I'll lay the entire process out here, and show why this can't happen. Applicable law: The Electoral Count Act and of course, your favorite document and mine, the Constitution, or, if you prefer cliff notes: crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF…
Both Houses are required by law to declare the winner of the election.
But (and here's the rub) members may object to particular electors.
2/
This creates some theater. Trump loyalists can object.
What then? If both a Senator and member of the House object to a particular elector, there is a recess. The Houses meet separately for a maximum of 2 hours.
They vote. If both Houses agree, the delegates are tossed.
3/
"An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded." (For additional information, see CRS Report RL 32717)
So you can see there is opportunity for theater, but not for declaring Trump the winner.
4/
One bit of confusion is the House votes by delegation, meaning one vote per state. Nope. That only happens if the electoral college splits 269-269.
There is a zero chance the Democratic-held house will vote to exclude electors.
5/
If two slates of electors show up (highly unlikely) and Congress can’t resolve the dispute, it gets kicked back to the state and the governor decides, not the legislature.
The governors of PA, GA, and AZ have indicated they are not going to play.
6/
Because Biden has so many more electors, 3 of the governors would have to agree, and PA has a Democratic governor, so that won't happen. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF…
If I get any of this wrong, I trust a helpful Twitter peep will let me know 😉
7/
Left off MI. Big Gretch is absolutely not playing. Actually, either is Kemp or Ducey.
So the whole scheme is dead in the water.
Expect there to theater as all the loyal minions trip over themselves to object and show that they are loyal to Trump.
Yes, it will. Under the Constitution, Congress regulates elections. Besides, the Supreme Court has given us a spectacular demonstration of its unwillingness to engage in a power grab over presidential elections.
He also had a lot banked on the Supreme Court case, and that didn't work out so well.
He's looking for demonstrations of loyalty so he can retain his grip on the Republican Party so he can retain the power that comes with controlling a major party.
This NYT article comes to the same conclusion. The headline says "long shot," but the scholars interviewed were paraphrased as saying "all but certain to fail." (Really, just "certain")
Unless the GOP leadership grows a spine and shuts the whole thing down, yes, I we can expect headline-grabbing antics intended to spread lies and disinformation and keep Trump relevant until 2022.
Biden's electors were handpicked by the Dems. To give two well-known examples, HRC is an elector from NY and Stacey Abrams is an elector from GA.
They picked people who won't flip.
Also, there are legal consequences.
Also, think how many would have to.
. . . electors that had been certified by the states, Congress would be overturning the will of the majority (or at least as speaking through the electoral college.)
This would throw the country into utter chaos. Think of the George Floyd protests . . .
. . . and imagine what would happen.
Rule of law / democracy is in many ways a choice.
I've been saying that democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.
A weakness . . .
. . . is that at any time, a majority of people can decide they don't want democracy anymore, and it will cease to exist.
If, for example, a clear majority had voted for Trump, a majority would say, 'we don't want democracy.'
Elections matter. Our voices matter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is equal parts horrifying and absurd. These are not real electors. There is not a "competing" slate of electors.
It's the Nevada GOP showing that they are completely unhinged from reality.
You see, Nevada certified its election for Biden on 11/24. forbes.com/sites/alisondu…
Nevada law requires that the electors are legally bound to vote for whoever wins the presidential election in NV. apnews.com/article/electi…
Dear Nevada GOP:
It's time for Election Law 101.
Because of a complicated system we have called the electoral college, when you vote for president, you don't actually vote for president, you vote for a slate of electors.
The GOP electors lost when Trump lost the election.
Petitioners sought to "invalidate the ballots" of more than 220,000 Wisconsin voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties.
As with the other complaints, the issue wasn't that any voters did anything wrong; it's how the election was conducted.
1/
The doctrine of laches as applied to elections in a nutshell: You can't agree to the rules, wait to see how the election turns out, and then challenge the rules.
That's why lawyers kept saying the courts won't allow it, even if the judges are Republicans.
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies. rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.
The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying. rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
It seems to come naturally to Trump.
@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.
The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.
3/
In Trump World, it makes sense to spend months and millions of dollars trying to overturn an election while ignoring a virus that killed over 300,000 Americans.
For Trump and pals, the purpose of government isn’t to help people. It’s to protect the power of those at the top.
Some people don't believe that. They think some people belong at the top, and that if nature takes its course, the "makers" end up a the top and the "takers' at the bottom. . .
Pinochet's government would invent a silly argument intended to make a power grab appear legal. Nobody was fooled.
Team Trump is creating a transparent pretext to give SCOTUS the chance to overturn the election.
Pinochet didn't actually let judges decide, though.
2/
That's the key difference. Pinochet was able to invent silly legal arguments and get away with it because he had the military behind him. (And yes, I know about the US involvement😉)
Trump seems to think he owns SCOTUS. He appointed a few justices, so they "owe" him.
3/