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

I assume they want to say how ridiculous it is that all these small states have more say about who is president than the 10 million people who live in LA.

I think the answer is not abolition of the EC, but disempowering the presidency. Which, of course, is even less likely to happen.

 

Are we just taking in circle?

If the election is not in dispute, Trump cannot remain in power Constitutionally.

But you keep skipping over the point that "elected" is in dispute.

Lawsuit. You have the right to contest results through the judicial system, and it could end up being decided by the Supreme Court. If it gets to the SCOTUS and the Court ruled for him, he remains in power. If the Court does something else strange (throw out the result), I don't think anyone know what would happen next.

 

Trump can't call the election as being in dispute just because he wants to.

You also don't have the right to contest any results of an election and the state's are the the one to contest results.

So once again Trump cannot contest the result of the election he has no standing.

It's really pretty simple Trump has no power himself to dispute an election.

 

He cannot make the decision. He can file lawsuit. Court makes decision. I really prefer to not repeat this.

Here is one example of a federal court indicating that they could order a new Presidential election. This is but one example and one court, but it's an example that directly challenge the idea that only State gets to decide on dispute and federal court do not have a role. And even if only States get to decide (not conclusive), it doesn't exclude Trump's lawyers from working at that level.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/435/957/1424690/

The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections particularly Presidential contests is essential to a free and democratic society. See United States v. Classic, supra. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means, particularly in those states where no statutory procedures are available for contesting general elections.[18] Finally, federal courts *968 in the past have not hesitated to take jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of local elections and, where necessary, order new elections.[19] The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.

But before a federal court can responsibly order a new election, the claimants seeking this extraordinary relief must come forward with the most clear and convincing evidence that state officials or persons acting under color of state law, by intentionally depriving qualified voters of the right to vote, altered the outcome of the election.[20] A party contesting a Presidential election carries a heavy burden. Not to put too fine a point on it, this standard implies conduct of a most egregious nature, approximating criminal activity.​

So let me repeat one thing I've said before - "don't underestimate the creative usage of laws for political win". Of course he can file lawsuit to dispute an election result. The what, how, when, where of a lawsuit isn't a fixed known quantity and I don't think anyone knows enough to conclusively narrow it down to a defined box for something that has happen maybe once or twice in the history of the US. And as you can see above and even with very creative recent opinion from the Supreme Court, you don't know how the court will rule. You cannot simply conclusively state that the court will do this or that... especially, again, in the very partisan environment we are in.

None of this would be a concern if we have elected statesmans.

 

Your post makes no sense. If you got rid of the electoral college, everyone's vote would matter the exact same.

 

I agree with your last statement but once again Trump does not have the power to do anything himself that would extend his presidency which was your initial premise.


He himself could not bring a case not do so by executive order which was your original premise.

i never said something hinckey could not happen but even so Republican judges have ruled against Trump in the past.

And if there was a new election Pelosi would be in charge pending the results Trump would not be in charge.

I also saw this on that case.

Were we to embrace plaintiffs' theory, this court would henceforth be trust into the details of virtually every election, tinkering with the state's election machinery, reviewing petitions, registration cards, vote tallies, and certificates of election for all manner of error and insufficiency under state and federal law. Absent a clear and unambiguous mandate from Congress, we are not inclined to undertake such a wholesale expansion of our jurisdiction into an area which, with certain narrow and well defined exceptions, has been in the exclusive cognizance of the state courts. (footnote omitted)

And this is what happened in that case.

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied, and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, dismissing the complaint.

 

Those are highly probably scenarios, if not inevitable in a close election. As I stated before, in every close election, its always contested. If the election is close, both candidates will try everything in their power to sway their favor. That said, you can't call someone an illegitimate president because you disagreed with the outcome of the legislative or judicial process.

I fully agree with this assessment. Its inevitable this will happen, IMO. The foundation of our country will be compromised.

That said, its not going to be Trump (again, the OP's irrational fear)

 

And that, in fact, is what is wrong with the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. It's called "tyranny of the majority," something the founding fathers wanted to avoid.

And without the EC, small states would have no say in the election.

And we would effectively become the United States of Los Angeles, NYC and Chicago. I know some of you might like that idea. Many others don't.

There's not much of our Republic left. We are descending into democracy, with all its ills. Removal of the EC would further that decline.

 

I don't know how you still view it as irrational when Trump is probably the first US president to excessively spams the narrative the election is rigged if he lost along with on at least 6 different occasions "joked" about praising other foreign leaders for extending their terms to indefinitely.

 

His vote shouldn't be obliterated. It is the essence of a Republic. It's also why each state gets two Senators.

 

And 3 house seats.

Rural states are already given an edge in Congress. It's why the Republicans have a hold on the Senate. Seems the presidency should be based on everyone's vote counting the same given the disparity of influence rural states already get in Congress

 

I’ll add that it isn’t Trump only.

A pretty nightmarish scenario is a very close election and there is indeed hacking into some battle state election systems. Close to that is there isn’t hacking, but the real appearance of one that many American accepts. This would divide the country to a new level and we would be in complete uncharted territory for remedy. Because this admin and congress have failed to treat interference seriously and beef up the security of our election system and block foreign interference, this is a real possibility ... one that might be the next step a foreign power (or even internal) is looking at in 2020.

 

So you mean actual conspiracy / collusion with a foreign power instead of a manufactured one? One that definitely involved vote manipulation because that is the only way anyone gets 96%? Yea, that would create a real mess. Such a scenario would make both Biden and his VP choice illegitimate but Trump could still not stay in office. There would be a ton of lawsuits and SCOTUS would get involved and make the call. In the succession plan I would say it would likely go to the VP if he was not involved in the conspiracy or Speaker of the House. If Biden was allowed to take office he would be impeached and convicted by the Senate. If the SCOTUS did not act and the Democrats kept control of the House and refused to impeach Biden, it would likely lead to a civil war.

I sincerely hope we never see anything like this happen because it would create a real mess and severely damage this country. The manufactured one we have gone through has done enough damage. If it ever actually happened it would be something that would be hard to recover from.

 

I believe Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming only have one house seat each

 

DC has one too. Although they have no vote. Which is dumber than dumb. They also have no Senator and get only 1 vote in the electoral college (by law) even though they have more people than some states that have 3 votes.



DEMOCRACY!

 

I would agree with this. There's a libertarian meme running round the net that says something like, "if you don't like what this president is doing, maybe the office of the president has too much power."