Contesting electors - big potential problem in the future

[garybeck]

Ever consider this--

a future election, the Democratic candidate wins the presicency by a small margin of electoral votes. The Republicans still control the house and senate.

The republicans realize that they can actually steal the election by contesting the electors from one state. They come up with some bogus reason, contest the state when the electors meet, and vote on party lines and give the presidency to the Republican candidate.

Basically, in theory the Republicans can keep control of the presidency as long as they hold both houses, with this fairly simple procedure.

What's that you say, they wouldn't do such a thing because it would infuriate the electorate? never stopped them before.

[helderheid]

1. don't worry

unless there is massive election reform, Dems will never win the whitehouse so no need for republicans to contest.

[garybeck]

2. yeah... it is assumed this is after election reform...

the ability to contest electors will not go away and I believe now that the Dems have done it the Repubs will not think twice about doing it when the opportunity presents itself.

[helderheid]

4. Good point

but I do have faith that once we have reforms, we'll be the majority again (here's hoping for both reforms and dems back in!)!

[garybeck]

5. no doubt, that's why election reform must be

swift and all-encompassing. it must not be a band-aid solution that fixes one race. it must fix the whole system in one swoop so that the democrats will (likely) regain control over one of the houses at the same time.

this is not to imply that the goal of election reform is to give control to one party or the other. it's just my presumption that once elections become fair again, that we'll see a fairly swift return to democratic (or possibly a third or new party) control of congress.

[helderheid]

7. yes

I want my IRV! :)

[dlaliberte]

18. Election should be provably correct

The election reform should also result in a system were we can not only prevent fraud from occurring, but also prove that fraud has not occurred. This is possible to do with various digital signature mechanisms such that every ballot gets a signature when it is submitted, no ballot can be submitted without the signature of the polling place, and the list of all signatures is also signed.

This idea is not without problems, however:

* Even if we prove no fraud occurred, congress can still contest an election - unlike the courts, no proof is required.

* We would have to trust the certification authorities (seems like there should be a fix for this...)

* Who is allowed to vote and who gets to actually vote is still a huge area of potential fraud and disenfranchisement.

[garybeck]

19. this is a good start

http://nov3.us/billofrights.php

[Amaryllis]

15. If the push to eliminate electoral votes succeeds, it won't be an issue.

[garybeck]

17. I doubt it will succeed

All those "red states" who get more power than they should because of the electoral system will have to vote to decrease their own power, which is what will happen if the electoral college is trashed. unlikely.

[glitch]

20. They didn't need the Dems to do first in order to do it themselves later.

Remember who we're talking about.

[garybeck]

21. yeah, but now that the dems have done it

they have another "excuse"

one good thing:
the new house and senate are sworn in BEFORE the presidential electors are certified.

[PATRICK]

24. Except

they will have the determination and the nerve to follow through with a vengeance and justice is not even a motivator for them.

[bowens43]

3. Of course they will. I expect it.

Republicans will lie, cheat , steal or kill to retain power. There is no crime so great nor action so vile that it would deter them from election theft.

[unblock]

6. not exactly, but point well taken

more precisely, if the banana republicans control both houses, they can contest any state's electors. if they do, and contest enough so that no candidate has 270 electoral votes, then the house chooses the president and the senate chooses the vice-president.

the twist is that each state's delegation gets a single vote, e.g., all of california's representatives get together to cast a single vote in the house for president.

most states' delegations have a majority of the same party as whichever party controlled that state's legislature at the time of the more recent redistricting.

the weighting favors smaller states, which in turn favors the banana republicans.

note that, in theory, it would be possible to wind up with the president from one party and the vice-president from the other party in this chain of events.

[garybeck]

8. exactly my point

that as long as the repubs control both houses, they will see the contesting electors option as a viable plan to keep control of the presidency and I wouldn't be surprised if they did it.

[liam97]

9. if they still control the house and the senate

next time their candidate will win by 6 million votes, exit polls will be banned and ALL voting will be machine controlled. Which is why fraud needs to exposed and investigated NOW.

[garybeck]

10. another prediction

all the key players in the voting scam - from Ken Blackwell to Chuck Hagel to Jeb Bush, will become MORE powerful in the next election. Unless the fraud is uncovered.

[newscott]

11. That's a lock.

You'll get pretty low odds in Vegas.

[garybeck]

12. we will not rest

this remains issue #1 until the truth is revealed

[New Earth]

13. hey, nice avatar

i know who used to have it :cry: i guess i can also carry out that memory with mine.

[liberal43110]

14. Probably True

You're probably right, but I think what the Democrats did on January 6 was brave and heroic. This Republican party will continue to cheat and lie until the public catches on to the scam and then demands change. Standing up and fighting for what is right is the best thing we can do.

[garybeck]

16. yeah, i'm not saying they shouldn't have

done it. I'm just saying "watch out" because the repubs could do it too, especially if they control the houses, and then it would actually have an effect.

[spooked911]

22. for an outright steal, they'd have to have ALL the repugs to go along

I'd like to think there are some repugs with enough honor to stop such a horribly unethical maneuver

[garybeck]

23. wishful thinking

that's what they're best at -- sticking together

[NationalEnquirer]

25. I doubt it.

Because sooner or later, they know the shoe could be on the other foot.
I don't think they would venture into this kind of territory.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. If they are Democrats

in more than name only, a narrow victory is inconceivable; if they are not, neither will a narrow defeat. The strength of the Democrats' justification in contesting the electors, is as special as such a contest is rare.

If it comes to the point that Republicans become a serious rival, it will likely suggest that the Democratic leadership has become too complacent, self-serving and degenerate, and the Republicans, necessarily regenerated and reformed, would indeed be the better choice. For the people contesting these electors has led to a win/win situation.