Trump Suggests Delaying Election Amid Fraud Claims, But Has No Power To Do So (cnbc.com) 546
President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested that perhaps the United States would need to "delay the election" on November 3, claiming that mail-in voting would make this fall's election "the most inaccurate and fraudulent in history." From a report, shared by numerous readers: Trump has no power to unilaterally delay elections, which were set for the day after the first Monday in November through a mid-19th century law passed by Congress. Since then, it has never changed, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss. But Trump is trailing in the polls by double digits to Democrat Joe Biden, and election experts have long worried that the president would actively try to interfere with the election in order to prevent a potential loss. As states grapple with how to help citizens vote safely during the coronavirus pandemic, many have turned to mail-in voting as a potential solution that allows people to cast their ballots without waiting in long lines at potentially crowded polling places.
Damn what a moron (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this will have as much support from the conservatives as he thinks this will get. But as things are proving out... everyone is okay with corrupt as long as their team is the one doing it.
I suspect that the shit-stain in chief will have to be, as old stretch face Pelosi said, fumigated from office.
I wonder how my conservatives friends are going to wiggle this load of bullshit logic around in their minds?
Lets see how "desperate" this fuck nugget gets.
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think this will have as much support from the conservatives as he thinks this will get. But as things are proving out... everyone is okay with corrupt as long as their team is the one doing it.
I suspect that the shit-stain in chief will have to be, as old stretch face Pelosi said, fumigated from office.
I wonder how my conservatives friends are going to wiggle this load of bullshit logic around in their minds?
Lets see how "desperate" this fuck nugget gets.
Haven't you heard? Trump is playing a game of five dimensional chess.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Informative)
Trump would still be removed from office, the house would choose the President and the Senate would choose vice, but all house voters for a state get a single vote, which makes the Republicans have majority in both the house and senate,
Hence, they choose Trump/Pence.
False. The House is sworn in on January 3rd. It would be the newly elected House members that would be choosing the President, not the old ones. We don't know the makeup of that Congress yet, but things are looking pretty good for the Dems. ;) Also, keep in mind that all the blue states will vote on time and will be able to send Reps, States that choose not to hold an election will have many of their contests held up in the Courts, because a delay might not be legal in all those places. And they can't just appoint Electors to choose their Representatives, or have their Legislature appoint them, or have their Governor appoint them; the Constitution covers this, and says:
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
All members of the House of Representatives have their terms expire after two years. If there is no election, there will be a vacancy, and they all they can do to fill it is schedule a Special Election. States that don't vote won't be participating in choosing the new President, if Congress has to decide it.
None of this is opinion, or controversial. It is all very clearly spelled out in the Constitution for people smart enough to remember the whole thing.
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess this is why the US has elections in November but then waits two months before the transfer of power; not only does it allow the replacement time to line up a government and other administrative tasks, but it also allows for contested results to be resolved via Congress, Senate, and/or Supreme Court as required.
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:5, Informative)
There is an important caveat to the Westminster and most other parliamentary systems. A government defeated by a vote of no confidence, or the current government in place after the writ is dropped (an election is called), or after an electoral defeat and before a new government is sworn in, is called a caretaker government. Caretaker governments have only limited powers. In a Westminster governing system, there must always be governments, there must always be Ministers to advise the Crown (or President, if a parliamentary republic), but such a government lacks wider political and democratic legitimacy.
A caretaker government is there basically to keep the wheels in motion until a new government is chosen. It cannot, as a general rule, pass legislation (during elections and before a new government is sworn in, Parliament is dissolved anyways). It cannot make any significant policy changes. In essence, in countries like the UK, Canada and Australia, when a government becomes a caretaker Ministry, the Queen or Her Vice-regal representative holds considerably more direct power through the Reserve Powers, and would almost certainly refuse the advice of any caretaker PM who tried to do anything beyond paying the bills and maintaining the status quo.
In the US system, even a defeated President is still President in every sense of the word until January 20th, giving him two and a half months beyond his defeat. A fairly weak constitutional convention suggests that the outgoing President should maintain the status quo and prepare for the transition, but Trump is no ordinary President, and I doubt very much he or his Cabinet is going to sit idly by for 10 weeks and meekly prepare, particularly if the loss is a close one. A caveat to that is that the new Congress is sworn in at the beginning of January, and if the Dems take both houses, that certainly limits the amount of time he can try to drag out any legal challenges.
Being Canadian I, of course, prefer the Westminster system. There are clear conventions on what a caretaker government can and cannot do, a head of state that, while in normal times, defers to the Government, actually holds significant Reserve Powers which could be used to outright dismiss any caretaker Ministry that caused too much trouble.
An interesting sidenote to all of this is that in Canada there was in fact one defeated Prime Minister who actually refused to recognize the electoral results. In 1896, Conservative PM Sir Charles Tupper lost the election to Sir Wilfred Laurier's Liberals. The Liberals, however, did not gain a majority, so Tupper operated under the theory that Laurier would be unable to form a stable a government (a requirement in the Westminster system for the head of state to appoint a PM and Cabinet). Tupper tried to stay right where he was, but Lord Aberdeen, the Governor General, invoked the Queen's Reserve Powers, and refused to accept any of his appointments or any advice, thus making Tupper's position untenable, and Tupper was ultimately forced to stand down.
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:4, Funny)
> Being Canadian I, of course, prefer the Westminster
> system.
Hell... being American, I would prefer to scrap our current system and switch to a Westminster-style parliamentary system. For that matter, at this point I think I'd happily settle for direct rule by the Queen herself.
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:4, Interesting)
In the situation of a majority government, a vote of Confidence is very unlikely. There's a convention in most Westminster parliaments that where there is a very slim majority, if a vote that in any way confidence has attached to it, that if the Government does not have an effective majority in the House on that day, an equal number of Opposition MPs will be absent for the vote, to prevent an unintentional vote of No Confidence. In such situations, party whips have the responsibility to make sure all their party's MPs are in attendance, or to make sure that if the Government benches are not fully manned, to keep the agreed upon number of their own members from entering the chamber.
However, the UK, Canada and Australia have all had minority governments several times, and in a Hung Parliament, confidence is a very big deal. Currently, the Liberals in Canada have a minority government, and the threat of confidence motions is a very real threat.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a minority government now. The body that represents the people (the majority) is in Democratic hands. The President (elected via the Electoral College) and the Senate (2 per state - regardless of population) are in Republican hands.
But the popular vote for President went to the Democrat, and the 49 Democratic Senators represent the majority of the voting population too. Not saying that's not 'legal' based on the Constitutional rules. Just that if we had a truly representative government, Trump a
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, at this point, I cannot understand why anyone supports the Electoral College. Since the Supreme Court has essentially terminated the Framers' notion that the EC should be a sort of parliament dedicated to selecting the President by maintaining the legitimacy of faithless elector laws, what is the point? If your concern is to make sure that smaller states aren't swamped by the far more populous states, then replace the EC with a weighted ballot, so that, say, Montana's ballots are worth, I dunno, 1
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It used to take 4 months. Which was a major problem in a few of cases when an incoming president has to wait until taking office even when there's an ongoing national crisis.
During WWI, president Wilson had a plan such that if he lost the election, he could get his opponent into office immediately rather than have him as a lame duck for four more months (ie, appoint the opponent to be secretary of state, and then he and the VP would resign, making the secretary of state the acting president). It didn't ha
Re: (Score:3)
Everywhere else they'd just vote on a no-confidence bill, have a new election and elect somebody more competent.
And what do you do in the meantime?
Prepare the election, It usually does not take very long and you can oust a government through a vote of no confidence at any time during the electoral period. It's a much quicker and more efficient way to get rid of incompetent government than the US way which is patiently putting up with several years of catastrophic misrule while you wait up to four years for the next election. Keep in mind that since most governments of functional democracies haven't been gerrymandered to hell so they can only rule secu
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
The British system of government is centuries older than the United States' form of government. In fact, one of the most significant criticisms I have of the US system is that is largely based on how the British government operated in the 1770s, where the King still wielded significant influence over government policy, where the notion of governments being produced out of a sitting Parliament, was still in its infancy. In essence, the US modeled the Executive after how King George III's government worked. Even the notion of impeachment was already becoming an archaism in the late 18th century, as the British system began to lean towards using the House of Commons' confidence in a Ministry as the means of removing a government. Ironically, one of the first British ministries to ever lose a Confidence motion and be thrown out of power was Lord North's Ministry, the government which oversaw the conduct of the Revolutionary War, and, in Parliament's view, in fact lost the colonies.
The US system in key respects is basically a fossilized relic of the Westminster system of the 1770s. Westminster, not bound by an entrenched constitution, was free to evolve, and it evolved swiftly over the next century, while the actually governing architecture of the US has only been altered significantly by the 12th and 17th Amendments. The first creating votes for President and Vice-president, rather thank the original ranking system of winner becoming President, and runner up becoming VP, and the 17th Amendment making Senators directly elected.
In the same period of time between these two amendments, in Britain the franchise went from male property owners of a certain value to universal franchise, the House of Lords had its veto powers radically weakened, and the British constitution wholly adopted the notion of Confidence, rendering impeachment, if not extinct, then at least of very little use.
Re: (Score:3)
Bureaucrats have been effectively writing many laws since before the US was even a thing. Even in the 18th century, the British government had become very large, and Whitehall had become the source of a great deal of effective power in governing the United Kingdom and the British Empire. The civil service had the vast majority of the experts in any given field of governing interest.
It's an unfortunately reality of government, one that even Jonathan Swift recognized way back in the day, that it is a highly c
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Funny)
Donald Trump might think he plays five dimensional chess, but all he does is knocking the pieces over, crapping on the board, and flying back to to Twitter to claim victory.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this will have as much support from the conservatives as he thinks this will get. But as things are proving out... everyone is okay with corrupt as long as their team is the one doing it.
I suspect that the shit-stain in chief will have to be, as old stretch face Pelosi said, fumigated from office.
I wonder how my conservatives friends are going to wiggle this load of bullshit logic around in their minds?
Lets see how "desperate" this fuck nugget gets.
Haven't you heard? Trump is playing a game of five dimensional chess.
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2 dimensional thinking."
Re: (Score:3)
So he can suck on more than one level?
But you have to admit, it's quite a feat for a one dimensional character.
Re: (Score:3)
"Trump has been playing a game of five dimensional stupid before he got into office. The ONLY thing I can say I actually am proud of Trump doing is moving the Embassy to Jerusalem."
Why? Why should you care?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you one of those idiots who thinks this is some sort of precursor to the second coming of Christ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You should be bigoted against any authoritarian fuckwits
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:4, Interesting)
The ONLY thing I can say I actually am proud of Trump doing is moving the Embassy to Jerusalem.
Uh, out of curiosity, why? Given the importance of Jerusalem to 3 of the largest religions on the planet the city should be a neutral, international city, not run by a state that is essentially a theocracy that primarily adheres to one of those religions. It's the only way access can be guaranteed for all.
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
It's by no means irrelevant. Do you really want to be dragged into a religious war in case the shit hits the fan?
You know, it is generally allowed to learn from mistakes of the past...
Re: (Score:3)
No war is religious... that is a lie they tell suckers like you to join them.
All wars of mankind are for Power/Wealth/Resources.
And religion is often used as the justification to start that war for power, wealth, and resources. In fact, since you are going on about learning from the past, the traditional phrase amongst historians for conflict/exploration/expansion is "gold, god, and glory".
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:4, Informative)
No war is religious... that is a lie they tell suckers like you to join them.
All wars of mankind are for Power/Wealth/Resources.
Excuse me, you were under the impression that religions were not created for that reason? Read the bible and tell me that Leviticus alone isn't proof enough that this was written as a tool to control a population.
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. That's you projecting your evil ideals onto innocent bystanders. I, for example, am quite pissed at the state of things but I don't want revenge, I want justice. Justice means making whole what was wronged, and prevention of wrongdoing in the future. Nobody should be physically hurt. Embarrassed, shamed, mocked... sure. But not harmed.
You choose to believe the world is evil in order to justify what you want to do to others. Because, if everyone wants revenge, then your own revenge fantasies are justified.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't support peaceable assembly, you said yourself you don't think people have the right to protest. You pick and choose not just what parts of the constitution to uphold, but who gets those protections. You're a constitutional poseur.
I don't choose to give you the satisfaction of a reasoned debate because you don't deserve that courtesy. You deserve nothing but mockery.
Re: (Score:3)
You are so fucking stupid. Arabs never allowed access to all. Christians never allowed access to all. Jews have allowed access to all since 1967. Why the fuck would anyone even make that argument, never mind believe it?
Who would administer an international city? The UN? The same UN that caves into Arab demands viz a viz Israel at every opportunity? No thanks.
The Jews shut down access to al-Aqsa Mosque regularly, plus, you know, limit what Muslims are actually allowed into Jerusalem in the first place. You make my point without even realizing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Arabs never allowed access to all.
Why do you make this stuff up? In 1192 Richard the Lionheart made a treaty with Saladin in which the Arabs controlled Jerusalem, but Christians would be allowed to access the city. It's the treaty of Jaffa, look it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Trump is a democrat, he thinks, talks, and acts like one. He just does not have the fucking sense to keep his pie hole shut like one.
But no... he is not out to destroy the GOP. He just wants power and he learned to get it all he has to do is play the word games and fool people. People are easy to fool and you can indeed fool most people most of the time.
Kinda like Occam's razor.
The simplest explanation for Trump is a person who craves power and will say or do anything to get it. A person that is th
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump isn't a Democrat. He isn't a Republican either. He is just a self-obsessed, narcissistic underachiever. He is willing to promote Republican ideas because the Republicans are giving him what he craves at the moment and support him in his narcissism.
But be clear: with Trump, it's purely transactional. He has no ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admire one skill that Trump has: his ability to distract and divert. He uses a technique similar to the Gish Gallop to overwhelm his observers. One scandal is forgotten because another scandal occupies the news. Attention to a piece of bad news is overwhelmed by an outrageous proclamation from Trump.
It's endless and it's exhausting. In the end, he avoids accountability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Democrats ostracize their own for minor transgressions."
Well, if you are going to lie.. make it a big one... just like Trump!
I have seen the same bigotry and corruption in the democrats that exists for the republicans.
Or did you forget what the democrats did to Bernie... TWO FUCKING TIMES IN A ROW?
Democrats have "creepy uncle Joe" now despite their #metoo credentials. I thought women deserved to be believed? Hillary said the same thing... except for her hubby of course.
Don't you realize the stink that is
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is a Trumpian. He will say anything on any subject that gives him a dopamine hit and he does not give a damn if it fits into a coherent idology.
Seriously?
Trump doesn't do coherency at the word, phrase, or sentence level, let alone the policy or ideology level. You pretty much just said that dolphins have a problem with cursive writing. It's that level of ignoring some rather large gaps in precursor skills.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think this will have as much support from the conservatives as he thinks this will get.
It's not about getting support from conservatives, it's about getting the liberals to object so hard they are locked in and won't delay having Biden lose.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how my conservatives friends are going to wiggle this load of bullshit logic around in their minds?
You're right, from what I've seen, there's no conservative support for this, (nor should there be, frankly, from anyone.)
I've seen it said that:
"He's trolling, because he's a master trolland loves watching librelz heads explode."
"He's playing 4-D chess."
"He didn't make a suggestion, he asked a question."
And as happens so often, I'm sure someone's said he's being taken out of context, which is the default excuse for every stupid statement that comes out of this administration.
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
"He didn't make a suggestion, he asked a question.", yes, that is one of his favorite dodges.
Another is, "Many people are saying..." when his operatives salted the "saying" to his lapdog media friends who repeat it like good little smurfs.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a Democrat and my views are considerably further right than the Democrats in general, like their support for kneecapping the 2nd Amendment and increasing police presence ( see Clinton's old speech in 94).
If there were a party to the right of them, but to the left of batshit fucking insane, that's where I'd vote.
But there's no one electable (yet) to represent centrist views whatsoever. Find me a candidate with a hard line stance on Constitutional rights, particularly due process, willing to recognize
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I don't support any of Trump's bullshit or fascist pieces of shit. Did you actually read my post?
From where I'm sitting, the conservatives willingly gave their party away to the Nazis, and the liberals would curtail civil rights in the name of winning, rather than actually following the law; that document called the Constitution that both sides have agreed to piss and shit on.
What part of my complaint that both sides are extremists suggests to you that I'm an extremist?
Re:Damn what a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
This was a pretty tired take in 2000, and 2004, and 2008, and 2012, and 2016. Maybe someday you'll understand elections have consequences, and if you bothered to read even a tiny amount of policy positions from either candidate, you would see they are quite different?
But that would require you to be stirred from your ennui, and we can't have that.
Go back to sleep, sweetie. We'll wake you when the adults are done talking.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Damn what a [panicked] moron (Score:3)
Hmm... Better than average FP for Slashdot 2020, but I'm definitely not seeing the insightful there.
My initial reaction is that Trump sounds panicked. Hard to believe that reality might be breaking through his reality distortion field.
Second reaction was the bad joke about "Always bet on the cornered rat." If you think Trump is scared now, just wait.
Returning to your [SirAstral's] comment and your "wonder" about how they will "wiggle" things in their minds... The power of cognitive dissonance.is YUGE. Didn'
Re: Damn what a moron (Score:5, Informative)
Are you really so sure you wonâ(TM)t see what is happening in New York State with their primary RIGHT NOW?
There are 5 states that have had universal vote by mail for some time now. I haven't heard about anyone in those states complaining about how long it takes to count mail-in votes. Just because NY is doing it wrong doesn't mean it can't be done right.
How long will the Democrats stand for 20 or 30 state results to still be in question a month after the election? How long will the Republicans wait?
What are the negative consequences of having to wait a month for the election results to be finalized? It took that long or longer for much of US history, and nobody died.
As loathe as I am to reflexively jump to Trump Derangement Syndrome, it really looks like his critics are reflexively rejecting without any justification anything he says simply because he said it.
Huh? AFAIK, Trump has never said anything about delayed election results being a problem with vote by mail. But Trump has repeatedly attacked vote by mail, saying it will lead to massive fraud. Here's a beauty:
"RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!"
And another:
"This will be the Election disaster of our time. Mail-In Ballots will lead to a RIGGED ELECTION!"
And another:
"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed."
Fraud associated with vote by mail is very rare. [heritage.org] Exceedingly so. You don't have to have TDS to see that what Trump is saying is complete bullshit.
Taking cues from his best buddy (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess now we know what he discussed in that phone conversation with mr. "zeroed-out eternal president" Putin.
Whenever you think Trump can't be any more of a failed human being, he does something like this, and totally redeems himself.
Makes sense . . . for him (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense . . . for him (Score:5, Insightful)
His statements lately on the upcoming election have been two-fold at nearly every opportunity. He continues to say if mail in voting is allowed, it will be the most fraudulent vote in American history. He, and his staff, continue to put out statements declaring that, if Trump isn't the clear and outstanding winner come November, the election results are fraudulent.
This is win-win for him. If he manages to convince the right people that the election needs to be pushed back, great, he stays in power. If he doesn't, he's planted the seeds and had his rabid base convinced for months that the results are bunk and should be thrown out if he loses.
The whole thing is terrifying for those of us that like to think the foundations of what passes for American Democracy still exists. But in this day and age, it's no longer that surprising.
Re:Polls...lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Polls...lol (Score:4, Insightful)
This should be concerning (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't the first time he's made a comment like this. When he talked previously about how he should get extra time because the Mueller investigation was an issue, people dismissed it as a joke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-russia-mueller-investigation-report-james-comey-fbi-a9085321.html [independent.co.uk] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/05/trump-term-mueller-1302643 [politico.com] When he said that maybe the US should try having a Presidency for life, people dismissed it as a joke https://theweek.com/speedreads/852099/trump-just-joked-about-being-president-life--6th-time [theweek.com] . I'm wondering if he's going to be pushing this in late October and people will still be trying to claim he doesn't really mean it. What more does it take?
We didn't delay the election during the Civil War. We didn't delay the election during World War II. We don't have any reason to delay the election now.
Claims about mail-in-ballot fraud are simply not justified. Ballot fraud is rare, and there's not even a clear cut mechanism how one would be able to do it on a large scale. For over a hundred years, the US military has done in mail-in-ballots for elections and it has worked fine. Meanwhile, Trump himself has voted in elections absentee as have many of his high ranking officials https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/trump-officials-vote-by-mail/ [washingtonpost.com] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ever-voted-by-mail/ [snopes.com] https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/donald-trump-vote-by-mail-absentee/index.html [cnn.com].
This is a blatant attempt to delay the election because he knows that given the current numbers he's likely to lose. He isn't necessarily going to lose. Prediction markets give him about a 40% chance of winning, which is not too shabby https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election [predictit.org]. And his polls right now are actually arguably better than George H. W. Bush's polls at 100 days before the election in 1988 who ended up winning. But note that when it was pretty clear before the election in 1992 only a few days before that he wasn't at all likely to win that election, Bush didn't try to delay the election. Because we don't do that in a functioning democracy, and we certainly don't do it simply because one is afraid one is going to lose.
Re:This should be concerning (Score:5, Funny)
He should tell his base to boycott the election, then it will surely have to be cancelled!
Re: This should be concerning (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you seen whatâ(TM)s going on in New Yorkâ(TM)s 12th District [slashdot.org]? A month after the election and they are still counting ballots and rejecting record numbers of ballots?
The New Yorker and The NY Times have written about this district and the general issues in NY Stateâ(TM)s first primarily mail in primary, do you really trust all fifty states to simply âramp upâ(TM) their processes for a largely mail-in election in November? Will you wait a month for the final election returns in j
Re: This should be concerning (Score:5, Informative)
Voicing concerns in advance of likely problems used to be considered a good thing, but add in a healthy dose of TDS and even the most logical concern being raised is suddenly a issue for his critics that argue against logic to virtue signal they donâ(TM)t support this President at any cost.
If I said that your comment is you trying to virtue signal that you support Trump and really don't like people who disagree with him, you'd probably respond pretty negatively. So instead of assuming that your political opponents must have some nefarious, cynical motives, maybe try to consider that they are about as sincere as you are?
Have you read the reason ? (Score:3)
In other word the royal fuck up is people not doing their job at the post. The absentee ballot should have been given priority. they were not they were even left to rot for days. Th
Re:This should be concerning (Score:5, Informative)
They weren't, but nevertheless Trump has announced he will attempt mail-in ballot fraud.
No mechanism? He has already begun working on sabotaging USPS. If he can get his newly-appointed Postmaster DeJoy to selectively slow the mail [fortune.com] in some areas while keeping it on-time in others, I don't see why his plan couldn't/shouldn't at least help to defeat America.
Why shouldn't the president's fraud plan to commit election fraud work? Many fine people are saying this president knows more about fraud than anyone else.
Re:This should be concerning (Score:5, Interesting)
Weren't Democrats suggesting that the pandemic might mean we need to delay elections way back in April when it was mostly Democratic areas that were affected, making it more likely for their turnout to be suppressed?
Not really. There were some discussions of moving primaries which aren't the same thing. And in general, moving state level deadlines is very different since there's a lot of flexibility there. But the US Presidential election happens in November, extremely close to the new Presidential term so one doesn't have a long period of flexibility. Any delay of the election would almost certainly push into the next term, which is exactly what is intended here.
Pay people to just submit ballots for a chosen candidate. Have them all come to a private location to confirm they filled out the ballot "properly" and then mail them for them. It's pretty trivial to do if you think about it.
And you are going to do that on a large-scale and not have anyone speak up or get caught how? The probability of being caught this way would be extremely high.
Plus I seem to recall that one of the reasons we don't do at-home voting of any form were because feminists were worried that abusive husbands would force their wives to vote for the same things they wanted.
I've seen this claim before and I've never seen any evidence for it. At minimum, when the suffragists were pushing for universal suffrage, voting was not done absentee generally. In fact, saloons and bars were major areas for voting, and one argument against women's suffrage was that it would change the entertaining nature of getting to vote since they'd be going into what were men's spaces. I'd be interested to see any evidence that this actually was brought up as an argument against mail-in-ballots. In any event, it isn't a major concern today; the degree to which men control their wives in heterosexual couples now is far below what it would have been 40 or 80 years ago.
We can't exactly tell the world to hold off on attacking us for one day a year. The military has the resources to keep solider absentee ballots secure. States largely do not.
You seem to be confusing two issues. One is why the military has done this generally (and your reasoning is correct), and the second is whether one could have the resources for it. The military does have a lot of organization and resources put into getting this to work. That doesn't mean states couldn't do so either, especially if there were federal support. Unfortunately, right now, Trump appears to be working on making mail-in-ballots to be as difficult to do as possible by functionally waging a war on the Post Office. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3az7qb/why-your-usps-packages-are-delayed [vice.com] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/14/postal-service-trump-dejoy-delay-mail/ [washingtonpost.com]. (This may not just be about ballots. He also seems to really dislike Amazon because it is owned by Jeff Bezos who owns the Washington Post, and wrecking the US post system hurts Amazon also.)
Re: (Score:3)
Weren't Democrats suggesting that the pandemic might mean we need to delay elections way back in April when it was mostly Democratic areas that were affected, making it more likely for their turnout to be suppressed?
Who specifically?
It certainly wasn't Biden.
"Mark my words, I think he is going to try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can't be held,” the former vice president and apparent Democratic presidential nominee said during an online fundraiser.
In fact, Republicans scoffed at him:
The Trump campaign issued a statement Friday, saying, "Those are the incoherent, conspiracy theory ramblings of a lost candidate who is out of touch with reality. Perhaps he also missed the news that the infamous Steele Dossier, central to the Russian Collusion Hoax, was likely compiled with Russian disinformation. That’s the real Russian collusion."
And it wasn't Nancy Pelosi either:
Other top Democrats have also stressed the importance of holding the election in November as scheduled.
"We must. I know there's a danger and people are scared. But we must and we will. [Trump] has done so much to undermine our democracy, to undermine our rights, dishonoring the constitution, undermining the integrity of our voting process," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with MSNBC on Friday."We cannot allow him to do that to our democracy. That will not happen."
Biden says he thinks Trump will try to delay the November election [nbcnews.com]
Yeah (Score:3)
We wouldn't want the guy with fewer votes getting in or anything like that, would we?
I'll buy that for a dollar (Score:3, Informative)
Not only can Trump not delay the election, the people who theoretically would have a say in it burned their bridges sucking up to him over the Coronavirus. He not only lacks the power to make such a decision, but those with the ability to influence such a decision have burned whatever political capital they had to even attempt such a decision. You think you have protests now? Delay the election, because then s**t will really be on fire from the protests.
This is probably just more fodder for the base to get them into being a frothy Santorum in case he loses.
Just a blowhard (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump isn't calculating this, he has no plan, he can make no tough decisions. He watches too much TV and gets echo chambered into Fox, Sinclair and OAN running stories about mail in voting bad, which they run because he said he doesn't like it, and then he runs his mouth when he see's the story. The story of Trump the "big tough business tycoon" is the story of a man who is a coward, someone who cannot cope with making the decisions necessary and so afraid of negative attention from his psychotic sycophantic base that he is paralyzed into non-action at every turn. I doubt he is even aware of the Article II rules on who sets the election date, hell I don't even think he's aware that every state runs elections and not the Federal Government.
Re: (Score:3)
Barr has the appearance of a man with a plan. In reality when you look at Barr's moves they are almost all reactionary in nature. He is always playing so much defense for Trump he cannot formulate a strategy. For as weak as the House Dem's were in the recent hearing they put him off balance quite a few times. He's slippery and good at talking around issues but he's throwing shit and hoping some sticks.
Let him stay (Score:2)
Trump has made socialism, actual communism, and executive orders acceptible to the majority.
He's made it OK for the government to implement price controls.
He has made it acceptible for government to pick winners and losers in the economy. This could be an awesome tool for promoting green energy when the next Democrat comes into power (following 2024 electon, worst case).
He's made it OK to grant pardons to any political friend, not just nuts like Roger Stone but also including his friends like the terrible p
Do autocrats lose elections? (Score:3)
The fact that none of the GOP could put two and two together and realize that it would quickly turn into single payer health care if a Bernie got into office was laughable. You reap what you sow. Fucking politicians.
Do autocrats ever lose elections? I know where you're coming from, but once someone has this much power to abuse, they tend not to let go. The other creepy thing is they live a really really long time...think Castro. It's weird...how often do dictators get routine heart attacks or cancer or normal people deaths? They seem to either get violently overthrown and/or live waaay longer than anyone would expect them to.
This genuinely makes me sick to my stomach. If he makes it difficult/impossible to vot
Can't he just delay the fraud? (Score:2)
Personally, I'd rather he postpone his plans to rig the election, than postpone the election itself. What are the arguments in favor of delaying the election and still having fraud, as opposed to having a fraud-free one on time?
The checklist (Score:5, Insightful)
Secret police arresting people without a warrant [npr.org]? Check.
Calling the press the enemy of the people [thehill.com]? Check.
Hinting that he may not respect [theguardian.com] the resuilts of the democratic process? Check.
Trying to interfere with the election date? Check.
Congratulations, America. You have a dictator-wannabe rattling around the White House. (Well, when he's not off golfing.)
Re:The checklist (Score:5, Funny)
The best way to secure the vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best way to secure the vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this. Paper voting is far superior to anything involving computers.
Any doubt? (Score:3, Insightful)
If any doubt remains (in the minds of sane and rational people) that Trump wants to be a dictator, then surely this puts it to rest.
I'm sure there are lots of folks who'd be happy to see him as dictator though. I keep wondering why I can't see the 'kick me' signs they must be wearing...
distinction without difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides the "delay the election" part, the most interesting bit of Donald's tweet is that he thinks there is a difference between mail-in voting and absentee voting.
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, he says "absentee" voting is fine because that's how [sun-sentinel.com] he votes [thehill.com]. Though the Trump family does seem to struggle [nydailynews.com] with mail-in voting, often invalidating their votes.
From an MNBC interview [twitter.com]:
President Trump: "I think mail-in voting is horrible, it's corrupt."
Reporter: "You voted by mail in Florida's election last month, didn't you?"
Trump: "Sure. I can vote by mail"
Reporter: "How do you reconcile with that?"
Trump: "Because I'm allowed to."
I'm not worried (Score:3)
Constitutional consequences of fraudulent election (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment XX Section 1 is crystal clear on one thing: Trump does not get to remain president. If there is no valid election, Trump is out of office at noon on January 20.
Amendment XII says that the House chooses the President if no candidate receives a majority of electoral college votes, which by law are counted on January 6. However, assuming that no valid elections are held in 2020, as of January 3 there will be no sitting House to perform this function.
That triggers Amendment XX Section 3: presidential succession by statute. In this case we're talking about The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, specifies that the next in line to assume office is the Speaker of the House. However there will be no sitting House, and (presumably?) no Speaker.
So President Pro Tempore of the Senate is next in line. Currently that is a Republican, Chuck Grassley. But assuming the Senate election are likewise invalidated, all Senators standing for election are out of office on January 3. That throws control of the Senate to the Democrats, and the the longest serving Democratic senator becomes President Pro Tempore, which happens to be a certain elderly senator from Vermont....
Patrick Leahy.
Now there are some potential wrinkles here. The Constitution is silent on how Electoral College members are selected, so in the event of a non-election, state legislatures could simply appoint college members. Republican state legislatures currently control enough electoral votes to force a selection of a Republican candidate. However, most of those states would have to repeal existing laws mandating selection by popular vote, and there are enough Democratic governors in those states to block achievement of a majority in the EC.
Another possibility is that we'll have some kind of patchwork of legitimacy and illegitimacy. This could throw control of the House or Senate either way. However litigating which elections were or were not legitimate could take many months.
Another very possible outcome is a naked Constitutional crisis, where Trump openly defies legal succession because vacating office as a result of the other side's ostensible fraud is "unfair". Then everything boils down to the amount of personal loyalty he can command.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That triggers Amendment XX Section 3: presidential succession by statute. In this case we're talking about The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, specifies that the next in line to assume office is the Speaker of the House. However there will be no sitting House, and (presumably?) no Speaker.
That "presumably?" gets interesting. The Speaker isn't required to be a member of Congress, and there's no constitutional limit on the length of the term as Speaker. Traditionally the Speaker has always been chosen from the elected members, and there's a vote for Speaker after each election, but that's tradition - the constitution doesn't require it. If there's no House to elect a new Speaker, could the previous Speaker remain in the position until there's a House again to vote for a new one?
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I suspect also, but it's so far out of the norm that I wonder if it has any practical effect. At some point legitimacy is no longer just a matter of technicalities, it becomes a matter of perception.
The more bizarre the circumstances the next president assumes office under, the less the public will be inclined to view that president as illegitimate. It's become routine for the right wing to question the legitimacy of Democratic presidents even when they win the popular vote and Electoral Coll
Re: (Score:2)
What state "refuses" voter registration?
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't trust mail in voting tbh,
Seems like the Trump administration doesn't really have a problem with mail in voting if they are the ones doing it:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re:As much as I don't like Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is not a citizen and she cannot vote.
Despite all the complaining by Trump, there is no proof of widespread voting irregularities and it seems that the incidents that have been found have benefited both political parties.
Re:As much as I don't like Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
So a little graft is OK so long as no one group has a monopoly on it?
The thing you need to consider is the rate of voter fraud vs. the rate of disenfranchisement. Because despite your belief, it is not always easy to get a photo ID.
For example, the states that are most gung-ho about voter ID have done things like not placed DMV offices in poor communities, or in places that have easy access to mass transit. They've also done things like only have their DMV only open during standard working hours on weekdays. 9-4 M-F is the most common.
There's also the required documentation to get that ID. To get a new copy of my birth certificate, I can either pay $50, or go to the county registrar in the county I was born in....which is 2000 miles away. Most also require things like a utility bill or copy of a signed lease, which I won't have if I'm living with a relative.
Let's put it this way: When I moved from Colorado to New York, it took me 9 attempts to get a NY Driver's License. The clerks at the DMV keep refusing to process the application, claiming the documentation was insufficient. Documentation that was acceptable on attempt 3 was suddenly not acceptable on attempt 4. Attempt #9 worked, and I believe that was because I left the voter registration part of the application blank.
(And before you say "AH-HA!! Evil NY Democrats!!", this was in upstate NY, in a city that's about 80/20 Republican, and I was registering as a Democrat.)
I could only do 9 attempts because I work in a field where "I'm gonna take half the afternoon off to go to the DMV" was acceptable....aka a white-collar job. If I was working retail, there's no way they'd just be fine with me disappearing for hours.
TL:DR: Your plans disenfranchise far more people than the number of fraudulent votes you would prevent.
Re: (Score:3)
A very large swath of the poor doesn't drink because it costs too much.
Why does a certain subset of "progressive" white people feel like they know what the poor does and doesn't do?
I grew up quite poor. My parents were from Appalachia, and my mother looked forward to Christmas each year, because she got ... an orange.
VERY few people didn't drink alcohol because they couldn't afford it. They didn't pay other things because they couldn't afford it, but alcohol always finds a way. My grandfather made moonsh
Re:As much as I don't like Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on dude...there's nothing wrong with taking active steps to ensure that your voter rolls are accurate, and that the people coming in to cast ballots are who they say they are.
But that's not what they're doing. There have been plenty of statements from Republicans that these measures are intended to reduce participation from expected Democratic voters.
And even if there hadn't been those statements, there has been measurable reduction in participation from those very groups, in numbers that far exceed any claimed impact of fraudulent voting. But Republicans are constantly more interested in preventing (some) people from voting than in making sure everyone who is eligible votes.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you daft? We do have voter registration, and if you're not registered, you don't get to vote. Purging voter registration is one way the republicans are trying to suppress the ability to vote in low income and minority neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As much as I don't like Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Voter registration is quite specific to the US I think. It seems to be designed to create a barrier for voters, which inevitably will hit low income areas the most. The extremely low turnout of about 55% seems to underpin this.
In my country you don't have to register for anything. Everybody over 18 years of age automatically gets invited to vote. Turnout is above 75%.
More barriers for transparant elections are the electoral college, sheer number of additional simultaneous elections, etc.
So yeah, there is a lot to be fixed in the US during the democracy 101 class..
Re: As much as I don't like Trump (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: As much as I don't like Trump (Score:4, Informative)
It's because the US doesn't have an automatic registration of citizens
We do. Everyone is issued a Social Security Number at birth. Also every state, district and territory issues birth certificates at birth.
Re: (Score:3)
In my country, you have to be registered to vote. You can check a box on your tax return that does it, or mail in a form. Before an election nice old ladies come to your door with a clipboard and do it for you. If you still get missed, you can register at the polling place immediately before you vote.
The issue seems to be *how* you register, and how much political hijinks the registry is subject to.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, surprisingly mail-in voting is not a problem in basically all other modern democracies. Further evidence that the US is continuing to fall behind.
Re: As much as I don't like Trolls ... (Score:4, Informative)
Osgeld blathered:
the funny thing is, you think your vote actually matters, in reality it doesn't, all it does is tell your local good ole boys which way your district is leaning and never makes it further than that. If you do not align with the politics of your district, you might as well wipe your ass with the ballot, cause it will be far more useful that way.
Now this isn't to discourage voting, you should, for local elections but for presidential elections your vote is meaningless as the (gerrymandered) district you live in has already made the choice for you.
Absolultely incorrect, troll.
In almost every state - the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska - the Electoral College delegates who will vote on who will be elected president are bound by statute to vote unanimously for the candidate who won their state's popular vote (a system known as "winner take all" for obvious reasons). It's impossible to gerrymander such an election outcome, since a simple plurality decides the outcome. (Maine and Nebraska - neither of which has many congressional districts - award their two senatorial delegates to the winner of the popular vote, but apportion those delegates based on its representation in the House by who won the vote in each congressional district. In those two states and only in those states - neither of which has historically been much of a battleground - gerrymandering could theoretically come into play. In practice, however, both are deep, deep red, politically, so their EC delegates are pretty much inevitably going to vote for the Republican candidate, because so did the voters they represent.)
You're just pushing the "your vote doesn't matter" narrative because you want to see the lowest possible turnout in November.
Re: (Score:3)
apparently you did not read all the way though
Re:Trump goes to federal prison in 2020 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There are prosecutors just waiting for him to be out of office to hit him with some charges. As soon as he can't use the office to shield himself and can't pardon people who might testify against him in exchange for their loyalty...
Re: (Score:3)
There are prosecutors just waiting for him to be out of office to hit him with some charges. As soon as he can't use the office to shield himself and can't pardon people who might testify against him in exchange for their loyalty...
Quite likely true, but I can guarantee you he will not be charged, tried, or convicted for anything done while he was president, because that is a rail no one wants to touch. And for something done before or after office, well, it will have to be something really egregious or his supporters will be all over it claiming "retaliation". And that's assuming the next Republican president doesn't outright pardon him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Know what I love about you anonymous internet keyboard commandos? Yeah, maybe nobody knows who you are here but I'm sure you and most of your kind have been praising Trump to friends and family and people you know, and this is making you look stupider and stupider. People you know are increasingly laughing at you behind your back as you continue to defend a deranged, incompetent lunatic like Trump, and this is going to follow you the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that anyone who doesn't like the man or thinks he is terrible at the job of being President just have a case of "TDS" really drives the point that his base is a cult of personality, they've let their greater political opinions become entangled with one very dumb and corrupt man. From people who proclaim themselves "free thinkers" they sure fall into lockstep arguments.
Whatever else you think it's pretty plain he's bad at the job and doesn't like doing it but his ego simply drove him to this point
Re: (Score:3)
There is a sure fire 100% effective cure for TDS, simply remove the cause and it will disappear.
Re:If you can go to the store, you can vote in per (Score:4, Funny)
How often do you have to wait in line for 3 hours in the store?
Or maybe, "If you're too lazy to vote in person then you shouldn't be in the White House."
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
Re: (Score:3)