11 ms·

> How do you honestly think this would go? They destroy the certifications of the electoral votes from the states (as almost happened[0]), causing various stat

> How do you honestly think this would go? They destroy the certifications of the electoral votes from the states (as almost happened[0]), causing various states to (disingenuously) disagree about how to replace the lost documents. Enough FUD (and lawsuits, and delays) would be generated during this period of public disorientation that the Republican party could exploit the ambiguity of the Constitutional phrase "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed"[1] and trigger the contingent election procedure described in the Twelfth Amendment.[2] Since a majority of states at the time had Republican representation, they would have elected Trump and the Democrats would have not been able to stop them, even if Trump did eventually let them back into the Capitol. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-aides-rescued-electoral-votes-before-congress-evacuated-capitol-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-aides-rescued-elector... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act#Majority_of_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act#Majority_o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

sidewndr46 4y ago
If the US is so fragile that a box of paper is somehow key to the stability of an entire empire, we're pretty much doomed. Also your statement that "Since a majority of states at the time had Republican representation, they would have elected Trump" is laughable. It's well known that Trump asked multiple Republican governors to "find some votes" and they obviously did not do this. Even if someone is a demagogue that doesn't make them willing to commit a career ending felony. After all, being a demagogue got them a long way. Not by falsifying election documents.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Also your statement that "Since a majority of states at the time had Republican representation, they would have elected Trump" is laughable. Actually, it's not. The way this works (I really hope you're not an American, because if you are you really should know this) is that if the counting of electoral votes is sufficiently disputed (in this counterfactual case, the vote certificates were destroyed), deciding the outcome of the election rests with the US House of Representatives. If that were (and it has, several times in US history), to happen the members of the House would vote (on a state by state basis, not each representative voting individually) on who was to be the President. Since a majority (26 or 27 out of 50, IIRC) of states have Republican majorities in the number of House members, a House vote would likely have gone Trump's way[0]. This is something of a peccadillo of the US Presidential electoral system that probably should be reformed[1], but it currently is the law of the land. [0] Which is why it was so important (at least for the Trumpists) for the proceedings to be disrupted. It was the final opportunity for them to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people. [1] Because regardless of which party's state cohorts have a majority, that's a supremely undemocratic way to choose the winner and is a relic of the state of the states (as essentially separate nations banding together for defense) in the late 18th century. Edit: Fixed typo.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Under that logic, the US was over thrown back in 2000 when the supreme court decided the outcome of an election.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >Under that logic, the US was over thrown back in 2000 when the supreme court decided the outcome of an election. That's a really reductive (and, in my view, incorrect) take on the issues in Florida in 2000. It was a hot mess, and I think (IANAL, so I may well be talking out of my ass) the Supreme Court should have kicked this back to the Florida courts, but all such activity was within the bounds of the US Constitution. The absence of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, at least AFAIK, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. I'd be interested to know what logical steps lead from what I wrote to "Bush v. Gore overthrew the US government." Would you mind sharing that line of reasoning? Because It's not at all clear to me how you got from point a to point b. Thanks! N.B.: I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 (or 2004, for that matter)
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        The government follows the processes of the government. That's how it works. Keep in mind, there is literally 1 mention of the Supreme court in the constitution. It says Congress can "ordain and establish it". It doesn't say anything about Congress authorizing the Supreme Court to decide the outcome of elections, which is what happened. So if we strictly stick to this idea that somehow one election is this critical, then the US government ended back in 2000. The electoral college results were basically just discarded by SCOTUS and Bush was appointed president. Your argument is that "Republican governors" could follow the processes of the government to somehow influence an election. I don't even think what you're describing is possible. But if it is, well that is the government just following it's own processes. If that makes you upset, you apparently feel that our government is not legitimate. The Republican vs Democrat vs whatever is irrelevant. If the government decides it doesn't like the outcome of an election & throws it out, that's the governments choice. You're in the same boat that somehow champion's the idea the Roe v. wade is the "correct" decision of the Supreme court on abortion. Guess what: the supreme court basically just goes with whatever is popular at present. You love the idea of the fairy tale high school civics course where the US is some bastion of righteousness & freedom. How many times did the Supreme Court rule that slavery was all fine & dandy? Apparently enough we fought a war over it and had to get Congress to authorize amendments explaining that slavery was in fact not OK.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  None of them did this because it has an absolutely awful cost v benefit ratio. In the present scenario they are likely to have a bright political future where the maximum downside is likely to be a political fizzle followed by a lucrative retirement whereas maximum downside of attempting to overthrow government is death or prison. Comparatively playing for time, doing nothing, and then voting Trump are all low risk activities which is why it is entirely believable that they should come to pass.
philippejara 4y ago
So your thinking is that the republican party, which by and large already disagreed with trump(to the extent a republican was the alleged "target" of the riot), would side with him after his supporters murder Mike Pence, said republican? You can dislike republicans all you want but this is just another level.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I wasn't supposing that the insurrectionists would succeed in murdering Pence, or that the entire Republican party would unanimously back Trump, just that enough Republican-run states would raise questions about the legitimacy of the (replacement) electoral certifications (which they might refuse to produce) in order to trigger the contingent election. In such a circumstance, it's hard to imagine the state delegations of Republican states deciding to throw away a perfectly legal and constitutional opportunity to elect their guy to the presidency. If it makes you feel any better, I would expect Democrat delegations to vote for the Democrat candidate if there were ever a contingent election, even if that candidate didn't have a plurality of electoral votes (perhaps at least justifying their decision by pointing to the popular vote, which their candidate might nevertheless have won).

sidewndr46 4y ago

If the US is so fragile that a box of paper is somehow key to the stability of an entire empire, we're pretty much doomed. Also your statement that "Since a majority of states at the time had Republican representation, they would have elected Trump" is laughable. It's well known that Trump asked multiple Republican governors to "find some votes" and they obviously did not do this. Even if someone is a demagogue that doesn't make them willing to commit a career ending felony. After all, being a demagogue got them a long way. Not by falsifying election documents.

nobody9999 4y ago
>Also your statement that "Since a majority of states at the time had Republican representation, they would have elected Trump" is laughable. Actually, it's not. The way this works (I really hope you're not an American, because if you are you really should know this) is that if the counting of electoral votes is sufficiently disputed (in this counterfactual case, the vote certificates were destroyed), deciding the outcome of the election rests with the US House of Representatives. If that were (and it has, several times in US history), to happen the members of the House would vote (on a state by state basis, not each representative voting individually) on who was to be the President. Since a majority (26 or 27 out of 50, IIRC) of states have Republican majorities in the number of House members, a House vote would likely have gone Trump's way[0]. This is something of a peccadillo of the US Presidential electoral system that probably should be reformed[1], but it currently is the law of the land. [0] Which is why it was so important (at least for the Trumpists) for the proceedings to be disrupted. It was the final opportunity for them to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people. [1] Because regardless of which party's state cohorts have a majority, that's a supremely undemocratic way to choose the winner and is a relic of the state of the states (as essentially separate nations banding together for defense) in the late 18th century. Edit: Fixed typo.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Under that logic, the US was over thrown back in 2000 when the supreme court decided the outcome of an election.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >Under that logic, the US was over thrown back in 2000 when the supreme court decided the outcome of an election. That's a really reductive (and, in my view, incorrect) take on the issues in Florida in 2000. It was a hot mess, and I think (IANAL, so I may well be talking out of my ass) the Supreme Court should have kicked this back to the Florida courts, but all such activity was within the bounds of the US Constitution. The absence of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, at least AFAIK, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. I'd be interested to know what logical steps lead from what I wrote to "Bush v. Gore overthrew the US government." Would you mind sharing that line of reasoning? Because It's not at all clear to me how you got from point a to point b. Thanks! N.B.: I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 (or 2004, for that matter)
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      The government follows the processes of the government. That's how it works. Keep in mind, there is literally 1 mention of the Supreme court in the constitution. It says Congress can "ordain and establish it". It doesn't say anything about Congress authorizing the Supreme Court to decide the outcome of elections, which is what happened. So if we strictly stick to this idea that somehow one election is this critical, then the US government ended back in 2000. The electoral college results were basically just discarded by SCOTUS and Bush was appointed president. Your argument is that "Republican governors" could follow the processes of the government to somehow influence an election. I don't even think what you're describing is possible. But if it is, well that is the government just following it's own processes. If that makes you upset, you apparently feel that our government is not legitimate. The Republican vs Democrat vs whatever is irrelevant. If the government decides it doesn't like the outcome of an election & throws it out, that's the governments choice. You're in the same boat that somehow champion's the idea the Roe v. wade is the "correct" decision of the Supreme court on abortion. Guess what: the supreme court basically just goes with whatever is popular at present. You love the idea of the fairy tale high school civics course where the US is some bastion of righteousness & freedom. How many times did the Supreme Court rule that slavery was all fine & dandy? Apparently enough we fought a war over it and had to get Congress to authorize amendments explaining that slavery was in fact not OK.
michaelmrose 4y ago
None of them did this because it has an absolutely awful cost v benefit ratio. In the present scenario they are likely to have a bright political future where the maximum downside is likely to be a political fizzle followed by a lucrative retirement whereas maximum downside of attempting to overthrow government is death or prison. Comparatively playing for time, doing nothing, and then voting Trump are all low risk activities which is why it is entirely believable that they should come to pass.

philippejara 4y ago

So your thinking is that the republican party, which by and large already disagreed with trump(to the extent a republican was the alleged "target" of the riot), would side with him after his supporters murder Mike Pence, said republican? You can dislike republicans all you want but this is just another level.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I wasn't supposing that the insurrectionists would succeed in murdering Pence, or that the entire Republican party would unanimously back Trump, just that enough Republican-run states would raise questions about the legitimacy of the (replacement) electoral certifications (which they might refuse to produce) in order to trigger the contingent election. In such a circumstance, it's hard to imagine the state delegations of Republican states deciding to throw away a perfectly legal and constitutional opportunity to elect their guy to the presidency. If it makes you feel any better, I would expect Democrat delegations to vote for the Democrat candidate if there were ever a contingent election, even if that candidate didn't have a plurality of electoral votes (perhaps at least justifying their decision by pointing to the popular vote, which their candidate might nevertheless have won).