A Solution To The Trump Elector Silliness If It Got That Far

[dutch508]

Rule of Claw (54 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214122875

A Solution To The Trump Elector Silliness If It Got That Far

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

We got that. that does not mean on a whim. the directions of appointment only count before an election.

BUT say they didn't. Say the courts lost their minds.

14th Amendment Section 2-

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

We find out how many 21 year-old males were disenfranchised, count them, create a ratio to their vote overall, and get the courts to REDUCE valid electors from said state.

In ANY state. Get it? Disenfranchised in FL? Reduce electors. Disenfranchised in AZ? Reduce electors. On and on it goes until the majority of available electors is determined. Only four hundred electors left?

Joe needs 201 Evs. Follow me?

 

Star Member Miguelito Loveless (1,849 posts)

1. I would expect Barr

arguing before the Kavanaugh Court that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, and Blacks be counted as 3/5s of a person. I see them upholding that view 5-4.

 

Star Member hedda_foil (14,642 posts)

4. Have you read the full Barton Gelman article in The Atlantic?

All of your points are discussed and a lot more. It's well worth the time to read. Then come back and let us know what you think.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Rule of Claw (54 posts)

6. Adios MIO!

No laws change without a Governor's signature. The legislature of PA decided long ago to pass a law saying how electors in that state are appointed.

LONG AGO they chose to involve the Governor in the process, by said Governor signing off on law. They can't pass a law without a Governor nor can they invalidate one, so what court would let them choose the FREAKING President without a signature?

To wit-part of how they determined to appoint electors was to pass a LAW not a resolution involving the Governor's approval. Maybe had they passed a resolution before locking the Governor into the process it would work.

But the notion is fantasy.

 

Star Member Thekaspervote (13,099 posts)

5. Thx.. this has been like a freight train from hell!

Despite pointing to law written by SCOTUS, basic facts of how electors are chosen and who chooses them, the sheer craziness of how dotard could sweep into a state, even reds one and overturn the will of the people is just nuts.

Anyone..anyone really thinking that the Roberts court would go along with this? Really?

The SCOTUS can not write law. That is the purview of the legislative branch alone. But... when does a DUmpmonkie undestand the constitution?

Star Member Laelth (27,998 posts)

9. Get the Courts to do that?

We, on the left, can’t get the Courts to do much of anything.

Most likely, the Federal District Courts would rule in favor of the State legislatures. The SCOUTS is likely to back Trump. I seriously doubt that “the Courts” could or would save us from the doomsday scenario that you call “silliness.”

That said, I hope you are right.

-Laelth

Rule of Claw (54 posts)

10. So you envision the courts just arbitrarily

throwing out a duly elected popular vote based set of electors to allow an overthrow of democracy.

Are you seriously losing sleep over this?

This is a mind game to depress turnout, that is all.

Star Member Laelth (27,998 posts)

13. Arbitrarily? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

States are sovereign. They control their own elections. Federal Courts are extremely reticent to interfere in politics, as is, but they’re even more reticent to interfere in states’ rights. The Constitution clearly says that the states are free to choose their own method for selecting the electors that they send to the electoral college. The Courts would not be inclined to overrule the decision of a state legislature on that subject.

The SCOTUS could. It did so in 2000 in Bush v. Gore, but the current SCOTUS is even more Republican than the Court that decided Bush v. Gore. I see little hope for democratic justice there. At this point in time, the Courts are not on our side, and your proposal (which REQUIRES an activist Court—or two, or three, or four—to rule in our favor) seems very unrealistic to me.

-Laelth

Rule of Claw (54 posts)

15. But the legislatures in those three states can't do squat to

change a law that previously required a Governor's signature to pass.

It would be like a judge not signing off on a plea bargain but the defense and DA ignoring it and making up their own sentence.

Star Member Me. (29,894 posts)

12. Didn't THe SC Rule JUst Last Month THat Electors Have To Follow THe Will Of THe People?

Star Member Thekaspervote (13,099 posts)

17. The rule had to do with faithless electors, but it does address the issue

Look about half way thru the article

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

 

[Carl]

Star Member Laelth (27,998 posts)

13. Arbitrarily? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

States are sovereign. They control their own elections. Federal Courts are extremely reticent to interfere in politics, as is, but they’re even more reticent to interfere in states’ rights. The Constitution clearly says that the states are free to choose their own method for selecting the electors that they send to the electoral college. The Courts would not be inclined to overrule the decision of a state legislature on that subject.

The SCOTUS could. It did so in 2000 in Bush v. Gore, but the current SCOTUS is even more Republican than the Court that decided Bush v. Gore. I see little hope for democratic justice there. At this point in time, the Courts are not on our side, and your proposal (which REQUIRES an activist Court—or two, or three, or four—to rule in our favor) seems very unrealistic to me.

-Laelth

So many lies it is astounding,SCOTUS did not overrule a legislature but a rogue state court that was trying to rewrite election law in a manner that violated the equal protection clause.

Laelth,you are another DUmp pedo moron.

[DLR Pyro]

Sounds like they don't feel they are going to win enough states that will matter...

[ExGeeEye]

The ignorance about the "3/5 Compromise" is astounding.

Free blacks were always counted as whole persons,

And the whole thing was mooted by the 13th and 14th Amendments anyway.

It's good to keep the original text around, so people can see the progress made over 230 years.  But could we PLEASE educate people about it--

truthfully--

starting in about 5th grade?