Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What happens if McConnell or Pence delays the procedural step of counting the EVs to the 11th hour, and then announces refusal to (citing "fraud")? Once a deadline is reached if 270 have not been counted for any candidate I understand it goes to the House.

I realize that would be a hugely unpopular move with dire consequences, but could they technically do it, or could they be legally forced not to?
 
gnome said:
What happens if McConnell or Pence delays the procedural step of counting the EVs to the 11th hour, and then announces refusal to (citing "fraud")? Once a deadline is reached if 270 have not been counted for any candidate I understand it goes to the House.

I realize that would be a hugely unpopular move with dire consequences, but could they technically do it, or could they be legally forced not to?
Click to expand...

The Constitution requires that certain things happen, including the counting of the votes, so if they refuse to do it, someone, presumably Joe Biden or someone affiliated with him, would take a suit to the Supreme Court, who would order that everyone follow the law, which includes counting the certified votes and declaring the winner (Joe Biden) to be the next President, effective noon on January 20.

And if they refuse?

It won't "go to the House" under any circumstances, because the law prescribes when it goes to the House, and those conditions won't be met. It's one of those things that it cannot get there legally, so there's no point in going there illegally. The procedures defined under the law cannot get you to a vote of the House of Representatives. If you try to get there, you are being lawless.

And, what then? Well, sooner or later it comes down to guns, doesn't it?
 
gnome said:
What happens if McConnell or Pence delays the procedural step of counting the EVs to the 11th hour, and then announces refusal to (citing "fraud")? Once a deadline is reached if 270 have not been counted for any candidate I understand it goes to the House.

I realize that would be a hugely unpopular move with dire consequences, but could they technically do it, or could they be legally forced not to?
Click to expand...

Nope. The votes are counted on January 6th PERIOD. The only thing that any Congress person or Senator can do is in writing object to each specific vote. They have to be joined by another Representative. But their objection must carry a majority in both houses. Otherwise the vote is counted.

Ninja'd by Meadmaker.
 
Last edited:
I want to say one more thing about "going to the House". I have seen all sorts of commentary, mostly from right wing fantasy pieces, about how the Republican Senate could conspire to do something so that the electoral votes are rejected, and in that case the House of Representatives decides.

No. That's not how it works. The House of Representatives decides who gets elected President only if the electoral votes are counted, and no candidate has a majority. In other words, the Senate can't throw it to the House by refusing to count the votes. They have to count the votes, and then declare that no candidate has a majority. That's what I mean about there being no legal path to get to the House. You have to count the votes first in order to go to the House, and if you count the votes, Joe Biden wins.
 
Minoosh said:
Really with Trump it comes down to if he really has the balls, and he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I think “balls” in this context means “courage” or “intestinal fortitude”. I don’t think either ever factor into Trump’s actions or decisions. It seems he’s motivated by a very simple decision tree: Is this good for me? IF “Yes” THEN “Do it”, ELSE “Don’t do it”. “Balls” are not involved. If he ever appears brave, like not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic, it’s more likely due to ignorance rather than bravery.

I have a very strong feeling that if Trump is ever presented with a real, physical threat he’d just cower in fear. He’s just a weak, scared little man acting strong.
 
Last edited:
Trump also crapped out on a lolsuit in Minnesota. Here's a summary of failures from the past couple of days:

Donald Trump’s brutal day in court [politico.com]
President Donald Trump and his legal allies earned a platinum sombrero Friday, striking out five times in a matter of hours in states pivotal to the president’s push to overturn the election results — and losing a sixth in Minnesota for good measure.
Click to expand...

The Minnesota ruling:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-.../Order-Dismiss-Not-Stipulated-Entire-Case.pdf
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think “balls” in this context means “courage” or “intestinal fortitude”. I don’t think either ever factor into Trump’s actions or decisions. It seems he’s motivated by a very simple decision tree: Is this good for me? IF “Yes” THEN “Do it”, ELSE “Don’t do it”. “Balls” are not involved. If he ever appears brave, like not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic, it’s more likely due to ignorance rather than bravery.

I have a very strong feeling that if Trump is ever presented with a real, physical threat he’d just cower in fear. He’s just a weak, scared little man acting strong.
Click to expand...


I think it's fortunate that he has delusions of running in 2024. It may be holding him back from the next level of crazy.
 
Meadmaker said:
The Constitution requires that certain things happen, including the counting of the votes, so if they refuse to do it, someone, presumably Joe Biden or someone affiliated with him, would take a suit to the Supreme Court, who would order that everyone follow the law, which includes counting the certified votes and declaring the winner (Joe Biden) to be the next President, effective noon on January 20.

And if they refuse?

It won't "go to the House" under any circumstances, because the law prescribes when it goes to the House, and those conditions won't be met. It's one of those things that it cannot get there legally, so there's no point in going there illegally. The procedures defined under the law cannot get you to a vote of the House of Representatives. If you try to get there, you are being lawless.

And, what then? Well, sooner or later it comes down to guns, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The winner of the EC is the one who gets the majority of the votes. If the votres from PA are nullified, then its just whoever gets the majority of the rest.

Trump only has 222. They'd have to nullify 85 votes for Trump to win.

Tbe number 270 is not in the constitution.
 
pgwenthold said:
The winner of the EC is the one who gets the majority of the votes. If the votres from PA are nullified, then its just whoever gets the majority of the rest.

Trump only has 222. They'd have to nullify 85 votes for Trump to win.

Tbe number 270 is not in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Once a state certifies its votes, it has its electors. Electors can be challenged then in Congress, but after two hours of debate, each house of Congress votes, and unless each house votes against that slate of electors, that slate of electors is accepted and their votes are counted. There's no process by which the total number of electors gets reduced.

"Nullified" doesn't mean anything in this context. Exactly what procedure is in play, in what governmental body, when an elector is "nullified?"
 
pgwenthold said:
The winner of the EC is the one who gets the majority of the votes. If the votres from PA are nullified, then its just whoever gets the majority of the rest.

Trump only has 222. They'd have to nullify 85 votes for Trump to win.

Tbe number 270 is not in the constitution.
Click to expand...

The key constitutional phrase is "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;"

If, in some alternative universe, the Trump supporters managed to reject the Pennsylvania votes, would they try to claim that the electors from Pennsylvania had been "appointed", but their votes were rejected?

Of course it's an absurd claim, but the whole situation is absurd. Basically, if they throw out the law in the first step, how will the rest of the situation play out? You can't throw away the law at the beginning and then claim to be following it at the end. At that point, it's up to the courts and, ultimately, the guns. Fortunately, there's no way that they are going to have the votes to disallow even one electoral vote, but it's sad that the subject is even being discussed in a serious fashion.

There is one takeaway that I will repeat for those confused about the law, and who read things in various places. I have read numerous articles and comments recently that basically assert that if anything goes odd along the way, the House of Representatives picks the President. The important thing to understand is that those assertions are not true. The House of Representatives only gets to pick the President after a number of other steps have been taken, including counting the electoral votes. You can't skip all those steps and go directly to the House of Representatives.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
The key constitutional phrase is "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;"

If, in some alternative universe, the Trump supporters managed to reject the Pennsylvania votes, would they try to claim that the electors from Pennsylvania had been "appointed", but their votes were rejected?

Of course it's an absurd claim, but the whole situation is absurd. Basically, if they throw out the law in the first step, how will the rest of the situation play out? You can't throw away the law at the beginning and then claim to be following it at the end. At that point, it's up to the courts and, ultimately, the guns. Fortunately, there's no way that they are going to have the votes to disallow even one electoral vote, but it's sad that the subject is even being discussed in a serious fashion.

There is one takeaway that I will repeat for those confused about the law, and who read things in various places. I have read numerous articles and comments recently that basically assert that if anything goes odd along the way, the House of Representatives picks the President. The important thing to understand is that those assertions are not true. The House of Representatives only gets to pick the President after a number of other steps have been taken, including counting the electoral votes. You can't skip all those steps and go directly to the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
I presume that the Electors are appointed when the results are certified in the states. It's the states that do the appointing, not the Congress. Or, perhaps they are appointed on Dec. 14 when they meet? This seems a technicality that won't influence the 270 number.
 
Paul2 said:
I presume that the Electors are appointed when the results are certified in the states. It's the states that do the appointing, not the Congress. Or, perhaps they are appointed on Dec. 14 when they meet? This seems a technicality that won't influence the 270 number.
Click to expand...

I would think so as well.

Legally, there is only one way this ends. The states certify the votes, and in so doing they appoint their electors. Those electors vote, and Biden gets the majority of the votes. Those are counted in Congress and Biden becomes President on January 20.

Everything else is just some variation on "What happens if someone does something illegal?" See....guns.

The one time in American history where people did try to do things illegally, it did come down to threats of civil war. The appropriate phrase was "Tilden or Blood." And what happened then? They made up an ad hoc procedure, and did some negotiating. What happened in 1876 was certainly not described in the Constitution.

In theory, there is one other way this ends which is technically legal. That way is a huge number of "faithless electors" switch the election. In the real world, that is not even a remote possibility, but it's theoretically possible that without breaking any laws, 270 electors could decide to vote for Kanye West, in which case he would be the duly elected President of the United States.
 
Meadmaker said:
I would think so as well.

Legally, there is only one way this ends. The states certify the votes, and in so doing they appoint their electors. Those electors vote, and Biden gets the majority of the votes. Those are counted in Congress and Biden becomes President on January 20.

Everything else is just some variation on "What happens if someone does something illegal?" See....guns.

The one time in American history where people did try to do things illegally, it did come down to threats of civil war. The appropriate phrase was "Tilden or Blood." And what happened then? They made up an ad hoc procedure, and did some negotiating. What happened in 1876 was certainly not described in the Constitution.

In theory, there is one other way this ends which is technically legal. That way is a huge number of "faithless electors" switch the election. In the real world, that is not even a remote possibility, but it's theoretically possible that without breaking any laws, 270 electors could decide to vote for Kanye West, in which case he would be the duly elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...
Many states don't allow faithless electors. We just saw Arizona not allowing faithless electors. How many? Lemme check. . . . Ugh, too much work to figure out how many electoral college votes are at risk from faithless electors. Here's an interesting source: a not-so-user-friendly map, as well as a list below it.
 
Meadmaker said:
I would think so as well.

Legally, there is only one way this ends. The states certify the votes, and in so doing they appoint their electors. Those electors vote, and Biden gets the majority of the votes. Those are counted in Congress and Biden becomes President on January 20.

Everything else is just some variation on "What happens if someone does something illegal?" See....guns.

The one time in American history where people did try to do things illegally, it did come down to threats of civil war. The appropriate phrase was "Tilden or Blood." And what happened then? They made up an ad hoc procedure, and did some negotiating. What happened in 1876 was certainly not described in the Constitution.

In theory, there is one other way this ends which is technically legal. That way is a huge number of "faithless electors" switch the election. In the real world, that is not even a remote possibility, but it's theoretically possible that without breaking any laws, 270 electors could decide to vote for Kanye West, in which case he would be the duly elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...
The absolute penultimate step - the very last thing that officially happens before the oath of office is given - is that the president of the Senate - Mike Pence in this case - has to announce the results of the vote. I wondered early on whether he would just announce Trump the winner, on the basis that there could be no norm or expectation put above screwing around with by this bunch of *************.

However, we recently saw Pence swear in Mike Kelly as Senator (Arizona), so perhaps Mike Pence has a single shred of political decency left in him.
 
Paul2 said:
Many states don't allow faithless electors. We just saw Arizona not allowing faithless electors. How many? Lemme check. . . . Ugh, too much work to figure out how many electoral college votes are at risk from faithless electors. Here's an interesting source: a not-so-user-friendly map, as well as a list below it.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of grey in that map, and those states seem to be missing from the list of states in the "what happens" list. I'm guessing that the web site authors simply don't know?

But Kanye's chances aren't looking good.


It will be interesting to see how many faithless electors there are. In my fantasy world a number of Trump electors are so disgusted by his post-election attempts to overturn democracy that they vote for someome else, if allowed by the laws of their state. Not going to happen? Of course not, but a man can dream.
 
Paul2 said:
Many states don't allow faithless electors. We just saw Arizona not allowing faithless electors. .
Click to expand...

I like the fact that Arizona's law against faithless electors came after the 2016 election, to prevent any future electors from bolting against a candidate who, for example, did not win the popular vote in the country.

The law in Arizona says the electors must vote for the candidate that got the most votes in the state.

Suddenly, the party of law and order wants to not follow that law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom