this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
234 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2055 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In short, when the Colorado and Minnesota cases arrive in Washington, the Supreme Court will confront a desperate race against time. If it fails to decide the cases rapidly, it will provoke a constitutional crisis once the polls close and each state decides who won the election. Under current law, state legislatures must report their Electoral College winners in time for Vice President Kamala Harris to report the results to a joint session of Congress meeting on Jan. 6, 2025. Once she inspects the ballots, she is likely to find that none of the three candidates—neither Biden, nor Trump, nor Trump’s proxy—has won a majority of the electoral votes. At this point, Harris will confront a dilemma that will make Vice President Mike Pence’s predicament in 2021 seem modest by comparison.

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

she is likely to find

Why would she be likely to find that? If trump isn't on the ballot, the votes would probably go to Biden and he would win that state. If Slate is meaning that the r's would try not to certify the election, they're going to do that regardless. Harris will certify as usual.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read the article. It lays out the entire thing in vivid detail.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I did, they said that the proxy will split the votes and that there is no way Biden will get all of the electoral votes and that is why it's likely this will happen. I get why there's concern Biden won't get all of the votes (don't forget Biden won last time), but is it really a bigger deal than if trump was on the ballot and got all of the electoral votes and him going full dictator?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

They actually talk about why that’s a bad thing in the article, too.

(Hint: It’s not all the votes, it’s at least 270 votes.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What they're discussing is the possibility that Biden doesn't make it to 270 electoral votes, and the remaining votes are split between Trump and whomever else Republicans write in. I don't think it's a very likely scenario, but it is possible under our electoral system.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I totally agree that it's a possible scenario, but they said that it's likely to happen. Likely is doing a ton of heavy lifting there. I still go with the Trump winning as being far worse since he's going full dictator before even running. He's telling everyone that's what he's going to do and what he and his fellow r's are planning.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem in this scenario (however likely) is that if Democrats don't take back the House in 2024, Republicans get to pick the next President. In the event that the Electoral College fails to identify a clear winner, the House gets to decide who should be President. I'm not willing to bet there are enough "never Trumpers" in the House to avoid installing him anyway.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if dems win a majority in the house, they may not have a majority of state delegations. the house vote is by state delegation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Right, good point.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~Wouldn't the former VP certify before that would happen though?~~ I see, you're saying if someone didn't reach the 270. I can't believe we have to discuss these technicalities for a coup, I hope to god there are people working on this. Between the r's blocking all of the military promotions, the election gerrymandering and now this, we can't watch our country get taken away in slow-mo by him again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If a swing state leaves off trump, the popular vote could easily end up going to "stick it to the libs"... The very act itself of disallowing a major name could easily sway voters in that direction.

The sort that would vote trump will vote for "not biden" under whatever name you slap on there. They could literally run mickey mouse and pull the electoral if people understand that they'd be handing the matter over to the house by doing it, because the house is a trump win (I DO NOT share the authors opinion that this would be a contest or conflict... Without a 270, I believe the house will very quickly hand trump a victory).

Disallowing trump is gonna generate "red no matter who" sentiment, and it's blatantly obvious that the voting public can and will go for that. I think kicking trump off a select few ballots could easily end up backfiring.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Disallowing trump is gonna generate “red no matter who” sentiment, and it’s blatantly obvious that the voting public can and will go for that. I think kicking trump off a select few ballots could easily end up backfiring.

Among some. The same ones who would be red no matter who, no matter who.

Disallowing Trump will shake things up for real. Consider its impact on the primaries and how influential they are in deciding the nominee? What does that do if Trump isn't on the ballots in those states? How can a state GOP party have Trump on the ballot for the primary but not the general?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

No, those always red votes are always red votes... Im talking swing states.

Imagine trump is on the primary ballot in CO, and he wins easily. Then, in direct defiance of the primary voters votes, his name isn't on the general ballot, and the name is instead a distant second place runner up.

The optics of that are that the blue tam stacked the deck. That they have a thumb on the scale. The fat grey area waffly voting bloc that makes a swing state a swing state will be incentivised to vote against the stacked deck. Vote for the runner up, the second best, generate a stalemate and hand it off to the house, resulting in the stacked deck losing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

The EC is so outdated and fucked up.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Please don't let the supreme court choose shit...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t really have a choice. Which is why they should have impeached Thomas and a few others (or packed the court)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't that essentially letting him get away with it? With everything?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t say I like it. But the US government is a system of laws; and those laws say the SCROTUS has the final authority on constitutional matters.

We can either ignore those laws (and become the enemy, really) or overthrow the government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can either ignore those laws (and become the enemy, really) or overthrow the government.

Can you help me parse that? I don't quite understand what you are saying.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US Supreme Court is enshrined by laws as the heights judicial court in the country.

Eventually the matter of trump’s elegibility is going to wind up before it. Your choice at that point is to either accept its authority- even if they’re corrupt assholes who have no business having power; or over throwing the lawful government.

Republicans would simply ignore the court (as they have in the past- in this context they’re the enemy we’d become.).

Note, I’m not advocating an insurrection, either (and become more like them.) but I do see the US as walking a dark path… and I’m scared and impotent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Eventually the matter of trump’s elegibility is going to wind up before it. Your choice at that point is to either accept its authority- even if they’re corrupt assholes who have no business having power; or over throwing the lawful government.

So regardless, one side will end up in a no-win situation forced to reject the will of the Supreme Court (through this lens).

Yeah I don't know how they'll rule. I'm also not 100% that it will get there. Its wildly uncertain times. But thanks for adding more words. I wasn't quite getting your point before.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because they've made some heinous decisions doesn't make them all wrong. And they're certainly not beholden to Trump just because he put 3 of them on the bench. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. They've already won their seats, and politicians can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

They just told Alabama to go fuck themselves on voting rights. There was another tangentially related (to Trump) voting case they refused to hear. Don't be so sure they won't defer to a lower court's decision if Trump's kicked off the ballot.

Disclaimer: I'm not laying bets here people. I'm not totally nuts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You say that but the conservative justices clearly have powerful perks from rich republican donors. The agenda isn’t set by trump, it’s set by those who like him upon others. So I’d give it a 0% chance of the Supreme Court stepping in. Even aside from this issue, they want us to decide.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I have a hunch that in places where a proxy appears to pull electoral votes that ‘cult of personality’ voters won’t show up. They want the Trump name. An ad-hoc write-in campaign, or even the inclusion of the increasingly rightward-leaning (and recognizable) Kennedy name would easily handicap a proxy candidate - allowing a Biden win.

I’m not saying the republicans wouldn’t try to let the house pick, but I think (hope?) they wouldn’t get far enough with that plan to try it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

that's why they stacked the supreme court, to dismantle the USA, maybe they'll stop all the colonization and genocide instead of engaging in "business as usual" .... right?

What goes around comes around.... the USA has been going around spreading shit, it's coming around.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SCOTUS didn’t save him in 2020 and they’re not going to save him in 2024.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I wish I could trust them to do the right thing.