AztecAlien Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 2:50 PM, Spaztecs said: If Wyoming were a blue state, you would register D, to have a voice in the Electoral process. Quit being a disingenuous prick Nice try. 1
RSF Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 3:37 PM, UNLV2001 said: Trump revealed that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again. Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.” When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.” Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “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[.]” This is what people are talking about when they mention a contingent election. What the amendment means is that, if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations, meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario. I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins. Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for. Not exactly a secret. Such a scenario gets brought up in every close election.
RSF Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 3:50 PM, Spaztecs said: If Wyoming were a blue state, you would register D, to have a voice in the Electoral process. Quit being a disingenuous prick Be nice. I don’t think he’s disingenuous at all… 2 1 1
UNLV2001 Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 3:55 PM, RSF said: Not exactly a secret. Such a scenario gets brought up in every close election. I've been around for every election since 1964 and I don't recall any election having to go that route ever..........closest was the 2000 Election which SCOTUS ruled on & Gore conceded
RSF Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 6:01 PM, UNLV2001 said: I've been around for every election since 1964 and I don't recall any election having to go that route ever..........closest was the 2000 Election which SCOTUS ruled on & Gore conceded Which doesn’t mean it isn’t talked about. It ain’t a secret. That’s the way it goes if nobody gets a majority of the EC.
UNLV2001 Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 4:09 PM, RSF said: Which doesn’t mean it isn’t talked about. It ain’t a secret. That’s the way it goes if nobody gets a majority of the EC. Some droolers might talk about it in closed rooms.........never heard one time where anyone actually proposed going that route
RSF Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 6:15 PM, UNLV2001 said: Some droolers might talk about it in closed rooms.........never heard one time where anyone actually proposed going that route It’s not a proposal. It’s the law. And it gets brought up in the press in every close election.
SalinasSpartan Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/30/2024 at 4:01 PM, UNLV2001 said: I've been around for every election since 1964 and I don't recall any election having to go that route ever..........closest was the 2000 Election which SCOTUS ruled on & Gore conceded That’s pretty wild, don’t think I’ve ever heard a plot to win the EC by having states refuse to certify election results so a candidate can “win” with less than 270 EC votes. It’s clever, albeit frightening to think about.
RSF Posted October 30 Posted October 30 https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022/
SalinasSpartan Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 4:52 PM, RSF said: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022/ So it creates a role for the federal courts to intervene if states refuse to certify elections. I would guess this gambit would get shut down eventually by the courts, but this was a more comforting thought before the SCOTUS immunity ruling.
retrofade Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 4:20 PM, RSF said: It’s not a proposal. It’s the law. And it gets brought up in the press in every close election. They usually bring up the scenario where neither candidate crosses the 270 threshold; not states refusing to certify their results. 3
RSF Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 7:30 PM, retrofade said: They usually bring up the scenario where neither candidate crosses the 270 threshold; not states refusing to certify their results. The reform act helped rectify that.
masterfrog Posted October 31 Posted October 31 The 1876 election was decided by the House Tilden was the legitimate winner.
AztecAlien Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 5:53 PM, azgreg said: nm Another good post from you.
TSpoke Posted October 31 Posted October 31 Side note. I wasn't able to embed a tweet like I used to do. Says no tweet at address. 1
Spaztecs Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 5:01 PM, UNLV2001 said: I've been around for every election since 1964 and I don't recall any election having to go that route ever..........closest was the 2000 Election which SCOTUS ruled on & Gore conceded If there were any VP's who had reason to not Certify the EC results, it was Nixon and Gore. They did what was best for the Country. This guy just wants power.
SalinasSpartan Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 5:38 PM, masterfrog said: The 1876 election was decided by the House Tilden was the legitimate winner. Ok
Spaztecs Posted October 31 Posted October 31 On 10/30/2024 at 8:38 PM, SalinasSpartan said: Ok On 10/30/2024 at 6:38 PM, masterfrog said: The 1876 election was decided by the House Tilden was the legitimate winner. The Compromise of 1877, also known as the Corrupt Bargain, led to Rutherford B Hayes becoming Prez and the withdrawal of Federal Troops from the South. Which led directly to Jim Crow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now