Patterico's Pontifications

1/4/2022

What If Trump’s Coup Attempt Had Succeeded?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



At USA Today, David Rothkopf asks this important question and then fumbles on the answer:

As we approach the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, many questions remain. Among these, one of the most important is, “What if?”

What if the coup attempt had succeeded? What if the election results had been overturned? What if Donald Trump were illegally installed for a second term as president of the United States?

It could have happened several different ways. Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman might have been out sick last Jan. 6 and not in place to divert the mob away from fleeing and hiding members of Congress. The Trumpist horde could have found their way to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Mike Pence or other members of Congress and killed or injured them.

Had they done so, it might have resulted in postponing the certification of the election and in the ensuing time, despite whatever national outrage was triggered, the former president and his supporters might have engineered politically motivated challenges in key states throwing the election’s results into question.

Rothkoff, the author of this “what if Trump managed to steal the election” piece, is a Democrat who, like most Democrats nowadays, doesn’t really take the “what if?” question seriously. His biggest concern seems to be that “it is not hard to imagine that within weeks after stealing the election, Trump would have moved quickly to consolidate power and protect himself from challenges.” Just like every president does? His solution is standard Democrat blather about election laws “that will make it harder for tens of millions of Americans – often minority voters and others who tend to vote Democratic – to vote.” This ignores the fact that making it “harder” to vote (like requiring identification, an act that Democrats are convinced is beyond the capability of anyone with dark skin) doesn’t really matter if voters manage to surmount those obstacles, and Republicans throw out their votes anyway.

That is what Trump tried to do — and the real answer to “what if” he had succeeded is that he would have made it impossible to change power through peaceful means.

And that leaves force as the only option left.

So the real answer to the question is: if Trump had managed to get himself installed, even though the voters chose someone else, then the citizenry would have been justified in removing him by force, using any means necessary.

I have often said that the real issue with the January 6 insurrectionists isn’t that they tried to overtake the government by force, but that their premises were wrong. If they were actually correct that the election had been blatantly stolen, they would have had no other option.

That is what happens when elections are no longer a viable way to choose a leader.

That is the plain truth, yet people recoil from it. “My lands, but that is a bridge too far! Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting?”

You bet I am. As an analogy, the Russian people would absolutely be justified in deposing Vladimir Putin by force, including (if necessary) through the means you now realize I am actually suggesting. And that is because there is no other way to remove Vladimir Putin.

And if Trump had managed to seize power despite the People choosing someone else, our citizenry would be justified in doing the same.

And that is a horrifying thing to say. Which is why I keep (to borrow Jonah Goldberg’s phrase) banging my spoon on my high chair about this issue. It is the most serious issue facing the country. Democrats’ silly little election laws aren’t going to fix it. What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

But it’s not going to happen, because partisan Democrats aren’t actually taking the danger seriously.

I pray that what I see coming doesn’t actually take place.

303 Responses to “What If Trump’s Coup Attempt Had Succeeded?”

  1. I’ve said before that I think the most likely outcome is that the Republicans take both houses in 2022 and then help Trump “win” in disregard of actual election results in 2024.

    I’ll say now that I no longer think the outcome is avoidable, and that the republic will be dead within the decade.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  2. Actually, what is needed is serious CONSTITUTIONAL reform that removes the electoral college as the method of election of a president in favor of national popular vote. Unfortunately, that will not happen.

    Rhymes WithRight (7e4c7e)

  3. The good news is that Trump made sure that there would be no insurrection.

    On Sunday, January 3, the heads of a half-dozen elite government special operations teams met in Quantico, Virginia, to go over potential threats, contingencies, and plans for the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. The meeting, and the subsequent deployment of these shadowy commandos on January 6, has never before been revealed

    Right after the New Year, Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting Attorney General on January 6, approved implementation of long-standing contingency plans dealing with the most extreme possibilities: an attack on President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence, a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, and a declaration of measures to implement continuity of government, requiring protection and movement of presidential successors.

    Rosen made a unilateral decision to take the preparatory steps to deploy Justice Department and so-called “national” forces. There was no formal request from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service, or the Metropolitan Police Department—in fact, no external request from any agency. The leadership in Justice and the FBI anticipated the worst and decided to act independently, the special operations forces lurking behind the scenes.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/exclusive-secret-commandos-shoot-kill-authority-were-capitol-1661330%3famp=1

    If I was Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman I’d be pretty torqued that my own department left me hanging out to dry, while the departments under Trump were actually preparing to defend “the movement of presidential successors.”

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  4. What if an asteroid had hit the Capitol that day, killing everyone in the building?

    “What if?” is more useless than “What about?” in that it allows sheer fantasy to enter the discussion.

    Trump had no chance of altering the results since no one wanted to be hanging from a lamppost. Had the mob managed to injure of kill members of Congress, and Trump attempted to use that to his advantage, Pence would have been president with stunning speed, in any one of 3 ways.

    If, going forward, Trump attempted to use a few well-places stooges to flip a close election (no point in any other kind of election), either he would be stopped (again several ways) or the office would be worth nothing due to mass secession or his eventually successful cancellation.

    It is not worth spending one minute worrying about. And yet I have sated several minutes on this.

    Phooey!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. *wasted

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  6. I meant to emphasize a more complete quote within the quote.

    declaration of measures to implement continuity of government, requiring protection and movement of presidential successors.

    Kinda tough to run a coup when you also decide to deploy special forces to stop a coup.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  7. What if an asteroid had hit the Capitol that day, killing everyone in the building?

    At the very least Jim would have another metric to associate with Covid deaths.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  8. The good news is that Trump made sure that there would be no insurrection……while the departments under Trump were actually preparing to defend “the movement of presidential successors.”

    As the article said, Rosen was operating unilaterally. Rosen was acting AG only because Barr resigned, not because Trump appointed him. In fact, Trump apparently considered removing Rosen and appointing a more amenable Jeffrey Clark in his place. Unfortunately, Clark has declined to speak about this and other matters with the House Committee.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  9. I’ve said before that I think the most likely outcome is that the Republicans take both houses in 2022 and then help Trump “win” in disregard of actual election results in 2024.

    Your party is OPENLY working to do just this with their own candidates, so I see this type of “worry” to be nothing but projection and battlespace preparation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. To address aphrael’s serious concerns, on January 6, 2025 the Electoral Votes will be counted by Kamala Harris under a new Congress elected in 2024. Which is not to discount any groundwork laid by the winners of the 2022 election.

    My entirely speculative suggestion, I think that no popular revolt will be necessary, the “mechanics” (sic as in Charles Bronson) being already in place for a very long time now to “execute” a very brief countercoup.

    nk (1d9030)

  11. Trump plans a coup and has no idea what his AG is up to? That is the claim?

    Hahahahaha!

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  12. Is the NYT link a “sources say” article?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  13. Kinda tough to run a coup when you also decide to deploy special forces to stop a coup.

    No where in the article does it refer to Trump ordering any deployments.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  14. Patterico, please explain to me how you worry about this unlikely scenario but say nothing about the National Popular Vote Compact which is an OPEN attempt by the Democrat Party to do the same thing.

    At the very least, convince me that the Compact’s method of changing electoral votes is better than the method you project onto Trump in 2024.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  15. My entirely speculative suggestion, I think that no popular revolt will be necessary, the “mechanics” (sic as in Charles Bronson) being already in place for a very long time now to “execute” a very brief countercoup.

    Impeachment, the short form. As I noted there are at least 3 ways to remove a President.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  16. @14, using a flawed process to change the rules ahead of the next election from EC to popular vote isn’t remotely similar to stealing an election you’ve already lost.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  17. No where in the article does it refer to Trump ordering any deployments.

    Deployments “operating under plans already approved by President Trump?”

    Guess where I got that quote?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  18. BuDuh (4a7846) — 1/4/2022 @ 9:21 am

    Does the Newsweek link name their sources?

    “The role that the military played in this highly classified operation is still unknown, though FBI sources tell Newsweek …..”

    Hahahahaha!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)


  19. Actually, what is needed is serious CONSTITUTIONAL reform that removes the electoral college as the method of election of a president in favor of national popular vote. Unfortunately, that will not happen.

    This is so darling. Someone drops by to make a comment about the worst possible reform, which would make EVERY close election unresolvable.

    Question: DO you trust the way they count votes in [state you hate]? Because in the current system they can’t add any votes and if they can blatantly cheat their guy won there anyway. In your new system, they can add a million votes and prove they didn’t, and both candidates will claim someone did.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  20. The Newsweek article is interesting. But doesn’t change what we saw with our own eyes while it was happening. Not hard to understand that a wildly incompetent and disorganized administration failed to get everyone working towards the same illegal purpose.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  21. Rhymes WithRight

    Blight?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  22. You got me there, Rip.

    Thanks for confirming that the NYT paywall was worthless.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  23. Patterico, The number of otherwise intelligent people making excuses for an attempted coup is mind boggling and depressing.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  24. Kevin, I doubt very much that when it comes to the crunch any state legislature will have the guts to flip the popular vote results of their state. If you know of any state in which the citizens put that many brave and noble politicians in one place, please let me know so I can move there.

    nk (1d9030)

  25. using a flawed process to change the rules ahead of the next election from EC to popular vote isn’t remotely similar to stealing an election you’ve already lost.

    I believe the complaint is that Republicans in some states are changing the supervision of vote-counting there, by law, and possible the methods of resolving disputes. In advance of the next election.

    Would you be happier if they just said that they were going to let the legislature assign electoral votes?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  26. NK, EC votes vs popular votes are a choice. The founders debated it and settled on EC. The Popular vote compact is an attempt to reverse that without a constitutional amendment. It’s probably not legal. But it might be since state legislatures can set the rules for how they allocate EC votes. I think the. PVC is a bad idea. But if the people of a given state vote to use that process and the method is known before the election is held it doesn’t strike me as illegitimate. It’s flawed, but I think it would be a less flawed process than using congressional districts.

    Kevin hates it. He likes to assert it’s the same thing, if not worse, then what Trump did. He uses it as an excuse to justify / dismiss the attempted coup.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  27. From The Daily Mail:

    ‘I believe that DOJ reasonably prepared for contingencies ahead of January 6, understanding that there was considerable uncertainty as to how many people would arrive, who those people would be, and precisely what purposes they would pursue,’ Rosen had told lawmakers on the House Oversight committee.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10365429/amp/Secret-commandos-authority-shoot-kill-Capitol-January-6-Report.html

    We may never know what those preparations were.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  28. What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

    But it’s not going to happen, because partisan Democrats aren’t actually taking the danger seriously.

    An excellent example of Murc’s Law in action – Only Democrats have agency.

    Do Republicans have any responsibility for attempting reform of the Electoral Count Act? At least in some manner that doesn’t involve scrawling Trump’s name in with a sharpie?

    Victor (4959fb)

  29. using a flawed process to change the rules ahead of the next election from EC to popular vote isn’t remotely similar to stealing an election you’ve already lost.

    And they would actually be stealing an election they’ve already lost, since there has been no amendment, the Compact is illegal, and it would necessarily throw the election into the House, or the courts.

    But let’s say the Compact is in effect, and the Compact states vote for the popular winner (and electoral vote loser).

    The electoral votes come to the House which is controlled by Republicans, and the House rejects the “unlawful” electoral vote and proceeds to an election in the House, eventually electing the candidate who won the election by the traditional electoral vote method.

    Has the House stolen the election?

    Or, let’s say the Supreme Court, 6-3 GOP-appointees, rejects the Compact and further asserts that state legislatures no longer have any role in assigning electoral votes as they granted that to the People 150 years ago and a right granted for that length of time cannot be rescinded. They then order the Compact states to submit proper Electoral Votes.

    Has the Court stolen the election?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. I should say “purported popular vote winner” since I don’t trust the vote-counting in certain large states. How would you prove that California did not add votes, as a one-party state can do whatever it wants. We’ve already seen how they count votes in Florida.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  31. Please follow me on this, Time123:

    November 5, 2024 R wins New Mexico by more than a 5% margin. On November 7, the legislature sees that D won the national popular vote by whatever margin, and says “Nope, screw you deplorables, we’re sticking to the compact our predecessors made eight or ten years ago, and giving New Mexico’s electoral votes to the D.” Realistic?

    nk (1d9030)

  32. nk — the scenario you envision, and NM’s legislature not doing it, is my biggest argument against the NPC; it’s not enforceable so it’s irrational to rely on it and the political pressure in states will be to undermine it if it ever matters.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  33. Rosen’s testimony:

    District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote to Acting Defense Secretary Miller and me that MPD “is prepared for this week’s First Amendment Activities,” and that other than the logistical support of unarmed members of the DC National Guard, DC “has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies.”

    Nonetheless , although not specifically requested by MPD, Capitol Police, or any other agencies, my office directed various DOJ entities to take cautionary steps to alert or pre-position tactical teams if needed for support on January 6. For example, the FBI’s Hostage Rescue team and Render Safe teams were activated; an additional FBI SWAT team from Baltimore was repositioned to Washington, D.C.; ATF Special Response Teams were pre-positioned in Virginia for activation if needed; and USMS Special Operations Group personnel were also pre-positioned in Virginia for deployment if needed.2
    I believe that DOJ reasonably prepared for contingencies ahead of January 6, understanding that there was considerable uncertainty as to how many people would arrive, who those people would be, and precisely what purposes they would pursue. Unlike the police, DOJ had no frontline role with respect to crowd control. The FBI, ATF, DEA, and U.S. Attorneys’ offices, as investigative and prosecuting agencies, are generally not equipped for crowd control. But DOJ took appropriate precautions to have tactical support available if contingencies led to them being called upon.

    https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Rosen%20Testimony.pdf

    Seems persuasive.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  34. Kevin hates it. He likes to assert it’s the same thing, if not worse, then what Trump did. He uses it as an excuse to justify / dismiss the attempted coup.

    Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly stated that I think that Trump committed treason and should be tried, convicted and hanged on the Mall.

    I think I should bet an apology for this.

    What I hate it the incredibly destabilizing and impossible idea of using a national popular vote. Unless you really like the idea of Florida 2000 going national.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  35. > since I don’t trust the vote-counting in certain large states. How would you prove that California did not add votes

    that distrust — that sense that *of course* popular vote results which aren’t in line with the party of the speaker’s preference — is the underlying cause of the delusion that the 2020 election was stolen, and it’s the reason the republic will fall. if enough people no longer believe the counting of votes, it’s impossible for democracy to work, and we’re well past the point where most people on either side will trust ideas about security coming from the other side.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  36. The Good Coup
    …….
    (Peter Navarro) told with (sic) Rolling Stone in an interview published Monday evening:

    It started flawlessly when [Arizona Rep. Paul] Gosar and [Texas Sen.] Cruz promptly at 1 p.m. called on scrutiny of the Arizona vote. Arizona was one of six battlegrounds: They were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. And it started flawlessly, but the violence overtook that event. The rest, as they, say is history . . .

    My role in the whole thing was basically to provide Congress, via my reports, the analytical material they needed to actually make the challenges. And the president himself had distributed Volume One of the report to every member of the House and Senate a week or so earlier. . . .

    There was a couple of times I walked over to the Oval—both times after I finished a report—and personally handed him one and briefed him on it. In the first case, in front of me, he asked Molly Michael, his assistant, to make sure everybody on the Hill promptly got a copy of it.

    His theory was that the objections would take many hours, and the media would be forced to cover it all, creating pressure to finally send Electoral College votes back to the states for “further review.” Because . . . reasons?

    At that point, Navarro told Rolling Stone:

    One of two things could happen. They go back there [to the states], they look at it and they say, “Nope. It’s certified.” [The votes] come back, and that would be it. Fair enough.

    But the more likely scenario based on our assessment of the evidence was that states would withdraw any certification. And the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. And even though the House is controlled by Democrats, the way votes would be counted in a presidential election decided by the House, Trump would almost certainly win.

    ……..Navarro believes that this version of events clears Trump of any responsibility for the violence on January 6. He writes in his book that he, Bannon, and Trump were “the last three people on God’s good Earth who want to see violence erupt on Capitol Hill” because “it was this violence that finally put an abrupt end to any hope the president had for taking back an election likely stolen from him.”

    In other words: He, Bannon, and Trump were in the middle of executing a legal coup, which the violent coup attempt foiled. Therefore, he, Bannon and Trump couldn’t possibly be responsible for the violent attempted coup. ……

    What Navarro is arguing is that he had a good coup in mind. The rioters were trying to do a bad coup. He’s the good guy. The rioters—and, funnily enough, Mike Pence, whom Navarro accuses of “betrayal”—are the bad guys who got in the way of this good coup………
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  37. Kevin, You have not correctly summarized the complaint about what the GOP is doing. In addition to what you said they’re attempting to put that power into the hands of people who are endorsing disproven conspiracy theories and asserting they would take action next time based on similar lies.

    Moving EC allocation to the state legislatures would be less objectionable as it would allow voters an opportunity vote for those legislatures knowing what the process would be. It would be a undemocratic way to determine the EC and given how common gerrymandering has become I think it would be deeply flawed and unjust. But it would at least be honest and transparent.

    The NVC would be more similar to what the GOP is doing if state legislatures chose to allocate EC votes /after/ the vote was held when they didn’t like the results, and used something other then actual vote totals to determine popular vote.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  38. Kevin, I doubt very much that when it comes to the crunch any state legislature will have the guts to flip the popular vote results of their state

    Well, in my state the FIRST order of business after the new Dem governor was sworn it was for the heavily Democrat legislature to join the Compact. Maybe they were just posturing.

    But you are probably right as far as legislatures doing it out of the blue. Which is why I thing that Patterico’s “underpants gnome” fear is misplaced.

    1. Trump narrowly loses election.
    2. ????
    3. President Trump!

    And even if some state legislatures sent in these bogus ballots, there would be another set from the real electors and you’d have to get nearly ALL of the GOP House members to go along with it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. > since I don’t trust the vote-counting in certain large states. How would you prove that California did not add votes

    which they’d do lest they get treated as worse than Liz Cheney for refusing to do so.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  40. if enough people no longer believe the counting of votes…

    The republic was FOUNDED on that disbelief. A bunch of scoundrels assembled in Philadelphia and made sure that people like them could not hack the system.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  41. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly stated that I think that Trump committed treason and should be tried, convicted and hanged on the Mall.

    I think I should bet an apology for this.

    What I hate it the incredibly destabilizing and impossible idea of using a national popular vote. Unless you really like the idea of Florida 2000 going national.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 9:51 am

    I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. It wasn’t intentional on my part. It does seem to that part of your point is to minimize what Trump did and the GOP is continuing to do. I’ll keep in mind that isn’t your intent in the future. I agree with you that the NVC isn’t a good idea and your point about FL 2000 is part of why.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  42. Like I’ve posted before, the PVC will only be followed if a Democrat wins the popular vote. Its whole purpose is to reinforce Democratic party discipline in those specific states.

    If a Republican won, particularly if it was a Nixon ’72 or Reagan ’84-style landslide, the PVC would be ignored.

    Factory Working Orphan (e53920)

  43. Time, still waiting for that apology.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. Sorry, missed that, Time. Leapfrogged poss.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  45. I need more information on how crazy people are being put in unassailable command of state voting, and how this differs from having Democrat partisans doing the same.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  46. >The republic was FOUNDED on that disbelief. A bunch of scoundrels assembled in Philadelphia and made sure that people like them could not hack the system.

    if California cannot be trusted to report its vote accurately, then clearly her electors should be ignored and her representatives not seated, right? because they’re not the REAL electors or the REAL representatives, they are lies concocted by the bull**** California political class, foisted on the people against their will. the people should stand up and reject this farce.

    at it’s core, that’s indistinguishable from the Trumpist rhetoric around 2020 — and the end result of that is a dictator taking control and asserting that he knows the will of the people, which cannot be discovered through the electoral process because the elections are all rigged to suppress the will of the people.

    a majority of the Republican party now endorses the Trumpist rhetoric around 2020. the end result will be a dictator taking control and asserting that he knows the will of the people which cannot be discovered through the rigged electoral process.

    it’s *too late to stop it*. we’d need a concerted effort from everyone not actively backing it, and we can’t get that, any more than we could get universal adherence to protocols designed to keep us safe from a deadly pandemic.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  47. I see my comment in #15 was (rightly) trapped by the filter, so i’m reposting it in less inflammatory form.

    Kevin M, I mean this in the politest possible way, but:

    > I see this type of “worry” to be nothing but projection and battlespace preparation.

    you’re essentially telling me, with these words, that you do not believe i am honest in what i say i believe. you’re saying that despite me having been consistently earnest and honest here for close to two decades. i’ve long considered you at the very least a friendly acquaintance on the other side of the political aisle, but if you can tell me to my face that you think i’m only projecting and preparing for a partisan battle, then my response to you is unpublishable.

    if i were not trying to rescue a marriage that’s quite likely unrescuable, i would be planning to leave the country, because i believe we’re past the point where the republic is salvageable and it breaks my heart to watch it happen around me.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  48. @42:

    The PVC only matters where the election is very close and the reported popular vote and the reported electoral vote indicate different victors.

    Note that the electoral vote in this situation is NOT an accident, despite what they would have you believe. It was an intentional thing, where the tie-breaker in a close election went to who had the widest support in the states. It was part of the compromise that created the Senate, giving small (rural) states the power to avoid being run over by big (urban) states.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  49. Aphrael,

    The electoral votes from California do not depend on how accurately the Democrats in California record the Democrat victory. If they win by 3 million or 10 million, it doesn’t change a single electoral vote. Which is why the system creates stability.

    However, in a popular vote system, it matters a great deal what the margin in California is.

    In the current system, only states where the election is very close is there a need for an accurate popular vote count. This would not change in the PVC system, but it would also be important now in every other state. So, if you have 4 states now where a recount is needed and challenges can be brought, in the PVC it would be every state in a close popular vote election.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  50. Procedural protections will not matter when enough people *believe* the would-be dictator’s lies and when the people controlling the procedures are afraid to stand up against the would-be dictator.

    That is *where we are today*, based on the behavior of the republican voters and the republican party leadership and political elite over the last fifteen months.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  51. Aphrael, I’m sorry to hear about what you’re going through.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  52. BuDuh (4a7846) — 1/4/2022 @ 9:49 am

    Curiously, Rosen’s testimony (as quoted) never mentions Trump ordering him to take any actions. Ascribing the deployments to Trump’s diligence in protecting the Constitutional duty of counting the Electoral College votes is fiction. Trump expressed his affection and support for the insurrectionists when he said “We love you. You’re very special” on January 6th, long after the attempted insurrection had begun, and who now who are being “persecuted so unfairly“.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  53. Kevin M, at 50 — you miss my point entirely. I’m not arguing about the NPC. I’m arguing that distrust in the validity of elections controlled by the other political side creates the environment for a collapse in the legitimacy of electoral results and the replacement of an electoral system by one that is legitimized by the purported bond between an autocratic leader and the people whom he uniquely understands, as *has been one of the most common ways republics have died throughout history*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  54. I see this type of “worry” to be nothing but projection and battlespace preparation.

    I was referring to the NYT article that you were working from, not you. I apologize if that was unclear when I referred to “your party.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. Continuing from my comments at #51 — meanwhile, the Democratic party leadership isn’t sufficiently cognizent of the danger, or perhaps sufficiently competent at reacting to the danger, and their behavior over the last year has made a catastrophic outcome *more* likely rather than less likely.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  56. executing a legal coup,

    A “legal” coup?

    Interesting.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  57. That will be Trump’s legacy. That we’re having these discussions. Even Rutherford B. Hayes, whose Electoral College steal did succeed in 1876, was more the beneficiary of Southern State machinations to get themselves out of Reconstruction than of his own nefariousness.

    nk (1d9030)

  58. Under a popular vote system, California would become a much more important state, rather than just a bank for the national parties. Candidates may actually have to campaign here.

    Alternatively, if California awarded its electoral votes by Congressional district, candidates would also need to campaign in the state. However, this will never happen unless the process is changed by a citizen initiative.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  59. BuDuh, at 57 — authoritarian states which are formally democracies and which have legalistic justifications to hide the real nature of power have been recorded throughout history. the roman empire was one such. more recently, most of the communist bloc behaved that way.

    are you implying, now, that such arrangements are just fine as long as the proper forms are obeyed?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  60. > if California awarded its electoral votes by Congressional district, candidates would also need to campaign in the state.

    that would be a great way to magnify the power of the people who draw district lines for partisan purposes.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  61. Time123, at 52: thank you.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  62. Kevin M — it wasn’t the “your party” which made it unclear, it was quoting my words with the note that such concerns struck you as projection and battlespace preparation; to me, that made it seem that you were responding to my words rather than to the NYT.

    i thank you for your apology.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  63. @50 That is *where we are today*

    that’s where we were four years ago, it’s just that you didn’t want to notice, and still don’t

    69% think biden’s election is legit

    four years ago, 57% thought trump’s election was legit

    from WaPo poll (h/t Rip!)

    7. Regardless of whom you supported in the 2020 election, do you think Joe Biden’s election as president was legitimate, or was he not legitimately elected?
    Legitimate Not legitimate No opinion
    12/19/21 69 29 2

    Compare to:
    Donald Trump
    10/5/17 57 42 1

    Barack Obama
    10/5/17 85 14 1

    JF (e1156d)

  64. Aphrael,

    The system we have no was created with that distrust in mind. That’s why we have recounts and such. It is not really in dispute that the 2020 election was conducted differently than previous elections, but did not have new safeguards.

    For example, in nearly every election up to that point, absentee ballots were uncommon — a few percent of the vote — and methods of validating them and their provenance were based on that small volume. When you add that to things like partisan ballot harvesting, which have been mostly illegal up to this point for good reason, it is not unreasonable for there to be concerns. Many things were now outside the control of election officials that were not before.

    Please don’t conflate uncertainty with Trump’s use of that uncertainty. That’s not my point at all.

    It is clear that some additional controls need to be put in place.

    I cannot speak to the partisan nature of what individual state “election integrity” laws are doing, but it not impossible that some of these are addressing real concerns. Some of them might aimed at partisan advantage, too. Certainly the one in Congress has some obvious partisan aims. I wish none of that were true, but as we see with reapportionment, legislatures are partisan beasts and it does not seem likely that this can be fixed any time soon.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  65. I wonder if this is the thread where steveg will get an apology for the insult of his math skills.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  66. What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

    We may want to find some ways to restore confidence in the process overall. It’s fine to think the people who’ve lost faith have been mislead. But the truth is we’ve got a very important process that has obvious flaws. It’s not enough to say that a process that seems designed to hide fraud hasn’t been found to have enough to make a difference.

    in favor of national popular vote

    I’m reminded of the old Eddie Murphy joke.

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. JF — “the people were manipulated into voting by shadowy foreign influences” is not the same statement, with nearly the same impact on legitimacy, as “the people entrusted to count the vote rigged the vote to produce their desired outcome”.

    i agree that we have been sliding in this direction for years, and that it gets worse with each additional electoral cycle.

    but the *innovation* in 2020 was a difference in kind, not merely of degree, and it’s impossible for me to view the claims that 2016 were the same as anything other than an attempt to deflect from the current danger.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  68. And, i should add to my 68, as an additional reinforcing factor for my belief that it’s too late to stop the inevitable endgame.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  69. > For example, in nearly every election up to that point, absentee ballots were uncommon — a few percent of the vote — and methods of validating them and their provenance were based on that small volume.

    This depends on the state. In California, absentee ballots have been an enormous percentage of the vote for years, and there has been long-term movement (evidenced by trial projects, etc) in the direction of making it universal. In Oregon, Washington, and Utah, universal vote by mail had been the law for a while now.

    Widespread absentee voting is a standard practice that has been in increasing use for many electoral cycles now. And yet it’s all of a sudden untrustworthy and must be reduced or eliminated — as far as I can tell, primarily because the people finding it untrustworthy disliked the outcome.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  70. That will be Trump’s legacy. That we’re having these discussions. Even Rutherford B. Hayes, whose Electoral College steal did succeed in 1876, was more the beneficiary of Southern State machinations to get themselves out of Reconstruction than of his own nefariousness.

    Was it really a steal? The Oregon Tilden vote was bogus from the get-go and the FL, LA and SC votes were based on undisputed fraud. To “win” in SC, Tilden need more extra votes than there wer voters, and got them. Throughout the South, violence from the Klan and other methods were used to discourage Republican voters.

    In the end, as you suggest, the South got what they really wanted: the ability to take the vote away from the freedmen and to institute Jim Crow.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  71. > if California awarded its electoral votes by Congressional district, candidates would also need to campaign in the state.

    that would be a great way to magnify the power of the people who draw district lines for partisan purposes.

    Alternatively, award electoral votes proportionally. Still won’t happen without a push by the citizenry.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  72. What if the election results had been overturned? What if Donald Trump were illegally installed for a second term as president of the United States?

    First of all, this is a possible danger for 2024. As Jonah Goldberg says the counting of the votes is where the potential danger is, but the Democrats are only arguing about the casting of the votes. (but they probably won;t get enough people to disregard the constitution for this to work even in 2024, and this cold only be done on behakf of Donald Trump)

    The votes weren’t there in the 2020 election – not even close – and Mitch McConnell stood firmly against it in the Senate, so there were only 8 votes there for that. And that is only to reject the votes, Without any state legislatures, which he didn’t have – all Trump could hope for was having a majority of the remaining Electoral votes or maybe a House election (voting by states, there was a Republican House majority, but you;d need almost every single Republican to go along.

    What you’d get would be a constitutional crisis. You’d see people searching the law books for a way to prevent that from taking effect.

    Confusion about who was president of the United States would create opportunities for Iran, Russia and China. That point might knock some sense into the people who had intended to go along.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  73. They should do away with the 2 person limit per state to The Senate. It is built on the same lack of fairness.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  74. In California, absentee ballots have been an enormous percentage of the vote for years…..

    I haven’t voted in a polling booth since the ’80s. I don’t like crowds and long lines.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  75. Procedural protections will not matter when enough people *believe* the would-be dictator’s lies and when the people controlling the procedures are afraid to stand up against the would-be dictator.

    That is *where we are today*, based on the behavior of the republican voters and the republican party leadership and political elite over the last fifteen months.
    aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:17 am

    But this isn’t where we are. Procedural protections did matter and people controlling the procedures did what they were obligated to do. Even the would-be dictator.

    We may be there at some point in the future. I’d say this is just as likely, if not more, if the next incoming POTUS is an R replacing JB. If the imagined worse case of DT getting re-elected in 2024 happens I’m expecting a chorus of D’s demanding it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  76. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:45 am

    the South got what they really wanted: the ability to take the vote away from the freedmen and to institute Jim Crow.

    There’s missing decade here.

    Jim Crow (which went further than merely stopping freedmen from voting) didn’t get started till about 1890 and it was then state constitutions were changed.

    They could still vote in North Carolina till after the destruction and erasure of the black community in Wilmington, North Carolina.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  77. Widespread absentee voting is a standard practice that has been in increasing use for many electoral cycles now. And yet it’s all of a sudden untrustworthy and must be reduced or eliminated — as far as I can tell, primarily because the people finding it untrustworthy disliked the outcome.

    The states were it was challenged did not have that history. And before 2020, most early voting was not by mail, at least in urban areas. Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Utah are all states with remote areas that make mail voting attractive (and it is not true that there have been no disputes there anyway, particularly in Colorado).

    PA was probably the most troublesome, due to the combined actions and inactions of the legislature, the courts and individual elections officials. There were no common provenance rules, counting count not start in advance, each county counted ballots their way, and the reporting of the absentee ballots (which I paid careful attention to) was atrocious, at least in PA.

    PA officials made a great point to report both votes counted and “ballots still remaining.” But the “ballots remaining” number kept increasing by large numbers throughout the next few days. It is not hard to imagine skullduggery there if that what you want to see, and when Trump’s lead kept holding, but the ballots remaining kept growing, the eventual flip of the results left some people in disbelief.

    And of course, Trump wanted to disbelieve.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. > Procedural protections did matter and people controlling the procedures did what they were obligated to do.

    and the people who did that are now vilified by the majority in the party, viewed as traitors, and denounced … meaning many of them will not be in power the next time around, and will have been replaced *specifically because they did what they were obligated to do*.

    > If the imagined worse case of DT getting re-elected in 2024 happens I’m expecting a chorus of D’s demanding it.

    You may be right. But if you are, it just reinforces my belief that the republic is dead. The patient’s just as dead if a democrat kills him as if a republican does.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  79. They should do away with the 2 person limit per state to The Senate. It is built on the same lack of fairness.

    A. It’s not supposed to be fair. Originally it was really unfair, since state legislatures appointed Senators (a highly corrupt process).

    B. And replace it with what?

    C. It will never happen. All the low-population states will vote against it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  80. What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

    But it’s not going to happen, because partisan Democrats aren’t actually taking the danger seriously.

    I think it’s because partisan Democrats are thinking they might want to do that themselves one day.

    I mean, they’re not too stupid to see the problem.

    All they want to do is increase turnout of Democrats by saying people could be deprived of the right to vote if they elect Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  81. Jim Crow (which went further than merely stopping freedmen from voting) didn’t get started till about 1890 and it was then state constitutions were changed.

    Jim Crow has already started by this time, perahps not officially, but the Supreme Court was already taking cases that created the legal groundwork for it. See 1876’s US v Cruikshank, which legalized lynching. Note that Louisiana was one of the state2 with disputed ballots in 1876.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. Why is is not supposed to be fair? Some sort of protection thing regarding a State’s autonomy?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  83. > And before 2020, most early voting was not by mail, at least in urban areas.

    only true if you ignore California, where the *way that large numbers of absentee votes skew reporting* was something i recall being discussed by political analysts *three decades ago*.

    > But the “ballots remaining” number kept increasing by large numbers throughout the next few days

    of course they did. almost every jurisdiction accepts ballots *postmarked by election day*. which means that the count of uncounted ballots will increase for several days after the election as ballots are delivered.

    > It is not hard to imagine skullduggery there if that what you want to see
    > And of course, Trump wanted to disbelieve.

    and so he’s brought the majority of his party to claim to believe in non-existent skullduggery that he *imagined* because he wanted to believe it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  84. > Alternatively, award electoral votes proportionally. Still won’t happen without a push by the citizenry.

    that would definitely be better than allocating by CD.

    that said, this is a super hard one for me.

    * i agree in principle that proportional representation would be preferable, in that it would mean representation for a wider range of voices. the 10% of my town who are republican shouldn’t be ignored.

    * but doing it at a federal leveljust in the big states would *increase* the disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral vote in a way that would increase the anger of the urban-suburban coalition and reinforce their belief that the entire system is rigged to favor rural interests over urban interests. the rural parts of big states would get better representation, but the urban parts of small states would not.

    * it would be pretty easy to talk me into an experiment in california where our *state legislature* were elected by proportional representation.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  85. It will never happen. All the low-population states will vote against it.

    Doesn’t matter. It is not subject to Amendment.

    Article V:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution … Provided that … no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  86. aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 8:51 am

    I’ve said before that I think the most likely outcome is that the Republicans take both houses in 2022 and then help Trump “win” in disregard of actual election results in 2024.

    For state legislatures, it’s the election of 2022 that;’s important, but for Congress it’s actually the election of 2024.

    I’ll say now that I no longer think the outcome is avoidable, and that the republic will be dead within the decade.

    It’s ery avoidable.

    First of all, Donald Trump might not run. Secondly, there could be a third party candidate. Third, even if he got a majority of the whole House of Representatives willing to go along – and people will see this coming in the election of 2024 and ask questions, and the Republicans would easily lose control of the House in the election of 2024 or there’d be a good number of Republicans pledged to an honest count.

    Fourth, f this was real, Trump would get so few Electoral votes, he couldn’t make this work

    Fifth, Trump or his allies will not be able to corrupt enough people to turn the results in more than a few states – and most of the offices they occupied would be in places where he would would be solidly Republican anyway.

    Sixth, the prospect of a constitutional crisis would cause people to drop out of the conspiracy.

    Seventh, it would not totally destroy democracy, and we have seen cities and states break free of entrenched political machines in the past. Personal connections, and divisions among the corrupt people would make that easier.

    There real danger is yet further along in time than the Election of 2024..

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  87. Kevin M @81.

    Jim Crow has already started by this time, perahps not officially, but the Supreme Court was already taking cases that created the legal groundwork for it. See 1876’s US v Cruikshank, which legalized lynching.

    Intimidation and killing of voters, but not segregation, and Jim Crow means segregation, not depriving people of the right to vote.

    Plessy v Ferguson was not decided until 1896 – and it was a case that originated in Louisiana.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  88. Aphrael,

    I have looked at the alternate methods, at least for 2000, 2004 and 2012. All of them elect W twice, if only in the House in 2000. The CD method elects Romney in the House. Also important is how you assign the 2 “extra” votes and what you do about third parties, which can get electors in a proportional system. Also, do you round — rounding gets third parties more votes.

    However, any such system avoids having to equate votes cast in other states, under possibly different rules, with those in your own state, and keeps the whole “trust” thing local. A lot of my objections to the PVC disappear with a CD or proportional system.

    You could also deal with the large-state winner-take-all and 2 Senator thing by breaking up some large states in ways that would also serve their citizens better. Both inland California and the Bay Area would like a divorce.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. > Secondly, there could be a third party candidate.

    most likely outcome for a successful third party candidate is to send the election to the House.

    > the Republicans would easily lose control of the House in the election of 2024 or there’d be a good number of Republicans pledged to an honest count.

    that’s incredibly optimistic given that belief that the 2020 election was stolen and that we must prevent it from happening *now* is a sine qua non for republican officeholders *today*.

    > Fourth, f this was real, Trump would get so few Electoral votes, he couldn’t make this work

    because the people of Texas, Alabama, Florida, et al won’t simply *disbelieve that it’s happening* and vote against the terrible socialist the Democrats put up? I think this is, again, incredibly optimistic.

    > the prospect of a constitutional crisis would cause people to drop out of the conspiracy.

    unless they believe that they can win or they will pay too high a personal price for refusing to participate.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  90. Sammy, doesn’t it go

    Slaver—>Civil War—> Reconstruction —> Jim Crow —> Civil Rights Movement —> CE?

    The segregation laws stated before Plessy and Plessy was the case that tested them?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  91. Why is is not supposed to be fair? Some sort of protection thing regarding a State’s autonomy?

    BuDuh (4a7846) — 1/4/2022 @ 11:02 am

    Fairness is a loaded term and I don’t think it has much value here. If you want stability it’s a good idea to work out some way to allow different political groups to have a voice.

    There’s a belief that one person one vote means all votes are in fact equal. But that’s not really true and it gets to the problem with direct democracy vs representative democracy and rule of law. Why should people in the city be able to completely override people who grow all of the food in rural areas for example? Just because there are more of them? I would point out that neither group really understands the issues of the other but this is drifting into a federalism issue.

    This is just the joke about the 3 wolves and the sheep voting on dinner.

    frosty (f27e97)

  92. 64. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:32 am

    I cannot speak to the partisan nature of what individual state “election integrity” laws are doing, but it not impossible that some of these are addressing real concerns.

    A New York Times Op-ed piece today says neither the Democratic (proposed federal bill) nor the Republican (state bills) are addressing real or substantial concerns, and the real concerns (which have to do with vote counting) are not being addressed, and what’s more the Democratic belief that high turnout helps them may be wrong (but I say they are not so much interested in general high turnout but in scaring low interest Democrats into going out and voting for them).

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/voting-rights-democrats.html

    If we take both parties’ most high-minded arguments at face value, they are worried about problems that barely exist. It is easier than ever to vote: Registration has gotten simpler in recent decades, and most Americans have more time to vote and more ways to do so. Voter turnout is at historic highs, and Black and white voting rates now rise and fall together. These trends long predate the pandemic, and efforts to roll back some state Covid-era accommodations seem unlikely to meaningfully affect turnout.

    Meanwhile, voter fraud is vanishingly rare. The most thorough database of cases, maintained by one of the staunchest conservative defenders of election integrity, suggests a rate of fraud so low, it could not meaningfully affect outcomes.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  93. Doesn’t matter. It is not subject to Amendment.

    Article V:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution … Provided that … no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Article V can be amended. Article I was amended by the Seventeenth Amendment allowing direct election of Senators.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  94. Why is is not supposed to be fair? Some sort of protection thing regarding a State’s autonomy?

    BuDuh (4a7846) — 1/4/2022 @ 11:02 am

    The Connecticut Compromise at the Constitutional Convention resulted in the two Senators per State with the House based on population.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  95. Both ‘save the podium’ parties have failed the electorate- as decline in affiliation w/t rise in independents has shown. Populism remains rooted and is growing.

    The entrenched Royalists are getting their cages rattled. And will again.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  96. I miss the daze of $2.00 gas and $3.00/lb for ground beef along with full shelves in stores.

    mg (a3d47e)

  97. Trump had no chance of altering the results since no one wanted to be hanging from a lamppost. Had the mob managed to injure of kill members of Congress, and Trump attempted to use that to his advantage, Pence would have been president with stunning speed, in any one of 3 ways.

    If, going forward, Trump attempted to use a few well-places stooges to flip a close election (no point in any other kind of election), either he would be stopped (again several ways) or the office would be worth nothing due to mass secession or his eventually successful cancellation.

    It is not worth spending one minute worrying about. And yet I have sated several minutes on this.

    Phooey!

    Kevin M,

    I don’t think you understand my concern about the manner in which Trump tried to pull this off. It would not be through pure mob violence but through tactics designed to get state legislatures to nullify results they didn’t like, throwing the election into the House.

    That’s what they tried to do — I have read several books about it — and it is what they will try to do again.

    Wailing about the National Popular Vote Compact misses the mark. State legislatures may prospectively choose electors any way they like. What they cannot do — but what they tried to do and will try again (and likely succeed) — is to set the manner for a statewide election and see if they like the results . . . and to declare any result they don’t like as a “failed election,” citing made-up claims of fraud, ostensibly entitling them to send a new slate to Congress.

    It was their scheme in 2020 and it will be their scheme in 2024, but in 2024 they will have fascists like David Perdue in place to carry it out.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  98. aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:27 am

    BuDuh, at 57 — authoritarian states which are formally democracies and which have legalistic justifications to hide the real nature of power have been recorded throughout history.

    This is just about all of them since World War I and Woodrow Wilson (it was earlier done in Mexico and other Latin American countries) with the exception of Gulf state monarchies.

    Even the government of China takes this form, although there are more layers, since it is really ruled by a junta, disguised as rule by a civilian political party (the Communist party) disguised in turn as a democracy. (all the top leaders have military rank and it was the last rank rulers gave up between Mao and Xi)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

    Xi Jinping (English: /ˈʃiː dʒɪnˈpɪŋ/ SHEE jin-PING; Chinese: 习近平; pinyin: Xí Jìnpíng, [ɕǐ tɕîn pʰǐŋ]; born 15 June 1953) is a Chinese politician who has been serving as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) since 2012, and President of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 2013

    The Central Military Commission is the junta that rules China.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  99. Trump had no chance of altering the results since no one wanted to be hanging from a lamppost. Had the mob managed to injure of kill members of Congress, and Trump attempted to use that to his advantage, Pence would have been president with stunning speed, in any one of 3 ways……

    Not if it was Pence who was the one hanging.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  100. If you think it’s not worth your time to consider a very realistic fascist plot to dismantle our democracy, then I respectfully suggest that your priorities are far out of whack.

    Patterico (e349ce)

  101. The Compact is not illegal but it is not an compact, and different states may come to different conclusions as to who won the popular vote or be unable to decide at all, or even maybe decide whether or not it is inn effect.

    But all the acts of cxhoosing the electors must be completed by the date set by Congress, which is the first Tuesdsy after the first Monday in November, except when an election was held and the winner cannot be determined by six days before the Electoral College votes, which must be the same day throughout the United States and is now I think the third Wednesday in December.

    If by the previous Thursday no electors have been chosen state law can determine how Electors are picked and maybe that law can be passed after the November election.

    In some states, maybe litigation might prevent electors from being picked but courts have never (until now) allowed that to happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  102. If there is a fascist plot, what happens rests upon the loyalties of the various armed forces in the United States and there are many of them.

    In 1922, the legal government in Rome just caved in to Mussolini.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  103. What if AOC or Ilhan Omar becomes president. What if the media vermin were publicly thrashed for coming up with garbage like this.

    asset (3c3e73)

  104. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/4/2022 @ 12:10 pm

    Not if it was Pence who was the one hanging.

    His protectors were loyal to him, or to the office he occupied, or to the constitution or the regular functioning of the U.S. government.

    If not Pence, then it would have been Nancy Pelosi, followed by Chuck Grassley. (the two new Senatr=ros from Georgia not being seated yet)

    Something like what Trump tried might work, but not in the way the board was set up on January 6, 2021. And it’s unlikely ever to work (as soon as 2025) because it requires a great number of people to simultaneously disregard their oaths of office.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  105. Well if Trump pulls this wild 3 level chess scheme off and works down through the Generals and Admirals until he finds a few who are willing start shooting Vindman’s we will have a problem.
    Until then, Trump has big problems that are not accounted for in his scheme.

    1. He’d have to purge the armed forces (see Vindman’s)
    2. He’d have to purge the DOJ, CIA, FBI, IRS all the way down and beyond to the USPS

    Its a great idea if Trump wants to live out his days like Biden shouting at the clouds, at Mar A Lago, surrounded by tanks aiming in not out.

    I don’t think Trump is going to run.

    steveg (e81d76)

  106. States may have the right to nullify election results or may invent reasons to do so. There was intense discussion when David Duke suddenly had a insurmountable lead in the polls over Edwin Ewards late in the Louisiana Governor’s race. Leaders from both parties were openly negotiating having or refusing to certify the results, if Duke won.

    My feelings are that not having voter ID – dismantles democracy.

    Same for non taxpaying citizens (or non child raising citizens) voting. According to my cow college poly-sci professors, they were never ever intended to vote. I mean we have a work requirement for most of social benefits – but not voting.

    Early voting, mail in voting dismantles democracy.

    Is Trump a fascist? Yes, but so are 90% of Democrats. Trump will most likely be president again. There just isn’t a likeable strong personality on either side.

    After seeing what Biden did, Trump’s going to win in a walk. Which is going to further fuel the 2020 election fracas.

    Its going to take decades for us to trust the electoral process. But the blame is 50/50 Trump for losing his composure daily and not accepting responsibilities for his actions, and the democrats for really making it look like they were stealing an election with the late night counts, kicking out observers, taking millions from Zuckerberg, and suing and successfully obstructing many statewide recounts.

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  107. It was reported yesterday that a secret security force heavily armed was deployed with orders shoot to kill the rioters down if necessary. But that would interfere with the media vermin’s made up story.

    asset (3c3e73)

  108. @106 Republicans don’t want voter id unless they can control who gets them in states they control. Democrats offered federal voter id and republicans turned it down because they couldn’t prevent enough democrats from voting. Look it up.

    asset (3c3e73)

  109. @Patterico:

    What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

    Absolutely this.

    If for nothing else, to clearly spell out that the VP/Congress’ role is merely ministerial and no federal intervention is possible UNLESS a clearly proscribed scenario where a state issued two competing electoral slates.

    whembly (a112c1)

  110. EPJW, except despite massive efforts and effectively limitless funds no one has found evidence to that any of the elections were decided by something other then a plurality of legal voters preferring Biden.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  111. One, I’m not a fan of what-ifs and hypotheticals because the person doing the hypothetical is making up a fictional scenario and then commenting on that alt-universe situation. I’d rather avoid going there as much as possible, but it’s hard to go complete cold turkey.
    Two, but I will go as far as saying that if Pence were a complete and total Trump suck-up, the post-1/6 situation could’ve been wildly different and probably worse for our country. Pence was a hero on that day.
    Three, yes the Electoral Count Act should be updated to prevent mischief from state legislatures. Every state determines its Electors by popular vote, and that should not be supplanted by whatever a state legislature comes up with after the fact.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  112. 89. aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 11:19 am

    > Secondly, there could be a third party candidate.

    most likely outcome for a successful third party candidate is to send the election to the House.

    With Trump in third place, (reinforced by pre-election polling) and his vice president out of the running for selection by the Senate.

    In the two previous contingent elections, there was really only a choice between 2 candidates for presdent even though there coud have been 5 in 1801 and 3 in 1825. Jefferson and Burr both had a majority and were tied, and in 1824/5 Crawford was disabled and Clay was out of the running and John C. Calhoun the overwhelming winner for vice president.

    The third party candidate, if moderate, would be in a strong position to win, both the one for vice president and the one for president.

    An even trickier scenario is if there are different third party candidates for president or vice president in different states. That’s sort of what happened with the vice presidency in 1836 (with the Whigs although the Dem nominee failed to get a majority and had to be chosen by the Senate)

    This doesn’t get into attempts to persuade electors to cast different votes than pledged. It’s harder now than in 2016)

    > the Republicans would easily lose control of the House in the election of 2024 or there’d be a good number of Republicans pledged to an honest count.

    that’s incredibly optimistic given that belief that the 2020 election was stolen and that we must prevent it from happening *now* is a sine qua non for republican officeholders *today*.

    The prospect of losing the election would cause some Republicans to make that pledge besides those – even just 20 or 30 – who would d so anyway. This issue would come up after the Republican primary.

    > Fourth, if this was real, Trump would get so few Electoral votes, he couldn’t make this work

    because the people of Texas, Alabama, Florida, et al won’t simply *disbelieve that it’s happening* and vote against the terrible socialist the Democrats put up? I think this is, again, incredibly optimistic.

    Trump’s feet would be put to the fire. He’d have to deny attempting this, but that would give Republican running for Congress also room to forswear participation in any such plot. Of course they’d take the caveat that therewould be an honest count, but this goes as to what people believe is happening. Trump would not carry Florida.

    > the prospect of a constitutional crisis would cause people to drop out of the conspiracy.

    unless they believe that they can win or they will pay too high a personal price for refusing to participate.

    If they lose there’s no big price. The thing is, it would be much more open.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  113. Additionally, I think the Popular Vote Compact is an even worse system than the current Electoral College.

    However, I think I would be on board for something like what Nebraska does, which awards EV by Congressional District and 2 EV (representing the Senators) are awarded by simple majority in that contest. I think that’s a more justified change and easier to reconcile with the voters, which does a lot by mitigating the densely populated areas a bit.

    whembly (a112c1)

  114. BTW, I think it’s more important to tighten up the Electoral Count Act than whatever voting rights bill that is percolating in the Senate.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  115. @111 Paul, I echo every word in that post.

    whembly (a112c1)

  116. @114

    BTW, I think it’s more important to tighten up the Electoral Count Act than whatever voting rights bill that is percolating in the Senate.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/4/2022 @ 12:59 pm

    I think they have to try, but I’m not sure how we can legal write a federal law that satisfies the 10th Amendment.

    I’d be okay with some legal prohibition of the legislature of changing voting laws “x” months before election day.

    whembly (a112c1)

  117. What if AOC or Ilhan Omar becomes president.

    Fortunately, Omar can never be president, given her place of birth. AOC is too socialist and too unlikable, but you never know.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  118. Thanks, whembly.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  119. @106 Republicans don’t want voter id unless they can control who gets them in states they control. Democrats offered federal voter id and republicans turned it down because they couldn’t prevent enough democrats from voting. Look it up.

    asset (3c3e73) — 1/4/2022 @ 12:49 pm

    How exactly does this work? Do R’s just not hand out ID in red states? Is there some scheme in place where when you go for an ID they ask who you’re voting for and then show you the exit if you answer wrong? Are there millions of D’s in red states driving around without a license?

    frosty (f27e97)

  120. I don’t know if it was solely due to back to work/school (conceptual or actual), but gas came down from 3.60 on NYE to 2.95 last night in mid Lake County IL…if could have only swatted away the multi-game lottery players from the cashier line, well that’s another story.

    urbanleftbehind (d6b19c)

  121. Now they call it “Riot Envy” (pardon the original source)-
    https://news.yahoo.com/gop-congressman-rep-peter-meijer-133000366.html

    urbanleftbehind (d6b19c)

  122. Time123

    Yes thousands of votes were found in AZ – 47,000 fraudulent votes. they are in the hands of the AZ atty Gen and may change the outcome of several elections – IF THERE IS TIME. In other states Democrats successfully sued to stop signature verification of mail in ballots. If you won by millions of votes why would you spend millions to make sure the ballots were not verified as they were required to by law? Democrats actions are not one of an organization that is confident in its victory.

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  123. I wonder how strong the “Any functioning adult that isn’t named Trump” movement will be in late 2023 and early 2024, and whether Biden will be so bad, but unwilling to step down, that the sentiment flips to anyone not named Joe or Kamala.

    Many scenarios can be built where Trump runs and wins. but it’s unlikely, because there are more people that dislike him intensely than there are Trump superfans.
    The polled GOP support for Trump is probably a reflection of deep dissatisfaction with Biden-Klain and a pining for better days.

    I’m going to wait until 2023 before I let myself worry

    steveg (e81d76)

  124. “Yes thousands of votes were found in AZ – 47,000 fraudulent votes. ”

    No there weren’t.

    “they are in the hands of the AZ atty Gen”

    No they aren’t.

    Davethulhu (17e89a)

  125. Yes thousands of votes were found in AZ – 47,000 fraudulent votes. they are in the hands of the AZ atty Gen and may change the outcome of several elections – IF THERE IS TIME.

    EPWJ (0fbe92) — 1/4/2022 @ 1:35 pm

    This is a lie. You are either ignorantly spreading it, or maliciously spreading it. Which is it?

    Demosthenes (fdc41a)

  126. It was reported yesterday that a secret security force heavily armed was deployed with orders shoot to kill the rioters down if necessary. But that would interfere with the media vermin’s made up story.

    asset (3c3e73) — 1/4/2022 @ 12:45 pm

    See post #3 and the follow on discussion. It wasn’t Trump’s doing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  127. EPJW, thank you for taking the time to respond. I think you’ve been mislead on the facts in AZ election.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  128. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2022/01/04/cbs-warns-gop-midterm-wins-one-top-global-risks-2022

    On Tuesday, CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil and Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer sounded the alarm over the possibility of Republicans winning big in the 2022 midterm elections, something they hysterically labeled one of “the top global risks” in the year ahead. The pair claimed any GOP victory in the midterms or the 2024 presidential contest would be seen as “illegitimate.”

    “A new report is detailing what it says are the biggest risks facing the globe in 2022 and the findings may surprise you,” Dokoupil declared. Turning to Bremmer, he touted: “Number three, midterm elections here in the U.S., a top risk for 2022. How come?”

    In reply, Bremmer wailed:

    Well, maybe the least of the surprises. This is the most important midterm election in American history. We have January 6 coming up in just a day and as you know, since the profoundly challenged elections of 2020, no lessons have been learned at all in the United States. The country is much more divided and a large number of Americans, 64% in an NPR poll yesterday, say they thought the United States’ democracy was in crisis.

    He went on to specifically identify the Republican Party as the source of the supposed global threat: “…the United States has an election process that is increasingly broken, increasingly delegitimized. And the midterm elections, especially if you have significant win for a Trump-led Republican Party, means that 2024 is going to be seen as illegitimate and potentially a constitutional crisis.”

    Aphrael,

    Perhaps you might want to look at those who are the mouthpieces for the left who constantly agitate that anyone impeding their desires is illegitimate.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  129. 47000 votes were found to be fraudulent. they are in the hands of the Atty Gen of AZ. Being realistic, do we have a trial over each vote and how many years will that take? I have some experience and in Utah and Colorado thousands of votes are thrown out because people cannot follow the mail in voting instructions, so this isnt some fantasy, the error rates are really high as much as 15% in mail in ballots. Coupling that with sooo many first time voters – the bounds of credulity are being stretched. As far as Trump winning, he works hard, he does learn from some mistakes, has a strong uber strong organization. Biden has done serious damage to the democrats and will continue to do so. IF you hate Trump, you should hate Biden more because he’s getting him reelected.

    If they dismiss the possibility that Trump’s going to win 2024 or had actually won the last race they wouldnt be doing a full court press to try to stop him now. Seriously, they are just feeding the guy and feeding the guy. I should look it up but they say Trump got more votes than ANY sitting President in History, won more local and state races yet still lost?

    Mark Elias didn’t go around suing every state to allow mail in voting at the last minute – it was a planned strategy.

    EPWJ (0fbe92)

  130. NJRob (eb56c3) — 1/4/2022 @ 2:32 pm

    Nah, the left learned how to love that in 2016. There’s no way they’re passing up that easy play again. Expect to see breathless reports on Putin 2: Messing With The Midterms.

    Did you notice how easy it goes back and forth between 2020 being 100% good and legit to 2022 being “increasingly broken, increasingly delegitimized”? And that’s happening in the run-up. What’s the summer going to look like? I expect we’ll get reports cleared by all of the IC on some pretty sketchy business in FL.

    frosty (f27e97)

  131. My neighbor an attorney said she couldn’t believe Filet Mignon was $55 dollars a pound.
    She said it was $70 in L.A.
    Good Times…….

    mg (8cbc69)

  132. 47000 votes were found to be fraudulent. they are in the hands of the Atty Gen of AZ.

    EPWJ (0fbe92) — 1/4/2022 @ 2:48 pm

    Again, this is a lie.

    Demosthenes (fdbac3)

  133. 47000 votes were found to be fraudulent. they are in the hands of the Atty Gen of AZ.

    False. At most, there were 57,000± ballots that were potentially questionable but not proven to be fraudulent. Maricopa County already addressed the issue, and the assertions are basically a load of crap, primarily alleged so that CyberNinjas could save face from their embarrassing and laughable “investigation”.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  134. What January 6 revealed is simply a long-simmering discontent beginning to boil over [a la a certain Tea Party, circa 1773;] after million of dollars spent, the porous and weak security at the Capitol complex when confronted by raging ‘soccer hooligans’ — and how, when angry citizens banged on the drawbridge, rather than stand defiantly and defend the institution tghey ‘represet’- most of the Royalist critters simply hid or ran away. Ol’after-the-fact-Wilard was caught on video dashed down hallways and ol’$15-a-pint-Nancy could have earned a helluva lot more street cred if she’d confronted the dude rifling her mail in onhe of her multiple offices her office and barked a scolding word ot two at him to stop, put it down and to get his scrawny azz out of her chair– then go after him with her wicked witch broom.

    These multi-millionaire party politicos are so utterly out of touch w/everyday life in America- and draw the wrong message from this entire event. Anything would have set them off. For instance, a failure is not an ‘anniversary’ to celebrate w/self-righteous media events and try to score political points. All it’ll do is fuel populism all the more.

    PBS’s ‘Frontline’ is airing a doc on the simmering cauldron of events tonight. You can guess how they ‘treat it.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  135. Ana Navarro railed against former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party as it pertains to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which critics like herself blamed on Trump’s lie that he won the 2020 election, and the aftermath – all while The View guest co-host said that Trump was illegitimately elected in 2016.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-ana-navarro-says-donald-trump-was-illegitimately-elected-in-2016-during-wild-rant-on-the-view/

    The 81 Million are a fickle group.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  136. NJRob, as I said before:

    > The patient’s just as dead if a democrat kills him as if a republican does.

    That said, democratic politicians and the party leadership aren’t running around claiming the 2020 election results were fraudulent. Your attempt to draw an equivalency shows that you miss the point.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  137. How did that punk McConnell do in his career on getting a fricking budget? Oh no….. insurrection. You people are wokeavists.

    mg (8cbc69)

  138. The bloodbath will be you lost republicans. 2022 is already fixed.

    mg (8cbc69)

  139. “And for the the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    On January 6, they ran away, coddled and secure w/their Fortunes– and betrayed their sacred honor. Guess what- those colors do run after all. Yes- now that’s an anniversary to celebrate.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  140. the National Popular Vote Compact misses the mark. State legislatures may prospectively choose electors any way they like.

    Actually, I don’t think they can and I think this ALSO prevents any other legislative nonsense. Numerous times courts have ruled that rights, once granted cannot be taken away, even if the grant was for only a short time before a reversal was attempted.

    A right that has been granted in all but one state for 150 year (and over 100 years for the holdout) should not be rescinded. I am sure that, should the PVC (or any other revocation of the people’s tight to choose electors) be put into effect, a case would be brought claiming this among other things. It should at least require a plebiscite and probably a state amendment.

    I do not view the placement of Trump-leaning Republicans in the position of overseeing elections to be either a threat or even worrisome. In the unlikely event this leads to competing slates of electors (and there would be if they sent up a bogus one) the Congress then has to choose. I very much doubt that there would be a party line vote on such a steal. It would be the last election they won, anywhere, and they know it. Even in 2020, only one third of the House and only a handful; of Senators signed on to this crap.

    You are borrowing trouble. Maybe I am, too, but I think that my discomfort is based upon actual actions rather than fears.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  141. If you think it’s not worth your time to consider a very realistic fascist plot to dismantle our democracy, then I respectfully suggest that your priorities are far out of whack.

    Well, I feel the same way about the sanguine attitude towards the PVC, which would lead to an utter clustercrisis the first time there’s a close popular vote. 50 sates recounting, under 50 rules, with lawyers gaming every one of them? It’s pretty much random chance who wins there.

    And of course, that’s assuming that none of the states renege, or “find” that they didn’t join correctly, or any of the litigation I expect occurring after the vote.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  142. Sorry, if I missed anything in the last few hours, I will try to catch up. I was being held hostage in a dentist’s chair.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  143. Thank you, Patterico, for staying with this issue.

    Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is taking practical steps to prevent what you fear:

    When Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler — a Trump impeachment backer whom the former president is aggressively targeting for defeat in 2022 — threw a fundraiser last month, she was accompanied by a fellow Republican who’d trekked from the other side of the country: Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

    The foray was part of a broader effort Hogan is launching to bolster the ever-growing list of Republicans former President Donald Trump is trying to oust in this year’s midterm elections. Hogan has hosted fundraisers for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, and he is looking at helping others, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another impeachment supporter facing a Trump-endorsed Republican challenger. He has loudly advocated for the Republican Governors Association to defend Kemp and other sitting incumbents under fire, a position the organization has embraced.

    He, and others like him, deserve our support.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  144. Larry Hogan’s manufactured crisis:

    Area health systems now find themselves up against more Covid cases with less manpower, as the latest virus spike drives more patients through their doors and a staffing shortage continues to shave their workforces.

    Though parts of the D.C. area count higher vaccination rates than other parts of the country, the latest uptick in hospitalizations and increased demand for testing adds pressure to their stretched teams. And the risk of driving away employees who don’t want to comply with their rules could come at a high cost.

    But health systems across the District, Maryland and Virginia largely say they’re holding firm on vaccine mandates, some even adding booster requirements. They say the small risk of employees quitting outweighs the much larger danger the coronavirus poses to their teams and patients, even as they see burnout and departures among staff.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2022/01/03/health-systems-step-up-vaccine-mandates-omicron.html

    Larry Hogan’s panicked response to the crisis of his own doing:

    A state of emergency and catastrophic health emergency were proclaimed on January 4, 2022 to control and prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the state, and the state of emergency and catastrophic health emergency continue to exist;

    Health care practitioners and facilities are needed to respond to the state of emergency and the medical consequences of the catastrophic health emergency, including for treatment, isolation, and quarantine, therefore requiring their control, regulation, use, and rationing, and other appropriate actions;

    Health care providers are needed to participate in disease surveillance, treatment, and suppression efforts even if they are not licensed, certified, or credentialed to do so;

    https://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Healthcare-Matters.pdf

    Leadership…

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  145. > And the risk of driving away employees who don’t want to comply with their rules could come at a high cost.

    so could the risk of employing employees who will then pose a higher risk to their patients.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  146. > Numerous times courts have ruled that rights, once granted cannot be taken away, even if the grant was for only a short time before a reversal was attempted.

    so Roe can’t be overturned, then, right? nor could the right to contract (that was used to ban minimum wage and maximum hours legislation) have been taken away.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  147. > I very much doubt that there would be a party line vote on such a steal. It would be the last election they won, anywhere, and they know it. Even in 2020, only one third of the House and only a handful; of Senators signed on to this crap.

    Would they? From what I can tell of polling about what Republicans think about 2020, a majority of Republicans would vote for them if they did it and would vote against them if they didn’t.

    Maybe in marginal districts they’d still lose. But in Trump +17 districts, they’d be re-elected.

    And they know it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  148. Are you talking about the risk of emergency medical hires that aren’t “licensed, certified, or credentialed ?”

    Indeed that does sound risky for patients.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  149. No, I mean the risk of employing unvaccinated employees who are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting a disease that has killed 2.5 out of every thousand Americans, and who will be working with *sick people* who are more likely to be vulnerable to catching it and to being rendered seriously ill (or killed) by it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  150. Trump cancels Jan. 6 event amid GOP complaints
    ……..
    Former President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday evening that he would cancel a previously planned press conference is good news for Senate Republicans, who earlier in the day openly fretted that he would pull their party back into debating his false election claims.
    ……..
    In addition to talking about the 2020 election, Trump was also expected to decry the House select committee’s investigation into Jan. 6. In his statement announcing he was canceling the rally, Trump blamed the committee for his decision and said he would discuss “many of those important topics” at a rally in Arizona on Jan. 15.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  151. I think they have that covered. It looks like they will be testing vaccinated employees for Covid at certain facilities.

    BTW, is the 2.5 number correct? I thought steve thoughtfully explained your error on the last thread. Maybe I misread it.

    Apologies if I have missed it.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  152. Another question, weren’t all these people unvaccinated when less people died with Covid during the Trump administration?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  153. so Roe can’t be overturned, then, right? nor could the right to contract (that was used to ban minimum wage and maximum hours legislation) have been taken away.

    They were/might be taken away by the same court that found them. But you might have an issue with Roe. It’s called “stare decisis” and I’m pretty sure they brought it up.

    Suppose though that it had been in place so long that there was no living memory of it ever being different, and possibly no one alive who remembers someone recalling when it had been different.

    Nor did anyone serious try to return the power back to the legislature at any point during that time. That’s a heck of an “adverse possession” argument.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  154. Trump is getting pushback from the GOP, as well as from his own minions. He might have trouble now shooting someone of 5th Avenue.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  155. i thank you for your apology.

    Sometimes I post dumb things. Sorry for any hurt it caused.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  156. of course they did. almost every jurisdiction accepts ballots *postmarked by election day*. which means that the count of uncounted ballots will increase for several days after the election as ballots are delivere

    It wasn’t a few. It was like “more than they had gotten up to then.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  157. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 4:49 pm

    The MAGA Monolith isn’t what NRO promised.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  158. Article V can be amended. Article I was amended by the Seventeenth Amendment allowing direct election of Senators.

    But it cannot be amended to remove a prohibition on amendments. The 17th did not change the number of Senators.

    This is not to say that the Electoral College could not be amended, since its connection to the Senate is indirect.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  159. The Compact is not illegal but it is not a compact…

    This is an operative tautology. If it is a Compact, it is illegal unless the Congress ratifies it. Not sure if it needs to be presented to the President.

    Calling it something else does not change what it is.

    In any event the first tine the PVC changes the result will be last time it is used.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  160. …is what NRO promised.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  161. What is needed is a serious reform of the Electoral Count Act.

    Indeed, and my concerns about changes to the Electoral system argue for this as well. I’m just not sure how one would change it. What is the rule for competing slates?

    Is the state-certified slate to always be accepted?

    Is the vote of the state’s citizenry to always be respected?

    Are the state’s courts to have the final say?

    All of these can be problematical if someone wants to make them that way. The only good news is that, unlike 1876, everyone has visibility into the process, however distorted by the lens they peer through.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  162. But it cannot be amended to remove a prohibition on amendments.

    Why not?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  163. ……..Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    You can interpret this part of Article V as saying that prior to 1808 ” no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” but that is not a general prohibition.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  164. Reading the NRO piece, I see one gaping hole.

    From the article: “the ECA says, codified at 3 U.S.C. § 2:

    Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

    It then goes on to describe further limitations on this to avoid sham “failures” of the type Patterico worries about. But it in no place describes what happens if a State has held an election NOT for the purpose of choosing electors, but for some other reason such as the state’s contribution to a national popular vote system that will instead choose electors.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  165. More from stalwart Hogan:

    Hogan said he was scheduled to participate in a call with the White House on Tuesday. He said he would urge President Joe Biden’s administration to increase the distribution of monoclonal antibodies, rapid COVID-19 tests and antiviral pills.

    Hogan said people need to get back to taking stronger precautions as the omicron variant of COVID-19 surges by “avoiding crowds, keeping your distance, washing your hands and yes, wearing the damn masks.”

    The governor also said that he is “doing fine” after testing positive for COVID-19 last month. Hogan said he had a 10-day “staycation” in isolation in the basement of the governor’s residence, where he worked and kept in touch with staff.

    “For me, it was like a pretty bad cold, and that’s because I was fully vaccinated and boosted,” Hogan said, as he continued urging the unvaccinated to get shot and for eligible people to get boosters.

    The governor also said he received monoclonal antibody treatment early on.

    https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/maryland-gov-declares-state-of-emergency-due-to-virus-surge/2926712/

    It was like a bad cold because he was vaccinated and boosted!

    Oh.. and like with all bad colds he went in for a session of monoclonal antibodies…

    What a fraud.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  166. You can interpret this part of Article V as saying that prior to 1808 ” no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” but that is not a general prohibition.

    Fails the laugh test. The semicolon separates the clause and meaning adequately.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  167. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 5:26 pm

    I concede your point.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  168. mouthpieces for the left who constantly agitate that anyone impeding their desires is illegitimate.

    I was not too thrilled when the NM Assembly Speaker said, in response to a criticism of the gerrymander they were proposing:

    Entering the special session, Republican lawmakers were wary about the possibility of Democratic gerrymandering of the maps after Egolf told panelists on a Retake Democracy Zoom call in February that redistricting could weaken Democrats’ advantage in the Legislature, “and the [Democratic] agenda goes out the window.”

    Egolf said then he did not understand why “Democrats want to unilaterally disarm and give advantage to the people who are trying to make the world a dirtier place, take rights away from people, make it harder to vote — all the things that we oppose. I don’t want to make it easier for them to do it.”

    In other words, we have to keep the elections rigged so that us good people are elected, not those evil Republicans. Pretty much the rationale for all vote-rigging.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  169. I concede your point.

    It was a nice try. Made me look.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  170. > BTW, is the 2.5 number correct?

    yes. he was explaining that he wanted to use a “per year” number. i’m using a “total fatalities over time” number.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  171. > But it cannot be amended to remove a prohibition on amendments.

    why not? it doesn’t say that.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  172. Governor Hogan’s electoral success is impressive, considering how Democratic Maryland is. He won a popular vote majority (51 percent) in 2014 and enlarged it to 55 percent in 2018. An honest and pragmatic moderate, he has the views our nation needs, after our three narcissist presidents.

    His wife, Yumi Hogan is impressive in her own right, and would appeal to most social conservatives, especially women.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  173. > You can interpret this part of Article V as saying that prior to 1808 ” no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” but that is not a general prohibition.

    that’s a pretty strained argument, isn’t consistent with the natural reading of the language in any way.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  174. 166

    The semicolon separates the clause and meaning adequately.

    You don;t need the semicolon.

    It’s the words: “and that” = A totally different restriction of amendments.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  175. 164. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 5:24 pm

    . But it in no place describes what happens if a State has held an election NOT for the purpose of choosing electors, but for some other reason such as the state’s contribution to a national popular vote system that will instead choose electors.

    In that case, they can’t do anything at all after Election Day and the state has no safe harbor (if this is interpreted as not being an election for the purpose of choosing electors.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  176. 159. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 1/4/2022 @ 5:03 pm

    Calling it something else does not change what it is.

    Calling it a compact doesn’t make it a compact.

    Any more than the deal with Iran is a treaty.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  177. Trump is getting pushback from the GOP, as well as from his own minions. He might have trouble now shooting someone of 5th Avenue.

    what i think is that mr. ex-president trump has found that maga can pay his legal bills and feed his ego, but it cannot buy new shoes for melania figuratively speaking

    in other words, the trump business brand is suffering and he needs to show a calmer, saner side to customers, partners, and would-be investors

    that’s my guess

    nk (1d9030)

  178. yes. he was explaining that he wanted to use a “per year” number. i’m using a “total fatalities over time” number.

    I see.

    So if I take Wikipedia “300,000,000 people died of smallpox in the 20th century” and used the Wikipedia world population in 2000 of 6,114,000,000 my roughly 5 out of 100 count would be the best representation of the Small Pox mortality rate?

    I have read that it has a mortality rate of 30%. How do I reconcile the difference?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  179. Joe Biden Has No Idea What Year It Is

    https://trendingpolitics.com/watch-joe-biden-has-no-idea-what-year-it-is-knab/

    “There is a lot of reason to be hopeful in 2020,” Biden said.

    Jesus. Yes, Joe- hamburger is over $5/lb., & London Broil is $10 lb., … in 2022.

    Memo to Vladimir: Roll those tanks, kid.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  180. During 2020, COVID-19 was listed as the underlying or contributing cause of 377,883 deaths (91.5 per 100,000 population). COVID-19 death rates were lowest among children aged 1–4 years (0.2) and 5–14 years (0.2) and highest among those aged ≥85 years (1,797.8). Similar to the rate of overall deaths, the age-adjusted COVID-19–associated death rate among males (115.0) was higher than that among females (72.5).

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

    I know it is only one year(2020). But the cdc suggest that it is less than 1 per 1000.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  181. French and Patterico are on the same wavelength when it comes to the Electoral Count Act, coming out with posts on the same day on this subject. I’m going to excerpt French’s offering liberally because it’s important, IMO…

    Here’s another example of potential stupidity: If—after everything we’re learning about January 6 and Trump’s effort to steal the election—we don’t reform the Electoral Count Act, we’re idiots. There’s just no other way to say it.

    If that sounds a bit wonky and weird, the reasoning is easy enough to explain. Congress passed the Electoral Count Act in 1887 as a decade-overdue response to the disputed election of 1876. It’s supposed to provide a mechanism for responding to and resolving disputes in counting and certifying the vote of the Electoral College, and while the overall intent is relatively clear, the language itself is a ridiculous mess.

    No, really. It is. During Trump’s election contests, Sarah and I spent multiple podcasts referring to the ECA, walking through its sentences, and all too often laughing out loud at its language. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the key text, quoted in full. And yes, it is just one gigantic paragraph:

    Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

    I apologize for inflicting that on you, but it has to be seen—to be read, if you dare—to be believed. For those keeping score at home, that is a single 809-word paragraph that succeeds mainly in creating multiple points of confusion and empowering frivolous and bad-faith congressional challenges to electoral outcomes.

    Moreover, we have learned since January 6 that the act’s flaws and ambiguities were the legal cornerstone of Trump’s effort to overturn the election. In an extended interview with Rolling Stone magazine, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro detailed how he and Steve Bannon developed a plan they called the “Green Bay sweep” that was designed to specifically exploit the Electoral Count Act’s objection provisions to engineer (at the very least) a marathon, 24-hour debate about the election outcome that could empower Vice President Pence to delay certification.

    If the law is so badly written that a couple or three hyperpartisan hacks can exploit it for their political advantage, then what better reason to fix it as soon as possible, and the prescriptions are common sense.

    At a minimum, what do we need to do? First, make it crystal clear that the vice president has zero discretion to reject the electoral votes of any state. His or her role should be procedural only, running the joint session of Congress that counts the Electoral College votes.

    Second, a reformed Electoral Count Act should dramatically raise the threshold for objecting to the electoral votes of any state. Presently it takes just one member of the House and one member of the Senate to initiate a debate about any state. I’d like to see it take a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate to initiate debate and a supermajority of both houses to decertify any electoral votes.

    Moreover, a reformed Electoral Count Act would narrowly specify the grounds for any congressional decertification. For example, if electors cast votes for a person constitutionally ineligible for the office, or if electors cast votes even if the vote has been set aside for fraud by a court of final jurisdiction. And any reform should provide precise guidance for state certifications, so that there is minimal opportunity for Congress to face so-called “competing” slates of electors.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  182. why not? it doesn’t say that.

    It specifically says “You can not amend -> this.”

    Do you think they meant that you could do it in two steps, first removing the word “not”?

    They did this because the Great Compromise was critical to acceptance, and there was concern expressed that some day the large states would want to change it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  183. @136

    That said, democratic politicians and the party leadership aren’t running around claiming the 2020 election results were fraudulent. Your attempt to draw an equivalency shows that you miss the point.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 3:09 pm

    wut?

    Were you in a coma from 2017 to 2020?

    Russian Hoax?

    Not that excuses the GOP’s cries of frauds in 2020, but let’s not be too cavalier that Democrats don’t claim electoral fraud when they lose elections.

    whembly (7e0293)

  184. in other words, the trump business brand is suffering and he needs to show a calmer, saner side to customers, partners, and would-be investors

    And maybe state attorneys general.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  185. If Trump had succeeded on Jan 6 and Pence had done his bidding and thrown out one or more EV ballots, what would have been the response? Would Congress then have gone on with the rest of the program, either replacing those votes with other votes, or moving to a Congressional election?

    I doubt it. Both houses were in the control of Democrats, but even if they were not there were enough Republcians who would have not gon along that it would not work.

    More likely would be a quick impeachment with prejudice and a quick conviction, first of Pence, then of Trump, and Pelosi would have been President for a few days.

    Because the alternative at that point is civil war or possibly a secession crisis that does not lead to that. And the same thing goes for 2024. Patterico and I can rest easy because if that happened neither of us would be in a state that was still part of the Union.

    Which of course means that it would stop well short of that point. There is no reason to believe that this scenario runs down to the end of the rails. Which is why I am not worried.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  186. >Russian Hoax?

    The Russia claims were never *the election itself was fraudulent*. They were *the voters were unknowingly manipulated by shadowy foreign forces*.

    These are massively different claims with substantially different effects on systemic legitimacy.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  187. > even if they were not there were enough Republcians who would have not gon along that it would not work.

    and the movement since then has been to demonize — and run primary campaigns agianst — those who would not have gone along and to circle the wagons and say that everyone should have gone along and it’s a shame they didn’t and thereby let Biden steal the election.

    it seems to me you are judging people *as you hope they would be*, ignoring the evidence they are showing you *about who they actually are*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  188. I apologize for inflicting that on you, but it has to be seen—to be read, if you dare—to be believed. For those keeping score at home, that is a single 809-word paragraph that succeeds mainly in creating multiple points of confusion and empowering frivolous and bad-faith congressional challenges to electoral outcomes.

    Is French only referring to recent events here, or least those within the last 20-odd years? Because by his argument, the ECA should have thrown presidential elections in to chaos long before then. This appears more to be an exercise in question-begging over fears of what might be, rather than actual historical fact.

    And let’s get real here–these arguments that Trump loyalists are positioning themselves to blatantly steal elections are being made by the same Democrat-aligned media Squealers who sound the alarm every time conservatives shake off the doldrums of their “all government is bad” apathy and become politically active, consistently making allusions to the dark curtain of fascism falling, with all the subtlety of a brick. Because in their mind, anything which doesn’t go down the road of socialism/Marxism is going down the road to fascism. It’s paranoid, binary, childish, stunted thinking, but that’s been de riguer of the left for at least the last 50 years.

    These aren’t news reports being made in good faith. They’re propaganda pieces to get the Democratic base motivated to turn out for Democrats in a mid-term where all the indications are that they are going to get absolutely waxed due to the long-coming backlash against their multi-year woke limpout that’s been gaining momentum since Occupy. Their side controls the mass media (both news and entertainment), the Tech Trust, the educational complex from Pre-K through the universities, corporate boardrooms, professional sports leagues, the military leadership, the intel agencies, and government bureaucracies from top to bottom, all parroting the neo-Marxist shibboleths cooked up by radical left academics from the last 25-odd years.

    But because there’s still a sizable population in this country that doesn’t want them to steamroll their political ideology down everyone’s throat, and because their oppression-obsessed mindset DEMANDS that they be the underdogs even when they control every single one of the nation’s institutions of power and culture, they continue with their dissembling that the country is on the brink and some right-wing dictatorship is going to take over to start unwinding their power gains.

    Truth be told? The vast majority of conservatives just want to be left the hell alone, and if it did come down to the country breaking apart, prefer an amicable national divorce or a change to a regionalist framework where the federal government’s role is closer to what it was during the first half of the 19th century. To the extent that they’re accepting of engaging in a violent conflict, is largely due to the left’s dogged insistence that they’ll be made to obey left-liberal dictats or else. Ironically, leftists like Fred de Boer and Matt Taibbi recognize this and keep telling their side to back off and let things cool down, but they’re consistently ignored.

    If the Road War does kick off, it won’t be due to a grassroots effort by Republicans to subvert state elections. It will be more similar to what happened prior to the Spanish Civil War when the radical left couldn’t keep their will to power in check and finally sparked a backlash.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  189. This appears more to be an exercise in question-begging over fears of what might be, rather than actual historical fact.

    The historical fact is that no other president but Trump has concocted a scheme to attempt throw out popular votes in certain states in order to reverse the result.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  190. The historical fact is that no other president but Trump has concocted a scheme to attempt throw out popular votes in certain states in order to reverse the result.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/4/2022 @ 8:25 pm

    Which is irrelevant to the actual text of the ECA or what happened in the several decades after its passage.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  191. “This law is dumb because it’s long and our ADD-afflicted society can’t read it without their eyes glazing over” is hardly a substantive critique of a law which has been thoroughly uncontroversial until the usual suspects decided it was somehow the root of all our current problems.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  192. The Russia claims were never *the election itself was fraudulent*.

    Originally they were but when everyone laughed at that they memory holed that and switched gears.

    They were *the voters were unknowingly manipulated by shadowy foreign forces*.

    That didn’t happen either.

    These are massively different claims with substantially different effects on systemic legitimacy.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 1/4/2022 @ 7:59 pm

    They’re unfounded and largely part of myth and legend. I’m not sure they’re substantially different.

    frosty (f27e97)

  193. They’re unfounded and largely part of myth and legend. I’m not sure they’re substantially different.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/4/2022 @ 8:30 pm

    They’re mainly post hoc justifications for why Hillary made the same mistake in the general election in 2020 that she did in the primary election in 2008–forget that they are state-driven, not popular vote enterprises, and shore up support in your electoral strongholds while your opponent chips away at you at critical points of weakness with a multi-state strategy.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  194. Which is irrelevant to the actual text of the ECA or what happened in the several decades after its passage.

    It’s relevant when hyperpartisan sycophants try to exploit the language to reverse certified popular votes.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  195. It’s relevant when hyperpartisan sycophants try to exploit the language to reverse certified popular votes.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/4/2022 @ 8:44 pm

    Which has all the cachet of breathless Dem-aligned media complaints about Republican dark money organizations and conservatives running for election and school boards. It’s all rooted in what might happen rather than what actually has happened. And crafting a law based on a problem that doesn’t actually exist, rooted in a complaint that its late 19th-century rhetorical flourishes are too complex to be understood by modern politicians, is nothing more than mental masturbation.

    It’s not exactly a surprise that the call to reform the ECA is coming primarily from the neocon slimebags at The Bulwark, whose chief endorsed fellow swamp creature Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia election. These people are hardly paragons for any political principle that doesn’t result in their pockets getting lined and their DC party invitations popping up in their email box.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  196. French is with The Dispatch (and Patterico has contributed there, too), not The Bulwark, FWO. But I do note your trying to change the subject.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  197. French is with The Dispatch (and Patterico has contributed there, too), not The Bulwark, FWO. But I do note your trying to change the subject.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/4/2022 @ 9:14 pm

    Patterico linked to Dan McLaughlin’s NRO article, where McLaughlin noted that Mona Charen brought this up in The Bulwark.

    And noting the weakness of French’s argument is hardly changing the subject, nor is pointing out the fruit of poisonous neocon trees.

    Your pathetic attempts at deflection are also duly noted.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  198. If Trump’s coup had succeeded even on a temporary basis it would have broken our faith in our governmental processes and our government for at least 60 years and maybe for longer, if it didn’t break the country entirely. It would have put us back into a cultural situation similar to the immediately post civil war period where trust was broken between citizens and even between family members. We might have gone back to an uneasy reconciliation or it might’ve broken our democracy entirely, it’s too hard to figure out who would have really jumped which way when the rubber hit the road. (in the aftermath when “nothing” really happened, it’s easy to poopoo the situation for selfish political purposes, so it’s entirely possible that people who currently are saying “no big” and “Trump cool” and “I have questions about the election” would’ve been horrified if they had ACTUALLY been held hostage by the Jan 6 insurrection mob.) Trump’s attempt goes against the entire foundation of the country as it was laid over 200 years ago and reinforced in (almost) every election since. What he’s been doing since he lost would break necessary trust systems if he were successful.

    Kevin’s worry about the NPVC would break different things in a very different way. It would probably cause a constitutional crisis, but it fits within the national philosophy that we vote for president so I don’t think it would break the country or the system itself, certainly not in the same way, though it would also create a distrust in the system.

    However, I also suspect we may be headed for some kind of change or a crisis in the system regardless. Right now a presidential vote in a populous state is worth significantly less than a presidential vote in a less populous state and if something doesn’t change in the ways that populations are shifting, that gap will continue to get wider and wider and at some point I think it will be seen as unacceptable to the people in more populous states. Though if climate change does what the more popular models says it could, it may do us a favor on this one and start shifting people north and inland again, IDK.

    Nic (896fdf)

  199. ‘If Trump’s coup had succeeded even on a temporary basis it would have broken our faith in our governmental processes and our government for at least 60 years and maybe for longer…’

    OFGS- Ther Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran-Contra did that ages ago.

    ________

    @ 197. ‘French, Charen…’ irrelevant in 2022.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  200. One can gauge the level of someone’s Trump worship by how much the person downplays January 6th. It’s virtually a perfect correlation.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  201. Right now a presidential vote in a populous state is worth significantly less than a presidential vote in a less populous state

    No, it’s not. I see this talking point from left-liberals all the time, and it’s an absolute garbage take of circular reasoning, sour grapes, and sheer entitlement on the level of “our side won the most votes nationwide, so it should have the most representatives!”.

    In no universe does Wyoming’s presidential vote hold more worth than California, New York, or Texas. There’s no such thing as a “per capita” electoral vote–you either win the state or you don’t based on if you win the most votes in that particular state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine if the candidate gets the most votes but loses certain districts.

    It has jack squat to do with “number of people per electoral vote,” and it’s not conservatives’ fault that leftists tend to mass in large urban areas. Probably because when leftists do end up migrating out to more rural areas, their sheer presence and political smugness tends to exacerbate social fissures in communities where this sort of social conflict is particularly harmful (Bobbi Harlow’s inner monologue in her first appearance in “Bloom County” is the epitome of the left-liberal migrant to small-town America).

    that gap will continue to get wider and wider and at some point I think it will be seen as unacceptable to the people in more populous states.

    The only way Texas starts acting as if North Dakota holds more electoral sway than them is if Texas becomes a reliable Democrat vote in presidential elections again.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  202. So, let’s run through the issues here.

    1. We are only talking about a close election. And by close we mean close in the electoral college at this point in time.

    2. Even so, the popular vote is informative. Trump’s arguments would have fared better had he won the popular vote. Had Hillary had a reasonable claim in 2016 that could have flipped MI and PA, we would have heard about it, and it would have gotten some traction due to her popular vote win. Probably not enough, but it would have come up.

    3. In this close election, the danger is that some scoundrels who have insinuated themselves into power in one or more narrowly-decided states would seek to RF the process so that the legislature would have to sorrowfully step in.

    4. At this point the scoundrels (could be either party) have to get past both the legislature’s massive disinclination to thwart what the voters think was their decision, A governor who may not be on board, as well as the state courts who will have no choice but to step in. Presumably one of these forces is not composed of rotters.

    5. But let’s say they are, and a bogus slate comes to Congress from state X, altering the very close result.

    6. Now, Congress has to accept or reject this slate, deciding the election. Obviously a challenge is made. Is it reasonable to conclude that 218 Congressfolk and 50 or more Senators are going to agree to this steal? Everyone knows what the issues are and most people are aware of the facts. This is not 1876. They may be lied to about it, and there will be different opinions expressed in the media, but we have been here before recently.
     
     
     

    Florida 2000 was very near this situation. It is quite likely that there was skullduggery on both sides during the recount, and the ballot design was a piece of crap. The state supreme court picked a side and was roundly denounced by its own Chief Justice. The Secretary of State was a clown.

    It turned out that the US Supreme Court refused to let the election fail, and we did not have the issue of a legislative slate. But we might have had one and it still would have been OK, even though Gore won the popular vote. It might have come out for Gore, too, and that would have been all right (with a different group of grumps).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  203. But if you put the popular vote compact on top of this, it gets really bad, really fast.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  204. Yes, let’s improve the law, but keep in mind that a breakdown in public virtue will trump (pun intended) perfect laws.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  205. With a Popular Vote Compact there are more points of failure.

    1. Let’s say that the PVC comes into effect with a final state putting the EV total of signatories to 285.

    2. The popular vote is close. 175 million votes cast, and the Democrat leads the popular vote with a margin of 350,000 votes, or 0.2% (roughly JFK’s margin in 1960). Another million votes to 3rd parties, not that we care.

    3. The electoral vote, however is 265-283 the other way. Of the PVC states, only PA voted for the Republican, everyone else voted identically to their PVC status (K.I.S.S. – obviously there are more complex things that could happen).

    4. A lawsuit in PA, alleging that the PVC is an illegal compact, that the legislature did not have the right to alter the form of the election without going through Steps A, B or C, and in any even does not bind the now-GOP legislature. If it matters, the suit was filed before the election.

    5. The state supreme court rules that the PVC was unlawfully passed (e.g. it needed to be an amendment to the state constitution) and orders the Democrat Secretary of State to certify the winner of PA’s own election and empanel the GOP electors.

    6. The Secretary of State ignores the order, and empanels the Democrat slate, as per the PVC, and later certifies their votes, as does the Democrat governor.

    7. The GOP slate meets as well, and sends their votes to Congress, with a copy of the state supreme court order. A narrowly GOP legislature (which tried and failed to rescind the PVC approval) passes a resolution in favor of the GOP slate.

    8. While this is going on, due to the closeness of the vote 23 states being recounts and 28 lawsuits are filed in the rest demanding same. Since the national popular vote is now part of the equation, even California with an 8 million vote margin is requested to recount recount.

    Please tell me what Congress should do with these slates, and what effect a recount has on the process.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  206. 265-283

    265-273

    It’s late.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  207. And noting the weakness of French’s argument is hardly changing the subject, nor is pointing out the fruit of poisonous neocon trees.

    You didn’t note the weakness of the argument, you tried to bullsh-t your way around it, FWO. Why are you standing with fascists like Navarro and Eastman?

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  208. Right now a presidential vote in a populous state is worth significantly less than a presidential vote in a less populous state

    I could argue this either way, but the first thing to note is that a vote for anyone but the candidate with the plurality in one’s state is worth zero. Hope you did better down-ballot.

    In theory, a vote in CA is worth 54/52ths of a “standard” vote and a vote in NM is worth 5/3rds, which seems like an advantage. But not only do you have to discount the votes for the losers, but you also have to note that the votes for the winner past the threshold for victory mean very little. CA delivering an 8 million vote margin or a 1 million vote margin doesn’t matter at all.

    In some ways the amplification one’s vote, of the big state’s bloc EVs, gives one more power there. Hard to say and it might not be answerable at all.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  209. @DCSCA@199 with Watergate the system worked the way it should. It could have broken things if it hadn’t but it did. Just like in this case where we came through the 2020 election cycle with the election intact.

    @FWO@201 It’s just math. Delaware has almost 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 330,000 people. Texas has almost 30 million people and 38 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 790,000 people. A vote in Delaware is worth more than twice what a vote in Texas is worth. Maybe they wouldn’t complain about North Dakota’s voter’s votes being worth more, but how about Delawares?

    Nic (896fdf)

  210. @Kevin@208 at that point it does come down to how the state proportions the EV, but at least you meet the 1 person 1 vote standard theoretically in the federal portion of the system.

    Nic (896fdf)

  211. Gerrymandering works both ways! 2010 democrats said shame on you we won’t stoop to this we go high! And lost 900 elected representatives. 2020 Democrats we join in going low and we will gerrymander republicans in blue states. Republicans are losing more congressional seats in blue states then they are gaining in red states.

    asset (2cb4bb)

  212. Powerful article by Charen https://www.thebulwark.com/did-the-january-6-coup-fail/

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  213. You didn’t note the weakness of the argument, you tried to bullsh-t your way around it, FWO. Why are you standing with fascists like Navarro and Eastman?

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/4/2022 @ 11:04 pm

    No, you got mad because I criticized your boo’s premises, then went back to your old standby–trying to make it about me.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  214. Good articles. Thank you for sharing.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  215. @FWO@201 It’s just math.

    No, it’s just sour grapes.

    Delaware has almost 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 330,000 people. Texas has almost 30 million people and 38 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 790,000 people. A vote in Delaware is worth more than twice what a vote in Texas is worth.

    No, it’s not. There’s no such thing as “per capita” electoral votes–it’s a bad-faith premise hawked by left-wing partisans as a well-poisoning and political coping mechanism. It’s all or nothing in all but two states. That’s why Democrats have been trying so hard for 20 years now to make Texas a reliable Dem-voting state again.

    A vote in Delaware is worth more than twice what a vote in Texas is worth. Maybe they wouldn’t complain about North Dakota’s voter’s votes being worth more, but how about Delawares?

    Nic (896fdf) — 1/4/2022 @ 11:27 pm

    Then they’d already be doing that now under the current system, but they aren’t. That’s only being done by Democrats, not anyone in Texas. And that trend will continue if Texas becomes a reliable Democrat take in presidential elections but, say, Florida continues to trend Republican rather than be a swing state or Pennsylvania becomes a reliable Republican vote again.

    It’s not based on anything substantive, just part of the 20-year-long trend of Democrat rationalizations in the face of their disbelief when they don’t win an election they thought was in the bag.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  216. @200

    One can gauge the level of someone’s Trump worship by how much the person downplays January 6th. It’s virtually a perfect correlation.

    norcal (d4ed1d) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:16 pm

    Yeah, no. Not even close pal.

    I’m on record that Trump should’ve been impeached immediately in the aftermath of 1/6 for simply dereliction of duty of protecting DC.

    This wasn’t an insurrection. An organic protest-turned-riot, yes.

    This wasn’t a coup. Trump sycophants attempting to legally try to overturn the election is bad, but doesn’t amount to a coup/insurrection. The legal system bitch slapped them hard, as they should’ve.

    Words have meaning, and to over-exaggerate what happened on 1/6 does nothing to further the conversation. It only add fuel to the partisan fire and efforts to legitly drive up momentum to amend the EVA act for clarity makes it near impossible to do.

    whembly (36ab5f)

  217. @FWO@201 It’s just math. Delaware has almost 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 330,000 people. Texas has almost 30 million people and 38 electoral votes. That’s 1 EV for every 790,000 people. A vote in Delaware is worth more than twice what a vote in Texas is worth. Maybe they wouldn’t complain about North Dakota’s voter’s votes being worth more, but how about Delawares?

    I scrolled past some comments so I need to go back and double check. Is this argument here about the value of each Senator? Seems some people are getting screwed and their states deserve more Senators. Math…

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  218. Whembly, Do you agree that Trump’s sycophants (including members of his administration) wanted to overturn the results of a lawful election based on lies about fraud? Peter Navarro is running around telling everyone they were trying to do that. If so, what word should we use to describe what they were trying to accomplish?

    It looks from where I sit that the violent actions of Trump supporters directed at the US government were in support of his goal to hold on to power despite losing the election. Again, what word would you use to describe that? What additional elements would you need to see proof of to call it a coup or insurrection? More or better weaponry? They had enough force to violently take control of the capital, it just took them too long and congress was able to escape.

    I agree they weren’t very competent. The expected Trump to send the US military or LEO in to support them, he didn’t. In part because his efforts to get those groups on board with his scheme failed. But we’ve seen evidence that he was trying to do that.

    We’ve also seen evidence that his team (sycophants as you call them) expected a violent counter protest and were planning to respond by taking control of the area in response. The violent counter protest didn’t happen.

    To me it looks very much like the Trump administration was planing to use any means at their disposal to retain power and failed due to lack of competence. Not that this was a protest turned into a riot.

    But, i respect your opinion and I am curious what additional elements you’d need to see to come to a similar conclusion.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  219. No, you got mad because I criticized your boo’s premises, then went back to your old standby–trying to make it about me.

    Mindreading about what my feelings are is an intellectually lazy and dishonest practice, FWO, but nice try.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  220. In no universe does Wyoming’s presidential vote hold more worth than California, New York, or Texas.

    That’s an innumerate comment. There were 318k popular votes per electoral vote in CA, and 92k popular votes per electoral vote in WY. For CA to be proportional with WY, CA would need 190 electoral votes, not the 55 they have. WY voters have relatively more impact in Congress and in the Electoral College. And this an argument for doubling or tripling the size of the House, as some have proposed.
    But it doesn’t matter. This is how the founding fathers devised the House and Senate, with electoral votes following suit, thus giving small and rural states comparatively more power. Urban liberals can complain about it all they want, but it is what it is, and they can’t do a damn thing about it without amending the Constitution.
    FTR, I like the Electoral College just the way it is, but I am open to doubling the number of representatives in the House, which may require retrofit in the Capitol.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  221. One can gauge the level of someone’s Trump worship by how much the person downplays January 6th. It’s virtually a perfect correlation.

    norcal (d4ed1d) — 1/4/2022 @ 10:16 pm

    If that’s true the flip side of that coin is also true. You can gauge a person’s hyper-partisanship by the amount of hyperbole they use for 1/6. We weren’t a knife’s edge away from the end of the republic and the doomsday clock didn’t move to within milliseconds of midnight.

    There is a reasonable description of 1/6. We just don’t hear it very often.

    frosty (f27e97)

  222. @219

    Whembly, Do you agree that Trump’s sycophants (including members of his administration) wanted to overturn the results of a lawful election based on lies about fraud? Peter Navarro is running around telling everyone they were trying to do that.

    Mostly, yes. I do get the concerns on the lead-up to election but they went off-the-chain.

    If so, what word should we use to describe what they were trying to accomplish?

    Sour graping, not unlike what Democrats were doing in the Bush v. Gore election.

    They weren’t trying to institute a military coup. At each step, they were trying to use legit legal recourses for illegitimate claims. The courts rightly saw right through that.

    It looks from where I sit that the violent actions of Trump supporters directed at the US government were in support of his goal to hold on to power despite losing the election. Again, what word would you use to describe that?

    Riot.

    What additional elements would you need to see proof of to call it a coup or insurrection?

    At minimum, concerted plans.

    More or better weaponry?

    Sure.

    They had enough force to violently take control of the capital, it just took them too long and congress was able to escape.

    They absolutely did not. Armed swat team was already on the ground. (ie, a squad of them was standing around in the picture showing Ashley Abbot trying to break into a room at the same time).

    We now know that the secret service were also there, and were given orders to shoot back.

    There was no chance the riot would’ve sacked Congress.

    I agree they weren’t very competent. The expected Trump to send the US military or LEO in to support them, he didn’t. In part because his efforts to get those groups on board with his scheme failed. But we’ve seen evidence that he was trying to do that.

    Sure, and he was resoundly rebuffed.

    We’ve also seen evidence that his team (sycophants as you call them) expected a violent counter protest and were planning to respond by taking control of the area in response. The violent counter protest didn’t happen.

    Really? Citation please?

    To me it looks very much like the Trump administration was planing to use any means at their disposal to retain power and failed due to lack of competence. Not that this was a protest turned into a riot.

    But, i respect your opinion and I am curious what additional elements you’d need to see to come to a similar conclusion.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 1/5/2022 @ 6:06 am

    Yeah I disagree.

    I agree that the Trump syphocants were trying whatever legal recourse, in their minds, to overturn the election. The system in place, for the most part, worked. It can be better, yes, which includes amending the EVA as patterico suggested.

    I also want to point out that there’s a lot of nuance to this ordeal. What Trump syphocants were doing were one thing – trying to figure out a way for Trump to remain in office using legal means.

    The other, was the real concerns how the election was conducted in various states due to emergency powers during the pandemic.

    Can you separate those two? Demcrats often conflate those two because they really don’t want to discuss the latter.

    whembly (36ab5f)

  223. I could write a long essay about the tension created by two co-existing concepts,
    1. The Nation of The United States of America, singular; and
    2. The United States of America, plural;
    and the paradox created by the Founders of a united country which is intentionally divided, but who would read it?

    So I’ll just quote what Trump’s Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff told his Chinese counterpart in a telephone call Trump knew nothing about because he was too busy helping Melania with her photo album: “Democracy is messy.”

    nk (1d9030)

  224. They had enough force to violently take control of the capital

    Nope. They didn’t even have control of the Capitol Building.

    The expected Trump to send the US military or LEO in to support them, he didn’t. In part because his efforts to get those groups on board with his scheme failed. But we’ve seen evidence that he was trying to do that.

    What evidence? Are you referring to the Jan/3 request for the nation guard? If so that wasn’t a request “to support them”.

    We’ve also seen evidence that his team (sycophants as you call them) expected a violent counter protest and were planning to respond by taking control of the area in response. The violent counter protest didn’t happen.

    We’ve seen a lot of communications during the event that people on his team were trying to get it shutdown or under control. It makes sense to expect something like antifa in response to a pro-Trump pretest and it only makes sense to plan for that. Can you point to the evidence of this preplanning of, or to use, the protest as a cover for a coup?

    To me it looks very much like the Trump administration was planing to use any means at their disposal to retain power and failed due to lack of competence. Not that this was a protest turned into a riot.

    I think looks are deceiving. I also think it’s easy for people to see what they want to see.

    But, i respect your opinion and I am curious what additional elements you’d need to see to come to a similar conclusion.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 1/5/2022 @ 6:06 am

    What I see is Trump using every means at his disposal to retain power. I also see a protest that turned into a riot. I don’t see the direct linkage between the two and I certainly don’t see the combined and overarching planned coup/insurrection.

    So, on the one hand I can see what Trump was doing as a problem and I can see that the riot was a problem, ie two separate problems. But I don’t feel the need to see some grand interlinked conspiracy.

    frosty (f27e97)

  225. 220- And making your responses all about me is the mark of an emotionally immature individual. I expect that from my six-year-old daughter, not a grown man in his 60s.

    221- The only math that matters is 55 vs 3. That’s how the Electoral College counts the vote, irrespective of whether the 3-vote state has a larger per capita share than the 55-vote state. Otherwise, the Dems wouldn’t be trying to achieve what would be an essentially unbeatable hold on presidential elections by turning Texas blue, and bragging about how increased immigration is going to accomplish this, when they already hold what are automatic locks in California, New York, and Illinois.

    The Dems’ complaints about proportionality aren’t based in any sincere principle whatsoever, It’s just another way that they bash America’s institutions in the service of trying to increase their own political power.

    Factory Working Orphan (1f1817)

  226. Whembly, thank you for the response. I’m happy to talk about ways to improve our elections and emergency powers. I do think on good thing about all the investigation looking for election fraud is that it’s produced a lot of data that the changes made in response to covid didn’t create enough fraudulent votes to impact the outcomes of the elections. I like how the WI investigation summarized their conclusion; Joe Biden won because a plurality of lawful voters preferred him to Trump.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  227. I need to retract this “We’ve also seen evidence that his team (sycophants as you call them) expected a violent counter protest and were planning to respond by taking control of the area in response. The violent counter protest didn’t happen.”

    Meadows was looking for police support to protect trump people from Antifa and Trump was treating about Antifa ahead of his rally.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/12/meadows-jan-6-national-guard-trump-524133

    Meadows did endorse a power point saying Trump should declare a national emergency.
    https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1468989737490911232?s=20

    But I can’t show you where those two are linked. Sorry for overstating it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  228. @227 I honestly think election “audits” is a red-herring. You’re never going to retrospectively be able to detect legit fraud in the manner that impact elections. You’d have to literally catch *them* red-handed.

    You cant realistically audit elections when its designed for anonymity. So, at best, you can only do statistical analysis to highlight potential issues. (ie, # of registered voters vs. votes casted… things like that).

    I do think, we can fine tune the election “framework” and laws to mitigate potential fraud. Identifying issues like the signature verification for absentee ballots in PA and GA are worth discussing. Or whether or not we should allow ballot harvesting. Things like that. We can have this discussion, even if you don’t think impacted the last election, because the goal is really to strengthen the process for the next election.

    whembly (36ab5f)

  229. @228 Time, thank you for that.

    whembly (36ab5f)

  230. Time 123:

    You can disagree if this piece below has merit, but you didn’t just get your statement retracted in #228 from a vacuum:

    https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/trump-january-6-coup-plan-national-guard-20211216.html

    Appalled (1a17de)

  231. #229

    Honest discussions of the type you talk about have been made impossible by Trump. Every discussion is a proxy for the ex-President’s hurt feelings.

    If people took the election stuff seriously, there would have been a modest bunch of reforms passed in Summer 2021 that dealt with the electoral college vote, and also chucked out the (repugnant) Georgia approach that the State Legislature can throw out votes.

    I see little more than the usual theatre in washington. There are bills the Democrats actually care about passing and ones they do to keep the Progressive donations flowing. Given what HR 1 looks like (gotta include that repeal of Citizens United, y’kno), it’s clear we got version 2 going here.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  232. This Washington Post op-ed, How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act, begins with two reasonable principles for a fix.

    We are scholars of election law who span the ideological spectrum but agree on two fundamental principles to help avert potential political upheaval in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election.

    First, to avoid a repeat of Jan. 6, or worse, Congress must rewrite the Electoral Count Act, the outmoded 1887 law that governs the certification of the presidential vote. There is a pressing need for a clear set of rules to govern the certification of the presidential vote.

    Second, this revision should be based on the premise that Congress is not a national recount board or a court for litigating the outcome of presidential elections. It is not the role of Congress to revisit a state’s popular vote tally.

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  233. #225

    I appreciate your effort to avoid conflating the 1-6 invasion of the Capitol with Trump’s effort to overturn election results he didn’t like. I have seen no evidence that Trump’s people were involved with the actual riot. Maybe the Commission has something, but I think it would have leaked by now. The Dems really need to watch it on this kind of thing — if they propound a grand conspiracy that the facts do not bear out — they will lose the middle — which will end up dismissing everything as lies. The Big Lie made 1-6 possible. But the Big Liars behind it plotted a bloodless coup, not the 1-6 mess.

    What we do see is a President who was not as disturbed by the riot as he should have been and one who acted slowly to combat it. This is a dereliction of duty on its own. (The Big Lie is another — but that’s not what the 1-6 Committee is really supposed to be investigating.)

    Appalled (1a17de)

  234. #233 —

    One problem I can see is when the Georgia Legislature throws out Fulton County’s vote totals in 2024, and declares that Trump won the state. I think the national legislature needs some involvement to deal with situations like that.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  235. BTW, McConnell is signaling that he’s willing to reform the Electoral Count Act. Better that than the Democrat-only voting rights bill.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  236. “The Big Lie made 1-6 possible. But the Big Liars behind it plotted a bloodless coup, not the 1-6 mess.”

    Right, 1/6 wasn’t really a coup….it was a temper tantrum….and helped short-circuit team Trump’s plan (though Pence sealed the deal). It REALLY was in Trump’s interest to shut down the riot, which makes it double interesting why he chose to watch it spiral.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  237. 152. BuDuh (4a7846) — 1/4/2022 @ 4:45 pm

    weren’t all these people unvaccinated when less people died with Covid during the Trump administration?

    One possible partial explanation is that since 2020 we had Delta.

    But there was another thing. Before Delta hit, and when maybe the worst was Alpha, there was an upsurge in coronavirus cases during late 20920 and early 2021. That could be on Trump, for not pushing and making sure monoclonal antibodies were distributed and used. Vaccination hadn’t yet had a chance to have much of an effect.

    But the question still is why did it take so long after April, 2020 for cases to increase? Maybe the lockdowns etc worked until people gave them up in part.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  238. 237. AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 1/5/2022 @ 10:59 am

    It REALLY was in Trump’s interest to shut down the riot, which makes it double interesting why he chose to watch it spiral.

    Two reasons:

    1. He didn’t believe he could shut it down (and neither do the messages from Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity indicate that they believed that, let alone “knew” that, as the January 6 committee charged)

    Issuing a statement condemning the riot was, and would have been, done for its effect on Congress, (and on his own reputation, and he believed also that saying his followers were doing wrong harmed his reputation – he wanted to say the people storming the Capitol building were not his followers, but Antifa militants, but that dog didn’t hunt.)

    And he also thought he could use requests to condemn it as a bargaining lever with some members of
    Congress..

    2. He had other priorities – his worry was that Senators and Representatives would back off from objecting to Electoral votes, because they were considering doing so, and they did (they reduced the number of objections from six to two.

    Trump was pleading with members of Congress, to please not cancel the votes and debates just because of this disruption. They were reconsidering and backing off.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/tuberville-pences-evacuation-trump-impeachment-468572

    …The managers noted that while a mob encroached on the Senate chamber, Trump was ignoring his allies’ pleas for him to publicly call them off. Instead, Trump accidentally phoned Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) as he sought to get in touch with Tuberville to request that the Alabama senator continue objecting to the election results in order to buy time.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  239. If Trump’s coup had succeeded even on a temporary basis it would have broken our faith in our governmental processes and our government for at least 60 years

    It already has, to a great extent. No matter how many investigations and audits end up not finding the massive fraud that partisans were seeking, the Trumpified GOP will keep insisting that the election was rigged and they, aka “real Americans,” were robbed. Lack of evidence is turned into proof of how diabolical the plot was.

    Trumpers apparently never pause to reflect on the fact that their idol was systematically setting up the “rigged election” narrative long before November 2020. In fact, he did the same, though not as heavily, leading up to the 2016 election.

    They won’t acknowledge the clear pathological narcissism of their idol, who obviously believes that he could not possibly lose a fair contest, ever. Instead, they turned him into their oracle of truth and patriotic righteousness. Donald Trump loves America more than you (they insist), so his every word and action are an unquestionable guide for all true patriots. If Trump says he was cheated out of reelection, it cannot be otherwise. Evidence is superfluous.

    The distrust of institutions and hatred of “the establishment” are not Trump’s original creation, of course. But his extreme narcissism and disregard for rules, cloaked in a veneer of shallow patriotism and a transactional leaning toward “average Americans,” gave it a human embodiment who found popular resentments to be the perfect vehicle for boosting his ego into demigod territory. Even some actual elites have decided that stroking Trump’s ego at all times is the way to advance their political or cultural agendas.

    Donald Trump and the people who anointed him the ne plus ultra of real American patriotism have taken most of a political party into deep animosity toward the system when it doesn’t deliver the results they want, and some are now rather openly saying that violence may be justified as the only way to “fight back.” This may eventually have happened without Trump, but it’s clear that Trump and his fanatical cult accelerated it.

    Radegunda (a463ad)

  240. which makes it double interesting why he chose to watch it spiral

    Trump may have an animal cunning, but no serious observer would say he’s particularly disciplined. He watched because he was thrilled to see people literally fighting for him, and it’s likely he was hoping it would scare legislators into doing his will.

    When he told people at the rally that they needed to “fight like hell” etc. etc., with that one cover-your-behind “peacefully” thrown in, he couldn’t have been very concerned to prevent violence, whatever Peter Navarro’s supposed plans were.

    1/6 wasn’t really a coup….it was a temper tantrum

    There’s plenty of evidence that many participants saw it as more like the beginning of a civil war. The term “civil war” was trending on far-right social media, and a big spike followed some particularly incendiary comments that Trump made in his rant.

    Radegunda (a463ad)

  241. The Wall Street Journal had, as its main editorial today, revising the Electoral Count Act.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/overturning-the-2024-election-republicans-congress-electoral-count-act-donald-trump-11641331437

    Overturning the Next Election </i?

    If the concern is stealing the Presidency, fix the Electoral Count Act.

    236. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 1/5/2022 @ 10:06 am

    BTW, McConnell is signaling that he’s willing to reform the Electoral Count Act. Better that than the Democrat-only voting rights bill.

    This is exactly what the Wall Street Journal said the Republicans should do:

    Democrats keep saying Jan. 6 must never happen again, but their main goal seems to be to use the memory of that day against Republicans in 2022. If they’re honest about “never again,” they’ll grab the Electoral Count Act issue. Or Republicans could turn the electoral tables on Democrats by grabbing it first. If Congress does nothing, Americans are likely to conclude that Jan. 6 has become one more political prop for partisan gain.

    By the way, a crucial vote in Congress about a disputed presidential election is not the only thing that could be the basis for a January 6. You could also have it, say, where the issue amounted to whether or not to go to war. Or maybe a Supreme Court appointment, or a vote on packing the court. It depends on whether somebody has stirred up a lot of controversy.

    But I think the prosecutions and jail sentences (even if for for less than twenty years) will make a repeat of this very hard to organize.

    You are not going to eliminate crucial votes by changing the Electoral Count Act.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  242. Radegunda (a463ad) — 1/5/2022 @ 11:32 am

    he was thrilled to see people literally fighting for him, and it’s likely he was hoping it would scare legislators into doing his will.

    He was scared it would cause Republicans to back off from co-operating with his plans!

    Nobody wants to see the United States turn into a banana republic – not even the people Patterico calls banana Republicans. It’s one thing to twist the law – with violence all bets are off and no one is safe and we don’t have a functioning government.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  243. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 1/4/2022 @ 9:51 am

    In other words: He, Bannon, and Trump were in the middle of executing a legal coup, which the violent coup attempt foiled. Therefore, he, Bannon and Trump couldn’t possibly be responsible for the violent attempted coup. ……

    We can’t be too sure about what Bannon’s true motives were. It depends on what is found out about what he actually did.

    As I have speculated, behind all of this could be the hand of Vladimir Putin. He has links to the far right all over the world (and to Mike Flynn, who wanted Trump to declare martial law, but Trump wasn’t going for any of that and his aides mostly succeeded in keeping Mike Flynn away from seeing him more.)

    What Navarro is arguing is that he had a good coup in mind. The rioters were trying to do a bad coup. He’s the good guy. The rioters—and, funnily enough, Mike Pence, whom Navarro accuses of “betrayal”—are the bad guys who got in the way of this good coup………

    We don’t have to consider this actually a good coup, to consider this Trump’s plan.
    ……….

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  244. He was scared it would cause Republicans to back off from co-operating with his plans!

    What is your evidence for that claim?

    If he thought the fighting was bad for him, he would have stepped out very early and told his fanatical followers to stop it.

    Instead, he watched it unfold for three hours, ignoring many entreaties by close supporters and his own children to do something to call down his fans.

    Every bit of actual evidence shows that Donald Trump did not object to the violence being perpetrated for his sake.

    Nobody wants to see the United States turn into a banana republic

    What is your basis for claiming that “no one” wants any such thing? We know that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed a certain envy of people who get to make themselves president-for-life, and that he conveys far more sympathy and respect for autocrats than for any democratic leaders. We also know that he was replacing officials who recognized their obligation to the republic with people unconditionally loyal to himself personally — which is what the ruler of a banana republic would do.

    I really don’t comprehend why some people think it’s imperative to whitewash every manifestly bad thing about Donald Trump. It’s just weird.

    Radegunda (a463ad)

  245. Honest discussions of the type you talk about have been made impossible by Trump. Every discussion is a proxy for the ex-President’s hurt feelings.

    Appalled (1a17de) — 1/5/2022 @ 8:06 am

    There are people on both sides who’ve poisoned that well, and other ones. A common partisan tactic is to assert a series of conclusions that must be accepted to have a discussion, aka begging the question or assuming the conclusion. If the other person isn’t willing to accept those, basically conceding the point before any discussion is had, the normal partisan response is to make it personal or find some other way to avoid engaging.

    frosty (f27e97)

  246. Reading through all of this makes me think back to law school and the idea of attempted crimes versus completed crimes. Trying to kill someone and failing is generally less punishable than doing the exact same thing and succeeding, and I think if I were to draft sentencing laws I’d retain that distinction. But morally I’ve always thought there’s no difference whatsoever. And yet I would still be merciful towards the person who failed to achieve their criminal goals but, for whatever reason, has later expressed genuine remorse and feels truly guilty about what they tried to accomplish.

    But when the criminals fail in their attempts but openly go back to the drawing board to come up with alternative ways to achieve their frustrated objective, I think we should probably recognize that they really mean business.

    JohnnyAgreeable (417278)

  247. SF: He was scared it would cause Republicans to back off from co-operating with his plans!

    Radegunda (a463ad) — 1/5/2022 @ 12:02 pm

    What is your evidence for that claim?

    I gave some.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/tuberville-pences-evacuation-trump-impeachment-468572

    …Trump…sought to get in touch with Tuberville to request that the Alabama senator continue objecting to the election results in order to buy time.

    Radegunda:

    If he thought the fighting was bad for him, he would have stepped out very early and told his fanatical followers to stop it.

    Not if he didn’t believe he had started it, and still less that he could stop it with a statement.

    He wasn’t even sure they were his followers, or at least tried ti get members of Congress to believe they were Antifa fighters. He dropped that when Kevin McCarthy said he had seen them. He ad toadmit that at least some of them were his followers.

    Instead, he watched it unfold for three hours, ignoring many entreaties by close supporters and his own children to do something to call down his fans.

    His supporters and children didn’t necessrily think he could call them off, but they thought he should make his position clear.

    The argument that worked at first was that he’s got to be at least against attacking police, but it resulted in a rather weak statement.

    His main goal during that time was that members of Congress should not backtrack on their commitments to object to Electoral votes.

    Every bit of actual evidence shows that Donald Trump did not object to the violence being perpetrated for his sake.

    He also tried to half justify it. It’s not like he thought it was doing him any good. It was ruining is plans.

    SFL Nobody wants to see the United States turn into a banana republic

    What is your basis for claiming that “no one” wants any such thing?

    I think so, based on logic. I mean most Reoublicans, even those who went along with what can be called the Eastman or Navarro plan.

    We know that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed a certain envy of people who get to make themselves president-for-life, and that he conveys far more sympathy and respect for autocrats than for any democratic leaders. We also know that he was replacing officials who recognized their obligation to the republic with people unconditionally loyal to himself personally — which is what the ruler of a banana republic would do.

    A banana republic is not a stable dictatorship but has constant revolutions or the constant possibility of it. That crowd would not be the last bit of political violence anyone saw.

    I really don’t comprehend why some people think it’s imperative to whitewash every manifestly bad thing about Donald Trump. It’s just weird.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  248. I really don’t comprehend why some people think it’s imperative to whitewash every manifestly bad thing about Donald Trump. It’s just weird.

    It;s not whitewashing. It’s avoiding saing things that aren;t true.

    The risk also was not of turning the United States into a version of Ferdinand Marcos’s Phillipines. There was no dictatorship machinery ready to go.

    he risk was that if turning the United States into a version of Haiti with nuclear weapons. A “coup” would not be the last word.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  249. When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: “I am Violence! Make way, step aside, I will crush you!” But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.

    And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Sammy’s summary.

    It;s not whitewashing. It’s avoiding saing things that aren;t true.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 1/5/2022 @ 1:16 pm

    Such a simple concept. Thanks Sammy.

    frosty (f27e97)

  250. Gerrymandering works both ways! 2010 democrats said shame on you we won’t stoop to this we go high! And lost 900 elected representatives. 2020 Democrats we join in going low and we will gerrymander republicans in blue states. Republicans are losing more congressional seats in blue states then they are gaining in red states.

    California was gerrymandered in 1980, 2000, 2010 1nd now 2020, all in the favor of Democrats.. In 1990, the GOP governor vetoed the Democrat remaps and they could not override3 his veto, so the state supreme court appointed a special master and did the maps itself. And these were not gerrymandered at all.

    It is a lie to say that the Democrats didn’t gerrymander in the past. Many claim that their hold on the House between 1980 (Reagan’s election) and 1994 (the Gingrich wave) was the result of gerrymanders that stretched back to the 1930s.

    It is interesting to note that, in the 2018 and 2020 elections, the House seat results were within half a percent of each party’s share of the cumulative vote for House seats.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  251. Plenty of bologna served here.
    I’m constructing a lego cap..knock, knock, FBI on the ground punk.
    schiffholers in charge.

    mg (8cbc69)

  252. But his extreme narcissism and disregard for rules, cloaked in a veneer of shallow patriotism and a transactional leaning toward “average Americans,” gave it a human embodiment who found popular resentments to be the perfect vehicle for boosting his ego into demigod territory.

    Radegunda (a463ad) — 1/5/2022 @ 11:22 am

    Like I said, a Bronte sister.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  253. Ever notice how the republican party is full of schiff?

    mg (8cbc69)

  254. The Big Lie made 1-6 possible. But the Big Liars behind it plotted a bloodless coup, not the 1-6 mess.

    The True Big Lie[s] in my lifetime:

    Vietnam.
    Watergate.
    Trickle-down Reaganomics.
    Iran-Contra.

    Everything else: ‘peace dividend,’ Clinton/Lewinsky; ideologues; keeping your doctor; $1400 is $2000; 100% is 90%; Afghan’s $85 billion blown; poor vaccines and perpetual boosters all things Biden- and 1/6: mere theatre.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  255. Ted Cruz back on the sheet list after 5 1/2 years:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397244.php

    urbanleftbehind (ec9b0a)

  256. Vietnam
    Watergate
    Trickle-down Reaganomics
    Iran-Contra

    Holy incongruity!

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  257. DCSCA started the fire.

    urbanleftbehind (ec9b0a)

  258. @251, anyone that says Democrats don’t gerrymander is lying to you or themselves. Both parties are bad in this regard and any differences are minuscule in relation to the overall offense. It should be called out and criticized wherever we find it.

    Time123 (d499a8)

  259. @258 It’s like Reagan stole his pony or something.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  260. Holy incongruity!

    The Crusades; storm the castle!

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  261. It’s like Reagan stole his pony or something.

    Ketchup Soup.

    Now that’s ‘something.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  262. Just messin’ with ya, DCSCA. I’m fairly certain you won’t take offense.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  263. Paul Montagu @181

    David French:

    For those keeping score at home, that is a single 809-word paragraph that succeeds mainly in creating multiple points of confusion

    I see only one point of confusion: When do the objections get made? After all the Electoral votes have been counted or when a state’s votes are announced. It seems to be the practice that they are to be made when a state is reached. Thus, in 2021, when an objection was made to Arizona, the counting stopped. (the proceedings were recessed because of the penetration of the Capitol building by a mob while the debate on Arizona was going on separately in both houses of Congress. (Peter Navarro, by the way, to show how faulty and amateurish his calculations were, somehow counted the debates double, like the Houses would debate one after the other. So he anticipated 24 hours of live television coverage, not 12. Except that, like a football or a hockey or a basketball game, it actually takes up actually more time than there is on the clock, so he’s more right than wrong after all.)

    and empowering frivolous and bad-faith congressional challenges to electoral outcomes.

    The Electoral Count act doesn’t say they can be frivolous – it just doesn’t try to antcipate them all. What can make something frivolous is that it has no chance of being upheld. The Act tries to force them to be specific. That at least it can do.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  264. Cobb (GA) GOP cancels ‘homage to treason’ for Jan. 6 insurrection

    The Cobb County GOP has canceled its prayer vigil Thursday to honor the pro-Donald Trump insurrectionists who stampeded into the Capitol to try to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

    The county party cited “mischaracterization of the event scheduled for January 6th and the ensuing concerns for the safety of those in attendance.” Earlier, Cobb GOP chair Salleigh Grubbs had defended the program as a way to honor those who suffered a “miscarriage of justice.”

    The details of the event, which emerged Sunday, sparked a torrent of criticism — and a nickname from state Rep. Teri Anulewicz, who called it an “homage to treason.”
    ……..
    The two-hour program envisioned a livestream of Trump’s now-canceled press conference from Florida, along with a call to action for Cobb Republicans.

    It would have concluded with a candlelight vigil for the “J6 Patriots” – the shorthand that extremists have created for the rioters who sought to overthrow the government, including at least 30 who are awaiting court dates for the most serious crimes that day.
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  265. 181.

    Moreover, a reformed Electoral Count Act would narrowly specify the grounds for any congressional decertification. For example, if electors cast votes for a person constitutionally ineligible for the office,…

    That’s no reason to object to the vote. It is a genuine vote, but a spoiled ballot.

    There must be some other point where you notice, say, that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be elected president (again)

    if electors cast votes even if the vote has been set aside for fraud by a court of final jurisdiction.

    That’s the vote for their own election – i.e. it’s an objection to their appointment as Electors. There are any number of ways this can play out in the state. Now federal law now states I think that the names of the Electors should be known by the time they cast their votes It is a state’s responsibility to make sure the state is not left out of the vote. If the election is not decided by six days before, state law says how the electors may then be appointed. This could be an invitation for a state legislature to pass a law saying they themselves appoint them.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  266. President Joe Biden will give a speech tomorrow at the Capitol in which he will blame Donald Trump for causing the riot.

    Not necessarily intentionally – he won’t go that far – but the words from the speech that have been leaked to the press are: “singular responsibility”

    The media have been told he will speak the truth (or so characterize it)

    Meanwhile Trump cancelled his press conference.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  267. President Joe Biden will give a speech tomorrow at the Capitol in which he will blame Donald Trump for causing the riot.

    He doesn’t even know what year it is.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  268. @263. LOL None taken.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  269. @267 I hope Biden’s speechwriter(s) have enough sense not to spike the rhetorical football. It will just exacerbate the tribalism.

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  270. Compromise, Joe:

    January 6: Ashli Babbitt Day

    January 17: MLK Day

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  271. Blame Big Meat for everything, Joe!

    “Don’t have a cow, man!” – “transgender” Bart Simpson [voiced by Nancy Cartwright]

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  272. Who has tomorrow in the De…err…Disco Granny pool?

    urbanleftbehind (c2e573)

  273. They are saying a lot of bad things about Ashli Babbitt. She was married when she had an affair with a man named Babbitt, and later attacked his former live-in girlfriend with her SUV after she had moved out and she had moved in she claimed it was an accident) She later married Babbitt in 2019. (A year later she accepted him starting an affair with a bartender but this soap opera is getting very complicated.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  274. From Reason (the obvious)

    https://reason.com/2022/01/04/ashli-babbitts-violent-past-doesnt-justify-her-death

    But it may help explain it.

    Babbitt was among hundreds of people who swarmed into the Capitol, breaking windows and kicking in doors to do so. She was part of a group actively attempting to break through a door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby while lawmakers were still being evacuated. Facing Capitol Police officers, Babbitt attempted to climb through a hole in the broken door, at which point an officer fired, fatally wounding her.

    Babbitt’s behavior in the immediate lead-up to her death was condemnable. But to report out completely unrelated events from her past is shameful on its own.

    In fact, the posthumous attempt to recontextualize Babbitt resembles the reverse hagiographies sometimes penned about black victims of police violence…

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  275. Sammy, ask me what the main cause of crime is.

    nk (1d9030)

  276. The main cause of crime is successful previous crime done by the perpetrator or his (or her) acquaintances, combined with lack of ethics by the perpetrator.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  277. @FWO@216 if your main argument against something is that the people you don’t like are for it, it isn’t logic, it’s tribalism.

    @buduh@218 No, I’m not talking about Senators. The Senate (theoretically) works as it’s designed as a check and balance against the House.

    Nic (896fdf)

  278. @FWO@216 if your main argument against something is that the people you don’t like are for it, it isn’t logic, it’s tribalism.

    If your main argument that a state’s electoral votes have more worth on a per capita basis when that’s not how they’re actually counted, it isn’t logic, it’s deception. I realize you work in a career field full of people who think like this, but I don’t reject their arguments because I think they’re largely stunted dullards with an unwarranted sense of self-regard. I reject them because they don’t have any connection to how presidential elections are actually determined.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  279. January 6: Ashli Babbitt Day

    January 17: MLK Day

    April 1: DCSCA Day

    you asked for it

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  280. @279 Mostly Pe rcapita is how they were meant to be distributed since the number of electoral votes was based on the number of representatives a state had which was based on proportional representation in Article 1 and Amendment 14 of the Constitution. + 2 senators. This only changed in 1911 with the apportionment act and then in 1929 with the apportionment cap. It’s also resulted in districts that are far far far too large for their representative to be personally invested in the people in their district.

    Nic (896fdf)

  281. *those acts have also resulted in…

    Nic (896fdf)

  282. Mostly Pe rcapita is how they were meant to be distributed since the number of electoral votes was based on the number of representatives a state had which was based on proportional representation in Article 1 and Amendment 14 of the Constitution. This only changed in 1911 with the apportionment act and then in 1929 with the apportionment cap. It’s also resulted in districts that are far far far too large for their representative to be personally invested in the people in their district.

    Which is still irrelevant to how the electoral votes are actually counted.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  283. Nor do Article 1 and Amendment 14 actually state that representatives will be doled out based on an equitable number of citizens for each representative. All Article 1 and Amendment 14 say is that they’ll be “apportioned”.

    Leftists making this “small states have more power and it’s not fair” argument are simply indulging in sour grapes.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  284. It is not irrelevant. If the electoral votes were more properly balanced across the states proportionally, even if the EV were still winner take all for most states, you would get a better view of the general opinion of the majority and everyone’s votes would count for basically an equal amount. The EVs would still be slightly weighted to the majority in less populous winner-take-all states, but it would be much less, which is more in line with democratic ideals. While protection of the minority is also essential to the constitution the venue for that as meant in the constitution is the Senate, not the presidency. The US was not meant to be an oligarchy.

    Nic (896fdf)

  285. @FwO@284 they are supposed to be apportions “according to their respective Numbers,” not just randomly by the number of people we think can fit into the house chamber.

    Nic (896fdf)

  286. @me@285 My last sentence should be “smaller states, which may be in a minority by population”

    (I had my flu shot yesterday and I’ve been headachy and fuzzy headed all day, I apologize for the lack of clarity”

    Nic (896fdf)

  287. It is not irrelevant.

    Yeah, it is.

    If the electoral votes were more properly balanced across the states proportionally, even if the EV were still winner take all for most states, you would get a better view of the general opinion of the majority and everyone’s votes would count for basically an equal amount.

    Neither Article 1 nor Amendment 14 say that they should be “properly balanced proportionally,” so you’re arguing a made-up scenario.

    While protection of the minority is also essential to the constitution the venue for that as meant in the constitution is the Senate, not the presidency. The US was not meant to be an oligarchy

    Small-population states aren’t exercising an oligarchy on anything. My freedoms are under greater threat from the machinations of left-wing billionaires than they are from a bunch of roughneck oilers and farmers in North Dakota.

    they are supposed to be apportions “according to their respective Numbers,” not just randomly by the number of people we think can fit into the house chamber.

    And I’ll say again, because you seem to stubbornly determined to ignore it, that nowhere does it say that this is supposed be an equitable distribution, no matter how much your neomarxist colleagues, and you, might want it to be so.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  288. January 6: Ashli Babbitt Day

    January 17: MLK Day

    April 1: DCSCA Day

    you asked for it

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f) — 1/5/2022 @ 8:14 pm

    I always thought you made excellent political points, AJ, but I didn’t know how capable you were of humor.

    Well done!

    norcal (d4ed1d)

  289. @FWO We can know that “according to their respective Numbers” meant per capita for congressmen because that’s how they did it for the first congress (1/30,000). We know that they meant it for electoral votes because they based them on the congressional apportionment (which was per capita) + Senators.

    Fortunately we don’t have to choose between oligarchy by smaller population state and oligarchy by any kind of billionaires (I am not concerned if the billionaires are left wing OR right wing, I don’t think they should be in control either). We can govern by majority with constitutional minority (and senatorial small population state) protections, as was intended.

    Nic (896fdf)

  290. We can know that “according to their respective Numbers” meant per capita for congressmen because that’s how they did it for the first congress (1/30,000).

    If they didn’t perpetuate the practice, then they did not mean an equitable distribution.

    We can govern by majority with constitutional minority (and senatorial small population state) protections, as was intended.

    That would be great if the left didn’t see every election victory as a mandate to push their agenda down everyone’s throat.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  291. @FWO@291 They did in fact perpetuate the practice. And democracy itself isn’t about the left or the right, it’s about the opinion of the majority of the people regardless of whether or not they are left or right. When the right wins the majority, the right sees every election victory as a mandate to push their agenda. When the left wins the majority, they see the same thing. If they (left or right) can get their agenda passed and continue to win elections that keep them in the majority and their agenda in place, that side is working in the majority (a good example of this on the right is the Contract with America in the 90s) and will continue to push their agenda until they are voted out of power. Democracy doesn’t care if you or I personally agree with the majority.

    Nic (896fdf)

  292. The way to end gerrymanders, weaken parties and make extremists less common in legislatures is to have multi-representative districts, where vote can only cast one vote. In such a district where the 2 (or 3 or 4) top vote-getters are elected, it is nearly impossible to gerrymander as any significant minority can concentrate votes on a particular candidate. Some of those elected will be towards the center in many districts, and party discipline means little if there’s no handle to control.

    Example: California currently has 40 Senate districts and 80 assembly districts. Get rid of the assembly districts and join the Senate districts so that there are 20 districts.

    Then hold an election for the assembly, where the top 4 candidates are elected, and for the state Senate where the top 2 candidates are elected. The Senate races can be staggered 10 this time, 10 next time.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  293. @280/@289

    … and Putin smiled.

    😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  294. I hope Biden’s speechwriter(s) have enough sense not to spike the rhetorical football. It will just exacerbate the tribalism.

    See if his word-workers taps any of these ‘anniversary events’ which occurred on January 6 in his speech. My bet- FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6

    January 6: It’s an anniversary of the unvaccinated fed by Big Meat, Teddy Roosevelt’s death and Rowan ‘Mr. Bean’ Atkinson’s birthday! So sing it, Joey:

    “Oh tie a yellow ribbon round the Rotunda with glee; it’s been one long year; and you’re stuck with ! So stay off my Capitol lawn!”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  295. ^me

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  296. @289. I always thought you made excellent political points, AJ, but I didn’t know how capable you were of humor.

    Neither was I. 😉

    Well-played, sir.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  297. 267. SF: President Joe Biden will give a speech tomorrow at the Capitol…

    He ave the speech really early.

    Excerpt: (maybe not word for word)

    Donald Trump is nor just a former president – he’s a defeated former president.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  298. 281/2 Nic (896fdf) — 1/5/2022 @ 8:20 pm & 8:21 pm

    . *those acts” [the apportionment cap in 1911 and ratification of that in 1929\ have also resulted in districts that are far far far too large for their representative to be personally invested in the people in their district.

    But too many districts for the office to be significant enough to get contested elections.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  299. “according to their respective Numbers,” = “based on an equitable number of citizens for each representative.” This is only calculated down to the state level, and qualified by ” but each State shall have at Least one Representative” but even Wyoming has enough of a population so that it would entitled to around 3/4 of a representative in a House of 435 members. The difference between the representation of different states comes from the Senate and the Electoral votes. The small population of some states (and the increased importance of each Senator) makes Senate races more competitive than they would be had they been proportionately divided. Big states sometimes, or often, don’t have competitive Senate races. Kirsten Gillebrand of New York got a pass three times (2010, 2012 and 2018) and we can say the same even about Schumer. (re-election in 2005 and 2010 and 2016)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  300. Seeing Trump as his potential opponent, Biden is going to spend the next 3 years demonizing him, Republicans in general, driving the wedge deeper because he cannot help himself, all the while calling for us to heal our wounds and come together.

    Then in Jan 2025 they do the same thing as Trump tried and succeed, with the press claiming it was necessary to overcome “obvious voting problems in GA, PA, AZ and WI.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  301. Then in Jan 2025 they do the same thing as Trump tried and succeed, with the press claiming it was necessary to overcome “obvious voting problems in GA, PA, AZ and WI.

    Not likely, and Biden sounded sincere (which is not so usual for him)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2544 secs.