Trump's team screamed about fraud without ever claiming fraud in court because the real play was ALWAYS to get state legislatures to simply disregard the election results and award their electoral votes to Trump. The frenzy that the base was whipped into by the fraud claims was intended to provide cover in the form of a political environment where state legislators might better justify what they had done. (If this sounds like just another conspiracy theory, I would love to hear another explanation for why fraud was never even presented in court.) Though cynical, unprincipled and indeed, un-American, had the election come down to just one or two states. it might well have worked. Mere state legislators may not have withstood the pressure that we saw brought to bear on the national legislature last week.
I am by no means a fan of Mitch McConnell, but he got it exactly right with that stuff about sending our democracy into a death spiral. He has seen this phenomenon himself in relation to the filibuster, where the Democrats' use of the "nuclear option" for certain nominations led Mitch to nuke it for Supreme Court nominations, which will almost certainly lead Democrats to eventually nuke it altogether. In the same fashion, if Republicans in either Congress or the state legislatures were to take this presidential election out of the hands of voters, Democrats would do the same thing the first chance they got and soon, we might as well not even bother with presidential elections.
And then there was Mike Pence, along with people like Brad Raffensperger and those two Republican legislative leaders from Michigan who Trump summoned to Washington. All chose country over party in refusing to dishonor the will of the American people, as expressed through our democratic process.
I have been sorely disappointed by my Republican brothers over the past four or five years. Now that the mask has been ripped from your eyes and you see just how dangerous Donald Trumpism is, keep on doing the right thing. Lindsay Graham may have said it best:
First, thank you for clearly saying that their were legal problems with judges overruling legislatures on voting rules. This is something that is serious. But, it will probably never be addressed because the focus has turned to Trump. Which is more of a dangerous insurrection the judicial usurpation of legislative powers or a group invading congressional chambers and cleared out in less than a day? (I think the demonstrators were rightly met with force. The judges never will be.)
Third, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning that people in a group can't mistake normal words used to rouse people to commitment to a political or religious cause and thus become violent when the speaker was not intending that. At the Last Supper Jesus told his disciples to get a sword if they didn't have one. Then Peter cut off the ear of one of those in the group who came to arrest Jesus. Was Jesus an inciter of violence/insurrection because one of his followers became violent?
Fourth, you are demonizing a whole class of people who have real concerns about widespread voting and other fraud in our governmental processes. History is full of instances where what couldn't be proved at the time was later proved to be true (or false).
I think we are stumbling over a common versus a legal definition of the word “fraud.” Ordinary people have a common sense approach to fairness and register funny business as fraudulent. We don’t understanding why unlawful procedures like denying poll watchers close access to counting doesn’t disqualify the votes or run afoul of equal protection. We are mystified why, e.g., boxes of ballots brought in a back door by night in the absence of poll watchers, stacks of unmailed, unfolded ballots machine-marked in only one oval, running tabulations showing votes disappearing, totals decreasing and votes switching, big batches of votes 99% for one candidate added all at once, Election Day registered voters finding their votes had already been cast on mail-in ballots, and comparison of public records revealing votes by the underage, out of area and deceased are not “genuine legal concerns.” We don’t understand why anyone would not want affidavits of aberrations checked into and machine workings made available for inquiry. We consider the popular vote in swing states to be the electoral vote. And, though we understand the reticence of judges to take up cases within such a short time frame, we don’t understand legal niceties like lack of standing, latches and improper filings causing the rejection of cases and sworn evidence not to be examined. I did not pay attention to the theater of some attorneys’ outlandish claims, but I also don’t know why having concerns that the voting process was in some cases fraudulently executed is labeled as believing in lies, or why every Constitutional avenue should not be exhausted. I think Ted Cruz and others like him recognize that the bewilderment of ordinary people, despite pronouncements of “no fraud, move along,” should be addressed so we may move forward trusting the process was free, fair and legitimate. His idea of calling for an investigation was a good one. I hope an extensive investigation can still go forward, so we may arrive at much more electoral transparency in at least mail-in tallying and machine counts in the future.
Let me try and explain. There is no "reticence" on the part of judges to take up election challenges. In my experience (having once handled one or two), election challenges get expedited review.
Everything you cited could have, and should have been presented in court. The most likely reason why it was not is that one is required to first plead and then prove that what you are presenting would change the outcome of the election. No lawyer is going to sign a pleading to that effect without actually being able to do so, at least arguably. Therefore, being unable to show enough to change the outcome, the lawyers handling Trump's challenges screamed fraud ("funny business" or whatever you want to call it) outside the courtroom while doing no such thing within.
Ultimately, all that boils down to a very simple answer to your question: Trump's lawyers could not show enough "funny business" to change the outcome of the election. Or stated another way, there was no massive voter fraud.
I appreciate your sharing your helpful insight, thank you. Perhaps the sticking point, then, is that the cases come before individual state jurisdictions, and, yes, no lawyer could argue that reversing the outcome in one state would change the national result. So even if there is enough fraud in a number of states taken together to change the outcome for president, the hands of individual lawyers spread out over multiple states are tied when it comes to suggesting fraud. It seems this doesn’t negate the possibility of widespread fraud, it’s just that legal efforts and pleas can’t be coordinated so that fraud can be argued. (Since the outcome in 2000 boiled down to only one state, the case lawyers brought in Florida could effectively challenge the result of the national election.) I think, then, in the special case of our two nationally elected offices we need to develop guidelines for a way results can be legally challenged taken as a whole even as the arguments take place in individual states as separate pieces of the puzzle.
What you suggest would basically end the electoral college. I should be happy about that, I'm a moderate-leaning liberal Democrat voter and national elections would put more Democrats in the White House than Republicans. But the electoral college is important in ensuring that all citizens have a fair chance for their votes to count.
Elections are held in the states. If elections were national, small states would have little to no say in electing a President, it would all be done in California and New York. To the extent there might be organized electoral fraud (there will always be some level of fraud), I believe it would be far easier to carry out and far more difficult to find and fight fraud on a national basis, not to mention that it would increase the number of proven fraudulent votes needed to change result to millions, instead of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
In my state of WIsconsin, there were undoubtedly some election "irregularities" in the way some local election officials managed the election (even if every vote under these procedures had been thrown out, Biden would still have won). But there is no evidence that voters who voted using these procedures (like "voting in the park" where voters could turn in absentee ballots to election officials in a local park before early voting began, rather in the clerk's office as required by law) were committing fraud, they were voting in good faith the way the election commission said they could. Even our Supreme Court had accepted Trump's suit and found for him on the merits, it is very unlikely that they would have overturned the election without evidence of actual voter fraud in numbers high enough to change the result.
Thanks for your reply. Hear, hear, preserve the electoral college and our great American patchwork of sovereign states! says this lady from flyover Ohio. I think I was not clear about proposing a recognized coordination of states, where lawyers are individually making a case for there being sufficient fraud to overturn a state’s results. In my imagined scenario each case would still be about the votes in a single state, but lawyers would be allowed to argue for fraud because the electoral votes of a combination of states whose results are arguably suspect could add up to a reversed electoral college result. I would think this would preserve a meaningful electoral college, as fraud could be legally broached and investigated state by state. This would only be invoked in the case of ample evidence of funny business in a sufficient number of states.
I do appreciate that voters who vote in the park are doing so as good citizens in good faith, and if they are turning over their ballots as on Election Day, in person with signature matching to certified election officials, I can see how the integrity of the vote is preserved. I object to the weak links in the chain of ballot custody of unsolicited ballots being mailed out en masse and multiplied unguarded ballot receptacles; these are invitations to the nefarious to fraudulently farm votes or add or manipulate ballots, which override the benefits of convenience. “One person, one vote” is sacrosanct in our republic. We are a nation of laws we agree upon through electing our legislators, and I feel that we should agree that votes not cast according to the law should not be accepted, no matter how good the intentions of the officials in taking it upon themselves to tweak the law. Laws that ensure a short, verifiable chain of custody ensure that each precious vote counts as equally as any other, give us confidence in a fair outcome and prevent alarm over suspect procedures from dividing us. Personally, I am more interested in a transparently fair outcome, with valid objections addressed so that I’m confident that all my fellow citizens and I have spoken, than I am in who wins.
I very much appreciate your taking the time for a good discussion, despite our political differences. Despite the partisan clamor out there, I do trust that the great majority of Americans on both sides remain generous and fair-minded toward each other.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree that we want elections that the majority of citizens can be confident are fair. It is up to each state's legislature to decide how to choose its electors and to set the standards for elections and the counting of ballots.
Therefore, I still respectfully disagree with your suggestion. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to do what you suggest, because, no matter how noble the intent, it interferes with each state's ability to control its own elections. It would subject voters and votes in different states to standards that were not set by that state's legislature and standards that were not part of that state's vote.
The time is now for each state's legislature to study its election procedures and enact new procedures as they deem necessary, so we are ready for the next election. It is then up to election commissions to follow the law in setting the up elections and counting the votes. Any known concerns must be litigated before the election, that is why our Supreme Court did not take the case on the voting in the park and other issues. There had already been lawsuits before the election, which were resolved by the Court, but voting in the park was not one of them, even though it was well known that it was happening (had it not been well-known, few if any would have been able to vote). Had Trump won, instead of Biden, I am sure he would never have contested those votes, which is why the courts require such litigation before the election. Further, he contested the vote in only two counties, even though all of the other procedures he objected to were statewide--this was a problem in Bush v. Gore and one of the reasons SCOTUS stopped the recount. And there was no discussion anywhere of the fact that if a ballot is thrown out, so are all the votes on the ballot, which would likely have changed the results for other federal, state and local offices. We didn't see any Republicans cheering on the possibility that they might lose elections they thought they had won.
As a side note, while signatures are compared to ballots in Wisconsin during the counting process, they are not compared at the time of turning in the ballot, in fact state law prohibits any procedures relating to counting the ballots before election day; thus signature-wise it made no difference in whether the ballots were turned in at the park or not.
We don't need more lawsuits, we don't need more fodder for lawsuits and we don't need procedures that invite lawsuits. Lawsuits are the opposite of confidence in elections. The answer lies in state law that expresses the will of that the people of that state through their legislature and governor and in adherence to that law by election officials and voters.
Only time for a brief reply. I do agree that it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to enable cases claiming fraud in the vote for national office to be brought in a number of individual states if their combined electoral vote total would change the results. But I don’t see how that would interfere with a state’s ability to control its own elections, when each case would be argued according to that state’s election law. I can also see, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases of disputes between states, that it could take up cases where funny business in one state results in disenfranchising the voters of another state, and clearer guidelines for bringing such suits would be helpful for next time. It is a muddle to ordinary folks that in some cases a court will say, you can’t object to a policy until someone is actually hurt by it and has standing, and in others, after the fact is too late. I agree that we don’t need more law suits, except when election officials and perhaps some ineligible voters do not adhere to state election laws, and it is then legal recourse that makes for confidence.
As someone said, it’s sad that America elected a president that needed adults in the room to restrain him. But, at the same time, this is also how it’s always been. The president is powerful but also constrained by traditions, personnel, and history. I think Trump could not accept this fact and soon shed as many constraints as possible. Because he was rarely challenged or checked, he began to think he could get away with anything. He finds it impossible to accept a reality not to his liking.
Anyway, from my analysis from the outside (I am one of your beloved democratic socialists), there’s a difference between Trumpism, traditional Republican ideology, and populist Republican ideology. Many expected the GOP to throw off Trumpism once he left. Because of his erstwhile popularity, politicians rode on his coattails but they were not sincere. Some still do, which will come back and haunt them. I don’t think the GOP expected it would have to renounce Trumpism and distance itself from it so quickly and so strongly. I look forward to the GOP rebuilding itself, reincorporating traditional Republican and conservative ideas and goals. Trumpism is an aberration.
The left and the right - let us work together to allow America to reach its full potential.
This is common refrain: Trump is bad because, because, because...oh, and other politicians, too. I think its apparent Trump had trouble not running things not as CEO. A non-politician plopped in the ultimate political position, sure there'll be a learning curve.
"Many": like all Ds, many Rs and the full force of the press? Then I agree, many. That doesn't make all the good the Trump accomplished wrong.
What is almost hilarious is how it seems, for the most part, those that were anti-Trump, that turned pro-Trump seem to be the fastest to run for the doors.
Your comments regarding the Vice President should be heard much more often. Far too often, we overlook what could have been, being too caught up in what has been. Thank you for this. Perhaps the wisest course for Conservative is to simply start doing what we actually believe. No histrionics, just action based on truth and conviction. As always, may God have mercy on America and continue to bless its leaders and give them wisdom.
Even our current Democrat leaders. God has used many pagans throughout history to do His will. While the Democrats as a whole certainly embrace a pagan mindset, not all are. Yet God can use every one.
BTW, He certainly used Trump, wherever Trump is on this continuum........
Yes, Yes, YES. I’ve been saying the same to my family that these actions have opened a new door that genuine conservative and real Christian people will suffer under. But alas, in the West, Christians do not really suffer-yet. As in the words of John The Beloved, “Even so Lord, come quickly.” We are seeing the beginning of the birth pains.
Fear is a great motivator. Or, as we say in the South "A scared dog will bite you faster than a mad dog will."
While I totally agree that the wild conspiracy theories pushed many otherwise sane and reasonable people, led by insane and unreasonable people, over the edge...we can't neglect to acknowledge why they were so very close to the edge in the first place.
Years, not just the past several months, but years of violent riots. Starting in 2012 in Ferguson...still ongoing in 2020. The "Portland...coming soon to a neighborhood near you!" threats from Antifa.
Constant "demands" from the Leftists for reparations. The "Equality Act" to criminalize Biblical viewpoints on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Identity politics that claim that no one male, white, Christian or heterosexual should be allowed to hold office...and then they elected Biden. Go figure.
"The Resistance" viragos marching in the streets wearing...those ridiculous pink hats, and screeching loudly that "white males" are the font of all evil.
Claims that if your 8 year old decides they want to change their gender...you will be forced to be compliant or your children can be taken from you. The sexual exploitation of young children, encouraged and supported by LGBT activists in schools.
"The dogma lives loudly within you." The Kavanaugh debacle.
The threatened nationwide shutdown of all small businesses. The Covid hysteria...people watching their loved ones die in nursing homes and hospitals, unable to even say goodbye or hold their hands to ease their passing. Funerals forbidden...unless it's George Floyd or John Lewis, or someone else the "Left" wants to honor with a funeral.
Places of worship closed, protests and riots allowed.
And every single bit of it encouraged and condoned by Democrats.
The fear that the people who want you dead...will now be in charge and able to fulfill their threats. The fear that Donald Trump, his family, and his supporters will be facing prosecution, vengeance and retribution from the Democrats.
As you said "What did they think was going to happen?"
Both parties have failed America. This has been a long time coming, and it ain't over yet. Much as I hope that cooler heads will prevail...the non-stop addiction to outrage and thirst for more and more drama is still ongoing in Washington...in both parties.
If you have to "go figure" how, after saying no male, white, Christian heterosexual should hold office, Democrats went ahead and elected one . . . maybe that is not what they said.
Well, perhaps you’ve missed the multiple articles and opinion pieces stating, as this HuffPost piece put it: “White Men Must Be Stopped:The Very Future of Mankind Depends On It”, or the NYTimes piece: “The Next President Should Not Be A Man”, and “Should a White Male Be the Face of the Democrat Party”, or perhaps you didn’t see the Stacey Abrams supporters shouting down Stacy Evans supporters at an Evans rally with t-shirts saying “Elect Black Women”, or the Vox piece entitled “Congress is more diverse, but it’s still pretty white”...maybe you missed the claims made by NPR that unless Biden picked a black woman for a running mate, he would lose to Trump.
But just because you haven’t seen them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Should I look at what your fellow Trump supporters did and attribute that to the entire Republican Party? To the contrary, they no more represent the sentiments of all Republicans than what a few knuckleheads have written about white men says about of all Democrats.
What IS representative of a Democratic perspective is that which a majority of them did: They elected a male, white, Christian heterosexual.
Have you been paying attention to what the Democrats in Congress are saying? They already ARE attributing what happened at the Capitol to the entire Republican Party, despite loud and vocal condemnation of the violence by conservatives and Republicans.
Do you see Republican members of Congress donating to fund bail for the DC rioters? If you do, please let me know so I can excoriate them publicly.
Biden was picked to ride in on Obama’s coattails. And...even Biden himself has called it the “Harris administration” and referred to Kamala as the “President elect”. Not hard to see where this is going.
But you believe what you wish...your party’s leaders have no desire for unity, only elimination of dissent. As Robert H. Jackson said:
“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
I should add that I don't believe that Democrats are blaming all Republicans in Congress: just those who persisted in challenging the election EVEN AFTER the overall effort had resulted in the first assault on our national seat of government in more than 200 years.
They absolutely had to do that. If they allowed them to end the political process of challenging the election...that’s giving into terrorism and encouraging others to take similar action whenever they want to call a halt to anything.
But...it wasn’t the first assault at the Capitol. Lolita Lebrun and her fellow Puerto Rican activists shot five Congressmen at the Capitol in 1954 over an immigration bill. She was sentenced to 50 years, Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence after 25 years, and she went back to Puerto Rico to continue her “activism”. Her portrait is in the Smithsonian, honored as a “freedom fighter”.
Then there was Susan Rosenbaum in 1983, member of a terrorist group associated with the Weather Underground that bombed the Capitol Building in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Senate Republicans...Clinton commuted her sentence and she’s now fundraising for BLM.
No, I'm not saying all Democrats are bad people. I know many that I am very fond of, and they are genuinely caring and good people.
But there is, whether you see it or not, a vast amount of prejudice, bigotry and hate towards white Christian males coming from the Left, and their "identity politics" is causing more hate and division than this country can stand.
Put the term "white Christian males" in your search engine...read some of the articles that pop up.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, there were complaints...loud and vocal complaints...that there were so many "old, white men" on the Committee.
We must move on and the election was not stolen. I never believed it was. I was concerned but I never believed the election was stolen. We must move forward. There is much work to do. I am disappointed in Donald Trump. In 6 years we will be over this and it will be a memory. We must let the new Administration work and see what they pull out. My God is not politics and it never was. We are not going to Hell in a hand basket, well some of us aren't. I for one am going to Heaven and I am going to live my life as such. I just got back from 10 days in California and I am absolutely sickened by what I saw. Homeless camps and tent cities everywhere. People have made ply wood structures on the side walks. I saw people bathing in the street out of milk jugs. For a moment I had to slap myself to remind me that I was in the US. What about them? Do you think they care about a clown show?
Why are you complaining about Mike Flynn? He was set up by the FBI. They played the man and ruined him.
Trump's team screamed about fraud without ever claiming fraud in court because the real play was ALWAYS to get state legislatures to simply disregard the election results and award their electoral votes to Trump. The frenzy that the base was whipped into by the fraud claims was intended to provide cover in the form of a political environment where state legislators might better justify what they had done. (If this sounds like just another conspiracy theory, I would love to hear another explanation for why fraud was never even presented in court.) Though cynical, unprincipled and indeed, un-American, had the election come down to just one or two states. it might well have worked. Mere state legislators may not have withstood the pressure that we saw brought to bear on the national legislature last week.
I am by no means a fan of Mitch McConnell, but he got it exactly right with that stuff about sending our democracy into a death spiral. He has seen this phenomenon himself in relation to the filibuster, where the Democrats' use of the "nuclear option" for certain nominations led Mitch to nuke it for Supreme Court nominations, which will almost certainly lead Democrats to eventually nuke it altogether. In the same fashion, if Republicans in either Congress or the state legislatures were to take this presidential election out of the hands of voters, Democrats would do the same thing the first chance they got and soon, we might as well not even bother with presidential elections.
And then there was Mike Pence, along with people like Brad Raffensperger and those two Republican legislative leaders from Michigan who Trump summoned to Washington. All chose country over party in refusing to dishonor the will of the American people, as expressed through our democratic process.
I have been sorely disappointed by my Republican brothers over the past four or five years. Now that the mask has been ripped from your eyes and you see just how dangerous Donald Trumpism is, keep on doing the right thing. Lindsay Graham may have said it best:
"Enough is enough."
What happened to your “I Told You So” post from January 6, 2021? It does not appear in your post search engine results. Interesting?
First, thank you for clearly saying that their were legal problems with judges overruling legislatures on voting rules. This is something that is serious. But, it will probably never be addressed because the focus has turned to Trump. Which is more of a dangerous insurrection the judicial usurpation of legislative powers or a group invading congressional chambers and cleared out in less than a day? (I think the demonstrators were rightly met with force. The judges never will be.)
Second, interesting that even the ACLU is concerned about people's social media accounts being cancelled because they don't say approved things. https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/01/liberal-american-civil-liberties-union-aclu-opposes-trump-but-expresses-concern-over-big-tech-censorship-of-him/
Third, I find it difficult to follow your reasoning that people in a group can't mistake normal words used to rouse people to commitment to a political or religious cause and thus become violent when the speaker was not intending that. At the Last Supper Jesus told his disciples to get a sword if they didn't have one. Then Peter cut off the ear of one of those in the group who came to arrest Jesus. Was Jesus an inciter of violence/insurrection because one of his followers became violent?
Fourth, you are demonizing a whole class of people who have real concerns about widespread voting and other fraud in our governmental processes. History is full of instances where what couldn't be proved at the time was later proved to be true (or false).
And.....ask Erick why he advocated to have the capitol protestors shot.
"Fourth, you are demonizing a whole class of people who have real concerns about widespread voting and other fraud in our governmental processes."
Thank you.
Amen! Mike Pence is the true patriot here! I hope he runs in 2024!
I think we are stumbling over a common versus a legal definition of the word “fraud.” Ordinary people have a common sense approach to fairness and register funny business as fraudulent. We don’t understanding why unlawful procedures like denying poll watchers close access to counting doesn’t disqualify the votes or run afoul of equal protection. We are mystified why, e.g., boxes of ballots brought in a back door by night in the absence of poll watchers, stacks of unmailed, unfolded ballots machine-marked in only one oval, running tabulations showing votes disappearing, totals decreasing and votes switching, big batches of votes 99% for one candidate added all at once, Election Day registered voters finding their votes had already been cast on mail-in ballots, and comparison of public records revealing votes by the underage, out of area and deceased are not “genuine legal concerns.” We don’t understand why anyone would not want affidavits of aberrations checked into and machine workings made available for inquiry. We consider the popular vote in swing states to be the electoral vote. And, though we understand the reticence of judges to take up cases within such a short time frame, we don’t understand legal niceties like lack of standing, latches and improper filings causing the rejection of cases and sworn evidence not to be examined. I did not pay attention to the theater of some attorneys’ outlandish claims, but I also don’t know why having concerns that the voting process was in some cases fraudulently executed is labeled as believing in lies, or why every Constitutional avenue should not be exhausted. I think Ted Cruz and others like him recognize that the bewilderment of ordinary people, despite pronouncements of “no fraud, move along,” should be addressed so we may move forward trusting the process was free, fair and legitimate. His idea of calling for an investigation was a good one. I hope an extensive investigation can still go forward, so we may arrive at much more electoral transparency in at least mail-in tallying and machine counts in the future.
Let me try and explain. There is no "reticence" on the part of judges to take up election challenges. In my experience (having once handled one or two), election challenges get expedited review.
Everything you cited could have, and should have been presented in court. The most likely reason why it was not is that one is required to first plead and then prove that what you are presenting would change the outcome of the election. No lawyer is going to sign a pleading to that effect without actually being able to do so, at least arguably. Therefore, being unable to show enough to change the outcome, the lawyers handling Trump's challenges screamed fraud ("funny business" or whatever you want to call it) outside the courtroom while doing no such thing within.
Ultimately, all that boils down to a very simple answer to your question: Trump's lawyers could not show enough "funny business" to change the outcome of the election. Or stated another way, there was no massive voter fraud.
I appreciate your sharing your helpful insight, thank you. Perhaps the sticking point, then, is that the cases come before individual state jurisdictions, and, yes, no lawyer could argue that reversing the outcome in one state would change the national result. So even if there is enough fraud in a number of states taken together to change the outcome for president, the hands of individual lawyers spread out over multiple states are tied when it comes to suggesting fraud. It seems this doesn’t negate the possibility of widespread fraud, it’s just that legal efforts and pleas can’t be coordinated so that fraud can be argued. (Since the outcome in 2000 boiled down to only one state, the case lawyers brought in Florida could effectively challenge the result of the national election.) I think, then, in the special case of our two nationally elected offices we need to develop guidelines for a way results can be legally challenged taken as a whole even as the arguments take place in individual states as separate pieces of the puzzle.
What you suggest would basically end the electoral college. I should be happy about that, I'm a moderate-leaning liberal Democrat voter and national elections would put more Democrats in the White House than Republicans. But the electoral college is important in ensuring that all citizens have a fair chance for their votes to count.
Elections are held in the states. If elections were national, small states would have little to no say in electing a President, it would all be done in California and New York. To the extent there might be organized electoral fraud (there will always be some level of fraud), I believe it would be far easier to carry out and far more difficult to find and fight fraud on a national basis, not to mention that it would increase the number of proven fraudulent votes needed to change result to millions, instead of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
In my state of WIsconsin, there were undoubtedly some election "irregularities" in the way some local election officials managed the election (even if every vote under these procedures had been thrown out, Biden would still have won). But there is no evidence that voters who voted using these procedures (like "voting in the park" where voters could turn in absentee ballots to election officials in a local park before early voting began, rather in the clerk's office as required by law) were committing fraud, they were voting in good faith the way the election commission said they could. Even our Supreme Court had accepted Trump's suit and found for him on the merits, it is very unlikely that they would have overturned the election without evidence of actual voter fraud in numbers high enough to change the result.
Thanks for your reply. Hear, hear, preserve the electoral college and our great American patchwork of sovereign states! says this lady from flyover Ohio. I think I was not clear about proposing a recognized coordination of states, where lawyers are individually making a case for there being sufficient fraud to overturn a state’s results. In my imagined scenario each case would still be about the votes in a single state, but lawyers would be allowed to argue for fraud because the electoral votes of a combination of states whose results are arguably suspect could add up to a reversed electoral college result. I would think this would preserve a meaningful electoral college, as fraud could be legally broached and investigated state by state. This would only be invoked in the case of ample evidence of funny business in a sufficient number of states.
I do appreciate that voters who vote in the park are doing so as good citizens in good faith, and if they are turning over their ballots as on Election Day, in person with signature matching to certified election officials, I can see how the integrity of the vote is preserved. I object to the weak links in the chain of ballot custody of unsolicited ballots being mailed out en masse and multiplied unguarded ballot receptacles; these are invitations to the nefarious to fraudulently farm votes or add or manipulate ballots, which override the benefits of convenience. “One person, one vote” is sacrosanct in our republic. We are a nation of laws we agree upon through electing our legislators, and I feel that we should agree that votes not cast according to the law should not be accepted, no matter how good the intentions of the officials in taking it upon themselves to tweak the law. Laws that ensure a short, verifiable chain of custody ensure that each precious vote counts as equally as any other, give us confidence in a fair outcome and prevent alarm over suspect procedures from dividing us. Personally, I am more interested in a transparently fair outcome, with valid objections addressed so that I’m confident that all my fellow citizens and I have spoken, than I am in who wins.
I very much appreciate your taking the time for a good discussion, despite our political differences. Despite the partisan clamor out there, I do trust that the great majority of Americans on both sides remain generous and fair-minded toward each other.
Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree that we want elections that the majority of citizens can be confident are fair. It is up to each state's legislature to decide how to choose its electors and to set the standards for elections and the counting of ballots.
Therefore, I still respectfully disagree with your suggestion. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to do what you suggest, because, no matter how noble the intent, it interferes with each state's ability to control its own elections. It would subject voters and votes in different states to standards that were not set by that state's legislature and standards that were not part of that state's vote.
The time is now for each state's legislature to study its election procedures and enact new procedures as they deem necessary, so we are ready for the next election. It is then up to election commissions to follow the law in setting the up elections and counting the votes. Any known concerns must be litigated before the election, that is why our Supreme Court did not take the case on the voting in the park and other issues. There had already been lawsuits before the election, which were resolved by the Court, but voting in the park was not one of them, even though it was well known that it was happening (had it not been well-known, few if any would have been able to vote). Had Trump won, instead of Biden, I am sure he would never have contested those votes, which is why the courts require such litigation before the election. Further, he contested the vote in only two counties, even though all of the other procedures he objected to were statewide--this was a problem in Bush v. Gore and one of the reasons SCOTUS stopped the recount. And there was no discussion anywhere of the fact that if a ballot is thrown out, so are all the votes on the ballot, which would likely have changed the results for other federal, state and local offices. We didn't see any Republicans cheering on the possibility that they might lose elections they thought they had won.
As a side note, while signatures are compared to ballots in Wisconsin during the counting process, they are not compared at the time of turning in the ballot, in fact state law prohibits any procedures relating to counting the ballots before election day; thus signature-wise it made no difference in whether the ballots were turned in at the park or not.
We don't need more lawsuits, we don't need more fodder for lawsuits and we don't need procedures that invite lawsuits. Lawsuits are the opposite of confidence in elections. The answer lies in state law that expresses the will of that the people of that state through their legislature and governor and in adherence to that law by election officials and voters.
Only time for a brief reply. I do agree that it would likely take a Constitutional amendment to enable cases claiming fraud in the vote for national office to be brought in a number of individual states if their combined electoral vote total would change the results. But I don’t see how that would interfere with a state’s ability to control its own elections, when each case would be argued according to that state’s election law. I can also see, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases of disputes between states, that it could take up cases where funny business in one state results in disenfranchising the voters of another state, and clearer guidelines for bringing such suits would be helpful for next time. It is a muddle to ordinary folks that in some cases a court will say, you can’t object to a policy until someone is actually hurt by it and has standing, and in others, after the fact is too late. I agree that we don’t need more law suits, except when election officials and perhaps some ineligible voters do not adhere to state election laws, and it is then legal recourse that makes for confidence.
Great post! Totally agree!
Many thanks for the encouragement!
Thank you. This is by far the best reply on this post and the one actaully connected to reality.
Thank you! Very encouraging!
Your comments about Mike Pence are spot on. Thank you!
Thank you, Erick.
As someone said, it’s sad that America elected a president that needed adults in the room to restrain him. But, at the same time, this is also how it’s always been. The president is powerful but also constrained by traditions, personnel, and history. I think Trump could not accept this fact and soon shed as many constraints as possible. Because he was rarely challenged or checked, he began to think he could get away with anything. He finds it impossible to accept a reality not to his liking.
Anyway, from my analysis from the outside (I am one of your beloved democratic socialists), there’s a difference between Trumpism, traditional Republican ideology, and populist Republican ideology. Many expected the GOP to throw off Trumpism once he left. Because of his erstwhile popularity, politicians rode on his coattails but they were not sincere. Some still do, which will come back and haunt them. I don’t think the GOP expected it would have to renounce Trumpism and distance itself from it so quickly and so strongly. I look forward to the GOP rebuilding itself, reincorporating traditional Republican and conservative ideas and goals. Trumpism is an aberration.
The left and the right - let us work together to allow America to reach its full potential.
This is common refrain: Trump is bad because, because, because...oh, and other politicians, too. I think its apparent Trump had trouble not running things not as CEO. A non-politician plopped in the ultimate political position, sure there'll be a learning curve.
"Many": like all Ds, many Rs and the full force of the press? Then I agree, many. That doesn't make all the good the Trump accomplished wrong.
What is almost hilarious is how it seems, for the most part, those that were anti-Trump, that turned pro-Trump seem to be the fastest to run for the doors.
"Rudy in a speedo and filming him with an iPhone while he is flinging his TV remote control yelling “Are you not entertained?”"
Hilarious, though I could've done without the visual...
Keep up the great work Erick!
Your comments regarding the Vice President should be heard much more often. Far too often, we overlook what could have been, being too caught up in what has been. Thank you for this. Perhaps the wisest course for Conservative is to simply start doing what we actually believe. No histrionics, just action based on truth and conviction. As always, may God have mercy on America and continue to bless its leaders and give them wisdom.
Even our current Democrat leaders. God has used many pagans throughout history to do His will. While the Democrats as a whole certainly embrace a pagan mindset, not all are. Yet God can use every one.
BTW, He certainly used Trump, wherever Trump is on this continuum........
Thanks, Eric. In addition to all of the horrible acts I've seen over the last week, I now have to live with the vision of Rudy Giuliani in a speedo.
Hands down... one of your best letters! Balanced, thorough, thoughtful. Thank you!
Yes, Yes, YES. I’ve been saying the same to my family that these actions have opened a new door that genuine conservative and real Christian people will suffer under. But alas, in the West, Christians do not really suffer-yet. As in the words of John The Beloved, “Even so Lord, come quickly.” We are seeing the beginning of the birth pains.
Fear is a great motivator. Or, as we say in the South "A scared dog will bite you faster than a mad dog will."
While I totally agree that the wild conspiracy theories pushed many otherwise sane and reasonable people, led by insane and unreasonable people, over the edge...we can't neglect to acknowledge why they were so very close to the edge in the first place.
Years, not just the past several months, but years of violent riots. Starting in 2012 in Ferguson...still ongoing in 2020. The "Portland...coming soon to a neighborhood near you!" threats from Antifa.
Constant "demands" from the Leftists for reparations. The "Equality Act" to criminalize Biblical viewpoints on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Identity politics that claim that no one male, white, Christian or heterosexual should be allowed to hold office...and then they elected Biden. Go figure.
"The Resistance" viragos marching in the streets wearing...those ridiculous pink hats, and screeching loudly that "white males" are the font of all evil.
Claims that if your 8 year old decides they want to change their gender...you will be forced to be compliant or your children can be taken from you. The sexual exploitation of young children, encouraged and supported by LGBT activists in schools.
"The dogma lives loudly within you." The Kavanaugh debacle.
The threatened nationwide shutdown of all small businesses. The Covid hysteria...people watching their loved ones die in nursing homes and hospitals, unable to even say goodbye or hold their hands to ease their passing. Funerals forbidden...unless it's George Floyd or John Lewis, or someone else the "Left" wants to honor with a funeral.
Places of worship closed, protests and riots allowed.
And every single bit of it encouraged and condoned by Democrats.
The fear that the people who want you dead...will now be in charge and able to fulfill their threats. The fear that Donald Trump, his family, and his supporters will be facing prosecution, vengeance and retribution from the Democrats.
As you said "What did they think was going to happen?"
Both parties have failed America. This has been a long time coming, and it ain't over yet. Much as I hope that cooler heads will prevail...the non-stop addiction to outrage and thirst for more and more drama is still ongoing in Washington...in both parties.
But God is still in charge. His will be done.
If you have to "go figure" how, after saying no male, white, Christian heterosexual should hold office, Democrats went ahead and elected one . . . maybe that is not what they said.
A lot of what you wrote is not what they've said.
Likewise, a lot of what people say Trump said...is not what he said.
Until we can all discuss from the same facts...we simply won't get anywhere.
Well, perhaps you’ve missed the multiple articles and opinion pieces stating, as this HuffPost piece put it: “White Men Must Be Stopped:The Very Future of Mankind Depends On It”, or the NYTimes piece: “The Next President Should Not Be A Man”, and “Should a White Male Be the Face of the Democrat Party”, or perhaps you didn’t see the Stacey Abrams supporters shouting down Stacy Evans supporters at an Evans rally with t-shirts saying “Elect Black Women”, or the Vox piece entitled “Congress is more diverse, but it’s still pretty white”...maybe you missed the claims made by NPR that unless Biden picked a black woman for a running mate, he would lose to Trump.
But just because you haven’t seen them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Should I look at what your fellow Trump supporters did and attribute that to the entire Republican Party? To the contrary, they no more represent the sentiments of all Republicans than what a few knuckleheads have written about white men says about of all Democrats.
What IS representative of a Democratic perspective is that which a majority of them did: They elected a male, white, Christian heterosexual.
Have you been paying attention to what the Democrats in Congress are saying? They already ARE attributing what happened at the Capitol to the entire Republican Party, despite loud and vocal condemnation of the violence by conservatives and Republicans.
Do you see Republican members of Congress donating to fund bail for the DC rioters? If you do, please let me know so I can excoriate them publicly.
Biden was picked to ride in on Obama’s coattails. And...even Biden himself has called it the “Harris administration” and referred to Kamala as the “President elect”. Not hard to see where this is going.
But you believe what you wish...your party’s leaders have no desire for unity, only elimination of dissent. As Robert H. Jackson said:
“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
I should add that I don't believe that Democrats are blaming all Republicans in Congress: just those who persisted in challenging the election EVEN AFTER the overall effort had resulted in the first assault on our national seat of government in more than 200 years.
The term "stuck on stupid" comes to mind.
@Neil....Merleliz has you beat in this debate.
Dems challenged the 2016 election, but that doesn't count, right?
They absolutely had to do that. If they allowed them to end the political process of challenging the election...that’s giving into terrorism and encouraging others to take similar action whenever they want to call a halt to anything.
But...it wasn’t the first assault at the Capitol. Lolita Lebrun and her fellow Puerto Rican activists shot five Congressmen at the Capitol in 1954 over an immigration bill. She was sentenced to 50 years, Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence after 25 years, and she went back to Puerto Rico to continue her “activism”. Her portrait is in the Smithsonian, honored as a “freedom fighter”.
Then there was Susan Rosenbaum in 1983, member of a terrorist group associated with the Weather Underground that bombed the Capitol Building in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Senate Republicans...Clinton commuted her sentence and she’s now fundraising for BLM.
OK, I get it. Democrats are bad people. My only point was that Democrats have nothing against male, white, Christian heterosexuals.
@Neil.......Merleliz really really has you “spanked”.
No, I'm not saying all Democrats are bad people. I know many that I am very fond of, and they are genuinely caring and good people.
But there is, whether you see it or not, a vast amount of prejudice, bigotry and hate towards white Christian males coming from the Left, and their "identity politics" is causing more hate and division than this country can stand.
Put the term "white Christian males" in your search engine...read some of the articles that pop up.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, there were complaints...loud and vocal complaints...that there were so many "old, white men" on the Committee.
"The dogma lives loudly within you" was Diane Feinstein to ACB when she was up for the appellate court.
I know...I should probably have indicated that they were separate incidents, I was just thinking of the way both potential justices had been treated.
Yes thank you Vice President Pence
We must move on and the election was not stolen. I never believed it was. I was concerned but I never believed the election was stolen. We must move forward. There is much work to do. I am disappointed in Donald Trump. In 6 years we will be over this and it will be a memory. We must let the new Administration work and see what they pull out. My God is not politics and it never was. We are not going to Hell in a hand basket, well some of us aren't. I for one am going to Heaven and I am going to live my life as such. I just got back from 10 days in California and I am absolutely sickened by what I saw. Homeless camps and tent cities everywhere. People have made ply wood structures on the side walks. I saw people bathing in the street out of milk jugs. For a moment I had to slap myself to remind me that I was in the US. What about them? Do you think they care about a clown show?