Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign

You seem to not be hearing what I have been saying. Lawsuits to challenge the result is indeed a mechanism to NOT accept the result. Electoral disputes then is the lawful mechanism to effectively not transfer power.

When he does that, what is the mechanisms for him to hand over power to the elected-but-disputed-non-accepted President? The lawsuit must be settle. Or Congress must intervene - uncharted territory (see below). Or he relent.

I went back and read some history on presidential transition and I stand corrected... there was one election that didn't transfer until Congress step in - and it was because of exactly what I mentioned above and in previous posts - disputing the result.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

On Election Day that November, the Democrats appeared to come out on top, winning the swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New York and New Jersey. By midnight, Tilden had 184 of the 185 electoral votes he needed to win, and was leading the popular vote by 250,000. The Republicans refused to accept defeat, however, and accused Democratic supporters of intimidating and bribing African-American voters to prevent them from voting in three southern states–Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. As of 1876, these were the only remaining states in the South with Republican governments.

Compromise of 1877: Congress Steps In
To resolve the dispute, Congress set up an electoral commission in January 1877, consisting of five U.S. representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. The commission’s members included seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent, Justice David Davis. When Davis refused to serve, the moderate Republican Justice Joseph Bradley was chosen to replace him.

During the commission’s deliberations, Hayes’ Republican allies met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in hopes of convincing them not to block the official counting of votes through filibuster and effectively allow Hayes’ election. In February, at a meeting held in Washington’s Wormley Hotel, the Democrats agreed to accept a Hayes victory, and to respect the civil and political rights of African Americans, on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from South, thus consolidating Democratic control in the region. Hayes would also have to agree to name a leading southerner to his cabinet and to support federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a planned transcontinental line via a southern route. On March 2, the congressional commission voted 8-7 along party lines to award all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving him 185 votes to Tilden’s 184.


Which lead to ....

Spoiler

Compromise of 1877: The End of Reconstruction
Hayes appointed Tennessee’s David Key as postmaster general, but never followed through on the promised land grant for the Texas and Pacific. Within two months, however, Hayes had ordered federal troops from their posts guarding Louisiana and South Carolina statehouses, allowing Democrats to seize control in both those states. As Florida’s Supreme Court had earlier declared a Democratic victory in the 1876 gubernatorial election, Democrats had been restored to power all across the South.

The Compromise of 1876 effectively ended the Reconstruction era. Southern Democrats’ promises to protect civil and political rights of blacks were not kept, and the end of federal interference in southern affairs led to widespread disenfranchisement of blacks voters. From the late 1870s onward, southern legislatures passed a series of laws requiring the separation of whites from “persons of color” on public transportation, in schools, parks, restaurants, theaters and other locations. Known as the “Jim Crow laws” (after a popular minstrel act developed in the antebellum years), these segregationist statutes governed life in the South through the middle of the next century, ending only after the hard-won successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Not very assuring at all.

 

Yeah I read that and it does not equate to your original hypothetical.

You talked about Trump contesting a election that he was the loser meaning no electoral votes are in question.

Even if this happened he would not have presidential power.

My premise was that Trump himself cannot do anything to stay in power such as executive order or lawsuit.

 

My point is that there must be a mechanism to deny a candidate the presidency. Because in an extreme case like that, no way would we swear him in. I'm not sure what would happen. My guess would be that the losing candidate, Trump, would sue and the case would be heard pretty immediately by the Supreme Court who would disqualify Corrupt Biden. But then what? Award the election to the runner-up, Trump? Call new elections? Well, if you did, that'd take time. One of the two major parties needs to be investigated for treason, new primaries need to run, a suitable campaign season needs to be accommodated. And who will be president in the mean time, if not the last one? So, some mechanism would run in this extreme case, and it would pretty much have to involve extending the term of the president (unless he nobly stepped down and made Pence president, lol).

So, now that the mechanism is known to exist, how far can we moderate the extreme scenario and still imagine the mechanism is triggered? What if the Chinese did directly hack the election and gave Biden 96% of the vote, but Biden wasn't involved? Is that cause for a do-over? What if the Chinese directly hacked, but it's unclear whether they changed the outcome or not. If Trump presses the case, do you just ignore him and go with Biden anyway? What if the hack is indirect and it's unclear if it changed the outcome? Well, we know the answer to that one because it happened in 2016. But somewhere on that spectrum is an inflection point where the Supreme Court (or whatever power broker) tips from saying the election was legitimate enough to saying it was illegitimate and we need to do something about it.

 

I hope this is now clearer.

If it does come to him losing a very close election, I'm almost certain that Trump will file lawsuits to contest the result, even if there isn't a legitimate reason to dispute it. Sham investigation is just part of the game then. Again, this is solely based on what he have already stated publicly. I hope to be very wrong and that he didn't meant what he said (but I think it would be foolish to discount it given his records).

Now, in a normal environment, this wouldn't be so much a concern. Congress, Court would shut him down very quickly. We are not in a normal environment. Trump knows this. He has been pushing the boundaries, have a very devoted support base, has people in key power position (eg. head of DoJ) that is loyal to him, have half of the people in Congress that doesn't stand up to him, even though in private they know it's wrong. This environment give Trump the opening to dispute and try to maintain power / steal / whatever you want to call it, an election that he lost. And why shouldn't he gamble? At worse, he losses as he should. Only upside with little downside. And I can't at all said comfortably that the Court will do the right thing. I can also almost certainly said Congress will not.

As long as the president elected is not sword in, he is still the president. Maybe there is a void and we get into a weird state of no president, but I maintain that in that condition, the status quo will likely continue - he maintain power. But I'm not sure and I doubt anyone know for sure what would actually happen.

 

I have yet to find that mechanism.

all of this is pretty murky I have not found anything saying Trump can use and from what I read Congress would be in control of Congress.

i am also not sure there is no way we swear him in.

Here are some thoughts on the matter.

https://www.quora.com/Could-Congres...te-law-or-does-this-only-apply-to-Federal-law

Nothing in the Constitution allows Congress to stop the swearing in of a President-elect, under ANY circumstances. They can, upon being sworn in, immediately start impeachment, however, but must prove a "high crime", not some stupid little law was broken.

 

once again there is no mechanisms for him to file a lawsuit and remain in office.

If he loses and there is a question of legitimacy the Speaker of the House would be the default president until any questions are remedied.

https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_would..._in_Nov_and_was_not_capable_of_being_sworn_in

 

That's because we'll invent it when we need it. @txtony cited one historical example, a compromise that doesn't appear to have grounding in the Constitution. I was thinking of the Gore-Bush case where the Supreme Court stepped in to decide which way Florida would swing. And, you're right, if all else fails, there's always impeachment (which apparently can fail as well). I can agree with the sentiment that Trump overstaying his welcome in office is a long shot. I can't agree that there is no avenue for him to try.

 

Hmmmm. I'm pretty happy. (But I didn't vote for Trump either.)

Don't forget to bring in the voters from south of the border; that's always helpful to the Democratic party.

 

Yes, all three of them in the entire country.

 

I already spelled out the mechanism. When he file a lawsuit and deem the election result it's invalid, tell me what can be done to remove him? What and who can do that?

 

Uh, I'll take reparations talk for $400, Alex.

 

I never said he could not try.

The mechanism in question is Trumps ability to do something to stay as President.

How does he or we invent that?

That historical example actually has no bearing on the question at hand.

Can Trump do something to extend his presidency once he loses an election.

 

So Bruce is just full on trolling now.

 

He can't file a lawsuit to deem the election invalid and still retain the office

That mechanism does not exist, can you show me the law.


Did you miss this?

Nothing in the Constitution allows Congress to stop the swearing in of a President-elect, under ANY circumstances. They can, upon being sworn in, immediately start impeachment, however.

If the President elect cannot be sworn in it goes to the Vice President.

Once there is a different president elect he is removed.

I really don't know how much clearer it can be.

 

Correct. Certain posters are moving the goal post in the discussion.

Trump himself can not do anything to stay in power (the premise of the initial discussion) and that is what certain posters are not understanding. It takes Congress to create and fix the mess.

This is nothing new. Both parties almost always contest some form of the elections each cycle. If its a close election, no matter which way it swings, each side will be filing some sort of suit.

 

They mean those blue-shaded states individually, not all of them added together. And, my googling indicates that Georgia and North Carolina are each bigger than LA County. Anyway, it's irrelevant. The founding fathers were engineering a balance between the democratic interests and the state interests to avoid things like the tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is there to make the choice of president up to the state-members of the federation, and not the people themselves. I think the wisdom of this arrangement isn't appreciated enough by the liberals currently on the losing end of it. I like the EC system, just lament that the middle states aren't wiser with their votes.

 

I actually have no idea what that graphic is trying to portray.

Why are they comparing states to a county?

 

I agree he can't do anything by himself. He would need the cooperation of another base of power. If the military used force, that would be one obvious way. If Trump created a conflict and then Congress resolved it in his favor or caused delay, that'd be another way. Or if the USSC resolved it his way or caused delay. Those are all pretty improbable to say the least. Its a bit ridiculous to belabor it. But, I really object to people saying it's not possible or there is no mechanism. There isn't anybody above these 3 bodies enforcing the rules. All 3 of them can make ish up and dare the others to try and stop them; they can even conspire together. The USSC declared itself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means, and nobody stopped it. The President took a bunch of war-making power from Congress and nobody stopped it. We changed all the rules about the sovereignty of the states after the Civil War, and the states didn't do anything about it. You are far too comfortable in the assumption of our unassailable democratic institutions if you don't think there is any way for a president to usurp power in this system.