349
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

A potential plan by Republican leaders to steal the 2024 presidential election. The plan involves delaying the certification of election results in key battleground states, potentially decreasing the overall number of electors appointed and allowing Donald Trump to win the presidency through a contingent election, whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zephorah@lemm.ee 172 points 1 month ago

They’ve said it out loud. Heritage foundation guy has been saying we’re in the middle of a bloodless coup, bloodless if the left allows it.

The historian, Heather Cox Richardson, can walk you though the legal channels for an election steal, provided the Speaker of the House is on board. I’m not going to dig to find it again. She’s on YouTube.

This is going to be like Roe, isn’t it? Where people know exactly what’s about to happen then act surprised when it does.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 64 points 1 month ago

bloodless if the left allows it.

The left should not allow a coup.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I don't think that the military would fall in line with it. There would be grave concerns

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] zephorah@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Please. We will sit at home and cry. Or go wave signs in a street somewhere. And neither of those things will change anything.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

Idk I seem to remember a lot of "cities burning" or something during some nationwide protests a few years ago after cops killed another person, I don't think those people have gone anywhere.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Not2Dopey@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 month ago

I think the Republicans screwed themselves bit here. With the Supreme Court decision giving the president immunity for official Acts, Biden could just throw all those fuckers in jail as an official act for trying to stage a coup and that would give the presidency to Harris.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 month ago

Yes, Biden's mindset still hasn't caught up with the present circumstances, and probably won't.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's all Democrats in office. They're a bunch of high road cowards that will ride the high road right off a cliff just so they can smell their own farts and exclaim how virtuous they are for not having taken extreme measures to protect us.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jumpingspiderman@reddthat.com 17 points 1 month ago

He never would though. Name the last time when Democrats even got close to the line in using all of their power.

[-] DarkDarkHouse 17 points 1 month ago

Throw the bent supremes in with them

[-] Jumpingspiderman@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago

Actually, they should start with removing the illegitimately installed SCROTUS.

[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

You could literally have them killed by our military. If only

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The reason it didn't happen line this last time is that the legislators and Governors whose job it is to certify the EC electors also get their job through elections. Some of them may have been re-elected on the very same ballot. If they start playing games and saying that now, despite a clear victory by one side, they can't affirm that victory, it will call into question their own electoral legitimacy.

One yo-yo suggested this in NC a few weeks ago - that after the hurricane, voting would be such a difficult chore that they should just skip the Presidential election and give Trump all their EC votes, and that idea was quickly given the mocking it deserved.

State and local election officials, of every party, take pride in conducting their elections in a fair manner, and reporting results on time. The distributed nature of our elections is actually an asset here, because each state governs their own elections locally, necessitating schemes like this to be duplicated in each state theyare intended for. And the "safe harbor" provisions function to make sure that as long as certification is done on time, there is very little that Congress can do other than count them . At least, I hope....

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 39 points 1 month ago

"Preventing this scenario requires Republicans to act in good faith and certify the results of elections that go against their guy."

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

And this is where Speaker Johnson becomes critical to the whole “secret” plan. In 2020, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. If states had tried to get cute and not submit their electors by the December 11 deadline, Pelosi would just have extended the deadline. But Speaker Johnson surely won’t. If electors are not submitted by December 11, he’ll likely declare the process “over” and say that the electors appointed by that date are the only ones allowed to vote for president.

Isn't Speaker Johnson subject to recall? Maybe it's time that happened.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Wasn't this also settled in Bush v Gore?

The states must submit electors by the certification date. That's why the 2000 recount had to be stopped.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I doubt the current supreme court will do anything even though in 2000 that decision helped the republican. They'll find a reason to flip.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iN8sWoRLd@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

It would be worth looking into which states have wording in their Constitutions that include "shall certify" which would make the stalling tactic a crime.

Also, anyone who voted in a state whose electors were not sent on time would have a valid civil rights case against that state's officials and they would all have standing because they were personally harmed. The number of potential lawsuits would be overwhelming and perhaps ruinous to anyone found guilty. Not sure that fear of that would be enough to stop them, but also they have to worry about losing their next election (though if it worked they might hope to be rewarded by the winning administration).

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Realistically, even without "shall," most states carry the legal obligation in state statutes not the state constitution. The problem is that the crime is minor or will almost certainly be pardoned immediately by Trump. So even if it's "illegal," oh well. The governor refuses to certify, thereby breaking the law, Johnson still holds the deadline, the number of EC votes is lowered, Trump is declared the winner, and then the governors are pardoned and are in the good graces of the incoming POTUS.

Just to be clear, that makes everything valid and constitutional at the federal level for this plan. I don't think you're grasping how fully fucked we might be.

[-] iN8sWoRLd@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

I found this document which lists all of the timeline for Michigan certification: https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Michigan%20Guide%20-%20Final.pdf (apparently this has been on a lot of folks' radar for awhile :)

that document makes it clear that in Michigan at least certification is a mandatory duty in both the constitution and by state law.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

I was worried when there was one possibility, but now that there are two?

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

There's also just full-blown civil war where states completely revolt against the US government. Nothing is off the table with these psychopaths in charge

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We can short-circuit all that by saying "Hey, you jokers want to leave? Then go already, and please leave your US passports in that basket by the door on your way out. By the way, here is a bill for your share of the Federal Debt, apportioned by population like the Constitution you say you revere says it should be. We also added the cost of all the military bases you are buying from us."

Seriously, let the fuckers go. I'd be sad to see Austin go. But, really, that's about it.

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

So many millions of innocents would be caught up in this. I understand the sentiment but I don't like this at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DarkDarkHouse 4 points 1 month ago

This is getting out of hand!

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Media companies: but think how many clicks we will get!

[-] suction@lemmy.world 18 points 4 weeks ago

There Will Be Blood. Let's drink the fascists' milkshake.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago
[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago
[-] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago
[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

In all seriousness, you can phone bank.

https://go.kamalaharris.com/

[-] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago
[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Definitely guns. Go to any of the unregulated forums and read what people are saying.
They want to kill you.

[-] Jumpingspiderman@reddthat.com 8 points 1 month ago

If they try that with me and mine, they will find out that at least some liberals are armed, and damn good shots. Go .308 or go home.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I don't understand. Isn't it the VP who certifies the results, anyway? Or does it pass down to Speaker, since she's running?

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The VP certifies the results received by the deadline. That wouldn't change anything here, and she would be obligated to declare Trump the winner. Like Pence, the VP can't decide not to certify legitimate results submitted to congress by the deadline. The point here is that select blue states won't make the deadline through republican stalling, SCOTUS won't "interfere" in the election by adjudication, so the VP is required to only consider the full electors submitted by the deadline. And it would be perfectly valid at the federal level. The state actors might be committing a crime by stalling, but Trump will pardon them, so they really have little risk.

[-] Hello_there@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

Why don't we just force runoff elections when things are off. It costs a few million, yes. But isn't it better for people to decide instead of one judge?

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Because that would change the results. People would be able to change their votes. It could result in yet another things are off. It doesn't resolve. It complicates.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
349 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19156 readers
2730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS