not regarding the election. He's desperate because he's running out of things that the Dems will remove from society.

 

[Pixel42]

The BBC Poll of Polls shows Biden 9% up.

It's changed remarkably little for months.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Let's hope we don't find out what happens if they aren't done.

What happens is laid out in Title 3 of the U.S. Code. That sets the date for the meeting of the electors. This year, that's December 14.

It says that a State's appointment of electors is conclusive if done in accordance with the State's laws as they existed at the start of the election within 6 days before the meeting of the electors. That would be December 8.

But it is rather forgiving if those deadlines are not met.

If the State has not appointed electors by that date, it may do so by December 14, but then the appointments may not be considered conclusive.

If the electors cannot (or do not) meet on the appointed date, they can do it at a later date as determined by the State's legislature.

If no certification of electors is received by the fourth Wednesday of December (December 23) the President of the Senate (the Vice President) sends a demand for the certification to the State's Secretary of State to which the Secretary must send the certificate by mail immediately. (Of course, "immediate" is somewhat subjective.)

That resolves the issues of deadlines. But there are other considerations.

The votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on January 6. During the counting, an objection to a vote can be made in writing if it is signed by one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate. At that point, the counting stops. Both Houses convene to vote on the objection. The objection is only upheld if both Houses agree. There are time limits set by law for speaking prior to the vote, so there is no filibuster.

A vote cannot be rejected if it was conclusive under the laws above and was "regularly given" (a rather nebulous term).

The decisions that Congress can make in such situations are not exactly clear. For contested votes, they would probably invalid those votes. They maybe could send it back to the State.

If the votes are invalidated, there is some question on how that would affect the election. A candidate needs a majority of votes from appointed electors (270). If the votes are invalidated by Congress, does that change? Do they invalidate the votes (270 still needed) or do they invalidate the appointed electors (majority of how ever many electors there end up being).

And what if the majority of Congress is Party A and the presidential candidate with the most electoral votes is from Party B and Congress decides that they will just arbitrarily contest the votes for the Party B candidate and, with their majority, rule that those votes are not valid. That would be clearly against the law...but what then? Probably goes to the Supreme Court. Some vague Constitutional objections. But who ultimately has authority? It isn't clear. This would probably be a constitutional crises. And would probably only occur if the country is on the brink of collapse and destruction.

That is unlikely to happen.

 

[The Don]

Apologies if this has already been linked.

fivethirtyeight have looked at Pennsylvania and see it as a state which will likely have a "blue shift" as absentee ballots are counted.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-count-could-change-after-election-night/

About 2 million mail-in ballots have already been returned so far, almost one-third of the total number of votes cast in the state four years ago. But because the state can’t begin processing mail ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, it could be awhile before we get full results in Pennsylvania. State officials have said that it could take until Friday to finish counting most ballots. And between Tuesday and Friday, there could be a pretty big shift in terms of which party is favored in the vote tally, given that Biden supporters are far more likely to vote early or absentee than Trump supporters, who are far more likely to vote on Election Day.

Given how important the state is, it's highly likely that President Trump will be screaming about voter fraud if his lead is reversed - or even if Biden seems to be leading early on and his lead grows.

Right now, our forecast estimates that about 6.8 million votes will be cast in Pennsylvania, on average, and the average popular vote result gives Biden about a 5-point edge over Trump, 52 percent to 47 percent. If that panned out, that means Biden would win about 3.6 million votes to Trump’s 3.2 million (with a few additional votes for other candidates). And if the vote count followed what we saw in the primary, less than half of Biden’s votes would be in by 3 a.m. on election night, whereas around 70 percent of Trump’s would be reported.

How likely is it that Pennsylvania, which has a solidly GOP legislature, will try to stop counting early, overturn the result or instruct Electoral College members to reflect the count as at a particular point in time (thus favouring President Trump) as opposed to the full count ?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maria is badly needed in Washington. She is an outstanding person who truly loves her Country and her State. Her opponent, @DonnaShalala, is a political hack who is a puppet of Nancy Pelosi. She does nothing for Florida. Maria has my Complete & Total Endorsement!
Quote Tweet

Maria Elvira Salazar
@MaElviraSalazar
US House candidate, FL-27
People are sick of politicians like Donna Shalala who think they are above the law. Congressmen are elected to go to Washington to represent the needs of their district not to line their own pockets. Donna Shalala has now broken the law several times.

 

[The Don]

Maria is badly needed in Washington. She is an outstanding person who truly loves her Country and her State. Her opponent, @DonnaShalala, is a political hack who is a puppet of Nancy Pelosi. She does nothing for Florida. Maria has my Complete & Total Endorsement!
Quote Tweet

Maria Elvira Salazar
@MaElviraSalazar
US House candidate, FL-27
People are sick of politicians like Donna Shalala who think they are above the law. Congressmen are elected to go to Washington to represent the needs of their district not to line their own pockets. Donna Shalala has now broken the law several times.

The irony - it burns

 

[Aridas]

Given how important the state is, it's highly likely that President Trump will be screaming about voter fraud if his lead is reversed - or even if Biden seems to be leading early on and his lead grows.

Not just Trump. In 2018, across the country, a lot of Republicans were screaming foul as the red mirage evaporated.

How likely is it that Pennsylvania, which has a solidly GOP legislature, will try to stop counting early, overturn the result or instruct Electoral College members to reflect the count as at a particular point in time (thus favouring President Trump) as opposed to the full count ?

Not all that likely. Probably. At least in an immediate sense.

That they'll try to slow down or sabotage the counting speed has been a concern, though, especially given that the Trump campaign and some of the GOP legislators have been rather interested in the option of simply having the GOP legislature just choose the electors if it's taking too long to count the votes.

They probably won't do that if it's a blowout for Biden or the votes can be counted fast enough, but... it's honestly hard to say what path they choose to pursue. If Trump and the GOP effectively try to stage a coup, all bets are off. That's notably more likely to happen in 4 more years (or less) if Trump gets re-elected, but it's something that, unfortunately, should be recognized as a real possibility even for this election, under the circumstances. Trump has very much expressed his unwillingness to accept a loss, the GOP is much more influenced by authoritarians at present, and the GOP is presently staring at, quite frankly, upcoming annihilation at the ballot box a few years down the road as their elderly base dies off and the younger voters that heavily skew Democratic increasingly become more active as they age.

 

[angrysoba]

Apologies if this has already been linked.

fivethirtyeight have looked at Pennsylvania and see it as a state which will likely have a "blue shift" as absentee ballots are counted.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-count-could-change-after-election-night/



Given how important the state is, it's highly likely that President Trump will be screaming about voter fraud if his lead is reversed - or even if Biden seems to be leading early on and his lead grows.



How likely is it that Pennsylvania, which has a solidly GOP legislature, will try to stop counting early, overturn the result or instruct Electoral College members to reflect the count as at a particular point in time (thus favouring President Trump) as opposed to the full count ?

I don't know specifically about the attempts to stop the count in PA, but clearly that is now a strategy for Trump's team to get mail ballots disqualified by some procedure or another if the last two pages on this thread are anything to go by.

What I also know from anecdotes, is that a narrative is filtering down to the Trump fans.

Some co-worker of mine was ranting on Facebook about how "reputable political scientists" ("Not ******** CNN polls!") now believe that Trump will win in a landslide and that it is only some fraudulent mail ballots which will try to overturn this.

When challenged to provide evidence, it turned out he didn't understand his source which said what we already know which is that the early counts may favour Trump, but legitimately cast mail ballots will wipe out Trump's advantage in many of those states as they are counted.

This is why I am astonished that they can simply stop counting the ballots after a mere handful of days.

But the Trump fans will definitely start being fed a "stolen election" narrative if things turn out this way.

I just hope that Biden outperforms the FiveThirtyEight model and he crushes Trump (they say that this could happen too.)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The latest polls from The Guardian have Biden winning every swing state other than Ohio

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But the Trump fans will definitely start being fed a "stolen election" narrative if things turn out this way.

They've been fed that narrative for months, now.

 

[Armitage72]

Given how important the state is, it's highly likely that President Trump will be screaming about voter fraud if his lead is reversed - or even if Biden seems to be leading early on and his lead grows.

Let's be honest. Based on his past behavior, Trump will be screaming about voter fraud if he's winning, but not by as wide a margin as he thinks he should.

 

[llwyd]

The 3rd quarter growth figures today will be promoted to death by Trump, but one would think that most people well know why the number is so high and that on grass roots level things are pretty grim indeed.

 

[phiwum]

No doubt. What I don't know is if she voluntarily recused herself, or if it was simply the case that she was not present for the arguments and therefore could not, by court rules, take part in the decision.

Good point. I don't think I heard the word "recuse" on the PBS NewsHour.

 

[Meadmaker]

Good point. I don't think I heard the word "recuse" on the PBS NewsHour.

In the written decision, it said (quoting from memory) "Justice Barrett took no part in the proceedings." (And I don't remember if the word was "proceedings" or "decision")

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Thank you to Dave Rubin, author of “Don’t Burn This Book”, just announced on
@foxandfriends that he is voting for your favorite President, me. “I think Donald Trump has done a lot of good. When I see an American flag, I see Trump support.”