Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

It is not a far out conspiracy theory when the campaign admitted they have contacted states with the idea.

The question is, whether these republican states have legislatures and a SoS willing to test the limits of their own state laws but the Constitution. I am betting these folks are so nutty the idea appeals to them.

You won't even consider the possibility but from a big picture perspective of who Trumpites are and how willing they are to do anything for Mr Trump, I will consider it.

Gov De Santis is so Trump-goofy I would bet he is more than willing to comply, along with his Republican legislature and SoS. Republicans have complained long and often about The Count. The RNC took it to the SC and won. Why would one think they would not simply shunt the process and simply send Trump electors?

Yes I remember. The difference is there was no basis for that conspiracy theory but there is one for this speculation.

Prof Tribe has weighed in on the question and said This is precisely the argument some Republicans and one in particular from the Federalist Society (are those guys conspiracy minded???) are promoting to battleground states with Republican controlled legislatures.

Much like the military, which trains soldiers BEFORE they go into battle, I was a Boy Scout and it's motto was .... be prepared.

Many folks have pooh poohed the idea Mr Trump may not leave the WH regardless of the outcome of the election. It is a question worth considering since there are no protocols which address the notion. If he decides not to leave, he may direct the military (Trump loyalists) to protect him and there is nothing anyone can do about it. What will the JC do? Bomb the WH? Breach the compound? Would that not be the very definition of a coup? etc. The result was the JC (and I hope you think these guys are serious people, not prone to conspiracy theories) actually considered the idea. Legal scholars considered the idea. Again serious people with some concerns.

Likewise I believe it is incumbent on people to consider the unimaginable in preparation of the possibility. I am not talking about the obvious court battles which will be used as a tactic, but the actual attempt of a theft of a general election.

Stranger than fiction .... steal an election in plain sight and people saying that can't happen and it does. I better write the screenplay before someone else does.

I sent my request for ballot 2 weeks ago and have not received it.

In Texas we may be faced with disenfranchisement from both the post office and Gov Abbott. They are trying to force me to mingle with all those maskless Trump supporters to vote. But how many will not vote????

I received mine last week and mailed it off last week. Here's another item which I would be more worried about than any state legislature negating a states popular vote.

The country’s lost its mind': Polls warning of civil war, violence shows deep partisan chasm over election

https://www.yahoo.com/news/country-lost-mind-polls-warning-090029570.html

I don't "get" Occam's razor. Is there a "Occam's Razor" for Dummies explanation?

...and the thing is, the Republican Party isn't even embarrassed by these clowns.

The SCOTUS ruled on this last summer. The electors have to go with state law...state law generally goes with the popular vote.

26 states and D.C. have binding elector laws.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/#:~:text=The%20District%20of%20Columbia%20and,than%20for%20whom%20they%20pledged.

Also, so far no state has changed their law in awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Although Maine and Nebraska utilize the congressional district method, their electoral votes are still awarded to the winner of the popular vote in their districts.

This is not to say you may not have several states where the election results are contested. Each side has a thousand lawyers ready to do the contesting if the state results is close enough or some shenanigans can be proved. Can you imagine six, seven 2000 Florida recounts going on at the same time?

Then you'll probably have 20 or more lawsuits over the ballots declared invalid for various reasons. It'll be interesting. If the recent YouGov poll is to be believed, half of all Americans will think whoever won was an illegitimate winner.

https://braverangels.org/yougov-poll/

It boils down to if your candidate wins, he legit as was the election. If your candidate loses, the winner is illegitimate as was the election.

Chiafalo v. Washington does not apply. That case was regarding "faithless" electors.

What the Trump campaign is proposing is for a state to declare a non-compliant election, which as they believe would allow a state to regain their authority to name electors to represent the "true" intention and will of the people.

Lawrence Tribe sees the possibility embedded in Bush v Gore.

This is entirely the reason Mr Trump wants Barrett confirmed to SC because the expectation is once a state has sent a certified list of Trump loyalist electors (not representing the vote but of the will of the state) to Congress there would be of necessary be many lawsuits filed. Republican thinking would be that confirmation of politically partisan Trump loyalists to the SC would ensure any lawsuit would be abrogated and thus Mr Trump would have stolen an election.

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts to this coup, but some of the pieces have been played and others are now being played, and there remains some for future implementation.

While this may not cause a blip on some radar, it has registered on some legal thinkers radar.

So the question is, would you bet your life if some state or states attempts this ploy and it ends up in the SC, that the SC would sustain a challenge? I would have bet the ranch in 2000 the SC would not intervene in a vote count. I will not make that mistake again.

I see you are still playing within the lines .... sorry but the Trump campaign is playing outside the box.