2 ms·

>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 no

>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.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      Your comment doesn't reflect anything I wrote, nor does it even reflect the ideas underlying what I wrote. So I'm still not clear what chain of reasoning you're using here. I'll recap my statements to make sure I'm being clear. You said: >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. That's not my argument at all. Nor did I mention state governors (Republican or otherwise). Rather, I was referring to the 12th Amendment which states, in part: "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; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice." [emphasis added] As I stated in my initial comment, 26 states[2] had Republican majority delegations. Had the election gone to the House for resolution, it's likely that Trump would have been elected (Or maybe not, given the 10 Republican Representatives who voted to impeach Trump) by a vote of 26-23(or 24). Which, of course, would be in direct contravention of the November, 2020 election results. That's to what I was referring in the comment[1] to which you originally replied. It's not clear to me how following the process set out in the 12th Amendment is akin (or even related, except that it concerned a Presidential election) to the events leading up to and including the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. As for the 2000 Presidential election, I'm not clear what you're getting at WRT to an "overthrow" of the government. Since Marbury v. Madison[3] in 1803, it's been the case in the US that the US Supreme Court is the "supreme" court. While there have been numerous (some of which you mention) "supremely" bad decisions by that court, and, in fact, as I stated in the second comment[4] to which you replied), I thought Bush v. Gore shouldn't have been decided by the US Supreme Court. Whether you approve or disapprove specific Supreme Court decisions (I disagree with many myself, not least of which is the Dobbs decision BTW), that doesn't invalidate the decisions. What's more, the results[4] of the Florida election, while having been reviewed repeatedly, show a really close election which could have gone either way, dependent on a multitude of factors. All that said, for both elections, the circumstances and outcomes, while hotly debated, were certainly within constitutional bounds. I still don't get the logical line of reasoning that takes you from the 12th amendment to the decision in Bush v. Gore. Primarily because you haven't provided one. What's more, you seem to be ascribing a whole bunch of beliefs and attitudes to me which I do not hold. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32872345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32872345 [2] https://www.270towin.com/2020-house-election/state-by-state/consensus-2020-house-forecast https://www.270towin.com/2020-house-election/state-by-state/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32873337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32873337 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Edit: Cleaned up my prose. Added the missing link, reordered references.

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.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    Your comment doesn't reflect anything I wrote, nor does it even reflect the ideas underlying what I wrote. So I'm still not clear what chain of reasoning you're using here. I'll recap my statements to make sure I'm being clear. You said: >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. That's not my argument at all. Nor did I mention state governors (Republican or otherwise). Rather, I was referring to the 12th Amendment which states, in part: "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; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice." [emphasis added] As I stated in my initial comment, 26 states[2] had Republican majority delegations. Had the election gone to the House for resolution, it's likely that Trump would have been elected (Or maybe not, given the 10 Republican Representatives who voted to impeach Trump) by a vote of 26-23(or 24). Which, of course, would be in direct contravention of the November, 2020 election results. That's to what I was referring in the comment[1] to which you originally replied. It's not clear to me how following the process set out in the 12th Amendment is akin (or even related, except that it concerned a Presidential election) to the events leading up to and including the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. As for the 2000 Presidential election, I'm not clear what you're getting at WRT to an "overthrow" of the government. Since Marbury v. Madison[3] in 1803, it's been the case in the US that the US Supreme Court is the "supreme" court. While there have been numerous (some of which you mention) "supremely" bad decisions by that court, and, in fact, as I stated in the second comment[4] to which you replied), I thought Bush v. Gore shouldn't have been decided by the US Supreme Court. Whether you approve or disapprove specific Supreme Court decisions (I disagree with many myself, not least of which is the Dobbs decision BTW), that doesn't invalidate the decisions. What's more, the results[4] of the Florida election, while having been reviewed repeatedly, show a really close election which could have gone either way, dependent on a multitude of factors. All that said, for both elections, the circumstances and outcomes, while hotly debated, were certainly within constitutional bounds. I still don't get the logical line of reasoning that takes you from the 12th amendment to the decision in Bush v. Gore. Primarily because you haven't provided one. What's more, you seem to be ascribing a whole bunch of beliefs and attitudes to me which I do not hold. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32872345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32872345 [2] https://www.270towin.com/2020-house-election/state-by-state/consensus-2020-house-forecast https://www.270towin.com/2020-house-election/state-by-state/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32873337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32873337 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Edit: Cleaned up my prose. Added the missing link, reordered references.