Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Oct 2, 2020 21 tweets 6 min read Read on X
Greetings, @davidjollyFl

Fortunately, that’s not how it works. Allow me to explain.

Spoiler: Trump can't steal the election. But he can—through rumors like this one—undermine democracy, elevate his image as a "Strong man," and force us all to become actors in his reality show.
Maybe you mean this: if GOP legislators in states like Pennsylvania challenge the certification of results, NO electors will be certified from those states, which (depending on how big Biden’s win is) might keep him from reaching 270 electoral votes.



1/
In fact, under the 12th Amendment, “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed.”

Appointed ⤵️

2/
3/ If fewer than 540 electors are appointed, the winner needs a majority of those.

See also: verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-…

Let’s take another scenario: The electors are certified and appointed, but the GOP in that state challenges the results.
4/ If the state can't resolve the issue by December 8, Congress settles the dispute—but the Electoral Count Act says nothing about delegations.

Congress decides. Each House makes its decision.

If the Senate remains GOP and the House is Democratic, they will have a stalemate.
5/ The Electoral Count Act tells us what happens if the two Houses shall disagree.

In that case, the Electoral Count act specifies Congress must accept “the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State” over the legislature.
6/ Thus, in a state like Pennsylvania, the executive (Democratic governor) will certify his electors, and the legislature will certify its own separate slate of electors.

The executive will win.
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req…
For additional explanations, see: static1.squarespace.com/static/5e70e52…
7/ I’ve explained elsewhere why the legislature cannot simply impose its judgment after the election.

In a nutshell: States cannot change the rules after voting has started without violating multiple federal and state laws.

But that doesn't seem to be what you mean here.
8/ Recall how this all started: A "legal advisor" to the Trump campaign gave an interview to the Atlantic suggesting a way Trump can “win” the election even if he loses both the popular vote and the electoral college by
means of state legislators and reappointed electors.
9/ Trump reinforced this narrative in two public statements. In a press conference, he talked about throwing out the ballots. At the debate, he offered a monologue on the topic⤵️
10/ The important point here that Trump wants you to believe he can manipulate the results of the election.

He wants you to think he can stay in the White House even if he loses both the popular vote and electoral college.
11/ Having people think this benefits Trump in several ways.

First, he transforms himself from a guy losing in the polls to a strongman capable of stealing an American election, thereby raising his stature and keeping his supporters thrilled.
12/ See my Just Security piece⤵️ justsecurity.org/72609/dont-bel…

Second, it hijacks the national conversation so that we are no longer talking about Trump’s policy failures. We are not talking about things that should have our attention.
13/ Third, it undermines public faith in elections and democratic processes. As @selectedwisdom reminds us, a goal of Active Measures is to cause people to lose confidence in democratic processes.

That's how 21st-century would-be autocrats undermine democracy.
14/ Full-blown dramatic Pinochet-style military coups are very 20th century.

Modern autocrats have a less dramatic, less bloody, and more effective method: Undermine truth and logic. Get everyone confused. Wear everyone out. Cause people to lose confidence in democracy.
15/ Trump critics and people who favor democracy and rule of law inadvertently help Trump undermine democratic institutions by believing and persuading other people that Trump can easily steal an election. Therefore democracy doesn't work.
16/ If democracy can't work, if truth and laws don't matter— and if the "winner" is the person who is best at cheating—democracy fails and an autocrat can fill the void.
17/ Each person who contributes to the "law is dead" narrative helps bring about that conclusion.

Democracy only works if enough people put in the work. As soon as a majority give up, poof. It's gone.

See how much easier that is than a military coup?
18/ That's the point.
The strongman con wears everyone out and drains everyone's time.

I have to keep responding because panic feeds the beast, but each time I respond, that also feeds the beast.

See how effective the method is?
19/ I think it's too soon, by the way, to know how Trump's Covid diagnosis will play out.

It may be that this whole silly "Trump can steal the election with a snap of his fingers" narrative will die down. Or he may figure out how to keep it going.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Apr 29
Everyone will have a different opinion of the strength of the Manhattan criminal case against Trump.

I am offering no opinions on the strength or who will prevail.

I am saying that people are working too hard to explain the case and figure out the legal theory.

1/
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."

2/

terikanefield.com/wheres-the-bee…
The legal theory of the case should be clear.

This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.

Does this mean the prosecution will lose? No.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Mar 11
Finished. (Whew)

As promised, all about Legal pundits and the Outrage Industry, with a few cherished conspiracy theories carefully debunked.

Click here to start:

For years, I was perplexed by what I saw on Twitter. . .

1/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
It seemed to me that the dynamics of social media were making people more authoritarian.

Then I started reading experts in political communication and it all started making sense.


2/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
I wrote parts 1 - 5 in November. I thought I was finished, but I wasn't.

There were still things I didn't understand.

Writers often write to understand, so I kept reading, thinking, and writing.



3/ terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 9
Whew! I finished.



Everything I promised: How to listen (or not listen) to legal pundits.

It's also about what is dangerous about the entire industry of punditry, speculation, and cable talk shows.

1/terikanefield.com/invented-narra…

For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.

I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."

Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.

I read these books and light bulbs went on.

3/ Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 2
If Trump can win with everything we know about him, what make people think a finding of guilt would change that?

It makes no sense.
Also what if the jury acquits? It can happen.

I do recall the same people thought impeachment and indictment would cause Trump to crumble.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"

We saw the J6 committee findings.

Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."

2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"

A lot of people do.

People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.

I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .

3/
Read 6 tweets
Feb 29
The news takes 2 minutes to convey.

"Here is what the court did." That is news.

Listening to people speculate about why the court did it and what it means is not news.

It is entertainment.

But it is a special kind of entertainment.

1/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.

But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.

2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.

Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:

3/terikanefield.com/can-democracy-…
Read 5 tweets
Feb 29
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.

1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."

In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.

2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).

I explained that wouldn't happen.

Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.

3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(