No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting.
-
Scale of US elections:
51 states (and DC), each with its own election laws
Most ballot questions are for state and local offices and initiatives
~ 5000 local election administration jurisdictions (mostly counties and townships), which run election logistics
~ 115,000 local polling places, mostly borrowed for election day
~ 750,000 election day workers
~ 138,000,000 ballots cast in 2016, 82,000,000 of which at local polling places on election day.
It’s hard to overstate just how huge this system is, or how many moving parts are involved. And almost all of it operates at the local level, governed by state laws and local practices and tied to the structure of local government.
This is not something you can just snap your fingers and take over by fiat or force, not to mention the fact that it’s all deeply embedded in federal and state constitutional structures.
-
No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting. Elections are governed by states, and, to a limited extent, Congress. Not the executive branch.
There are plenty of very real, immediate threats to democracy to get worked up about right now. This isn’t one of them.
@mattblaze Ok so nationalizing by decree is out. What are the election dangers we/the US people should be worrying about?
-
Scale of US elections:
51 states (and DC), each with its own election laws
Most ballot questions are for state and local offices and initiatives
~ 5000 local election administration jurisdictions (mostly counties and townships), which run election logistics
~ 115,000 local polling places, mostly borrowed for election day
~ 750,000 election day workers
~ 138,000,000 ballots cast in 2016, 82,000,000 of which at local polling places on election day.
@mattblaze I should stop declaring things "non-starters" but Americans like and trust their local elections.
-
@dominykas It’s like asking why he can’t suspend laws of thermodynamics or declare himself to be eight feet tall. It’s simply not a thing he controls.
@mattblaze @dominykas Matt - first of kudos for your patience and for your long years of expertise in the topic (and the fact you engage with the public).
As an outside observer (not from the US, so certainly cannot appreciate all the intrinsic issues for the US), I think that the sentiment fueling the fear is based on things people see ICE (or similar schenenigans). The federal gov't seems to operate ICE outside the local law in many places, not adhering to the rule of law >>>
-
@dominykas It’s like asking why he can’t suspend laws of thermodynamics or declare himself to be eight feet tall. It’s simply not a thing he controls.
@mattblaze @dominykas He declares himself to be 6'3" and while that doesn't make it so. That's what's recorded in many records and what many choose to believe. If a similar number of people chose to believe that Trumps self appointed authority to nationalize elections was valid, what are the practical limitations there?
-
It’s hard to overstate just how huge this system is, or how many moving parts are involved. And almost all of it operates at the local level, governed by state laws and local practices and tied to the structure of local government.
This is not something you can just snap your fingers and take over by fiat or force, not to mention the fact that it’s all deeply embedded in federal and state constitutional structures.
@mattblaze
It aeems to me that his "power" across the board (that is, irrespective of which elections & where they occur) appears to be theatrical declarations to the press & on social media — which do affect many people when they hear/read them — and the general ability to create chaos and more intimidation by, for example, putting any sort of "enforcement" agents on streets & around polling places. Those could be ICE, National Guard, regular military, et al., legal or not.Correct assumption?
-
@mattblaze @dominykas Matt - first of kudos for your patience and for your long years of expertise in the topic (and the fact you engage with the public).
As an outside observer (not from the US, so certainly cannot appreciate all the intrinsic issues for the US), I think that the sentiment fueling the fear is based on things people see ICE (or similar schenenigans). The federal gov't seems to operate ICE outside the local law in many places, not adhering to the rule of law >>>
@mattblaze @dominykas Top that with the inuerent fragility and unstability of the US elections from outcome perspective (where a voter in Georgia has a much greater impact on the outcome than the voter in California), topped with a bit of history of gerrymandering, voter suppression and all the "goodies" that you are much more qualified than any of us to list, and the collaboration of Trumpists in local/state level, does projects instability >>>
-
Scale of US elections:
51 states (and DC), each with its own election laws
Most ballot questions are for state and local offices and initiatives
~ 5000 local election administration jurisdictions (mostly counties and townships), which run election logistics
~ 115,000 local polling places, mostly borrowed for election day
~ 750,000 election day workers
~ 138,000,000 ballots cast in 2016, 82,000,000 of which at local polling places on election day.
@mattblaze I'm not an election expert, but it's interesting to compare this with the electoral apparatus in India, which is considerably larger, but also more federalised (and presumably more recent) and now completely dependent on electronic voting machines. (It's also been pretty thoroughly subverted in recent years, but that's as an aside, because I'm not mentioning it to disagree with your point about US elections.)
-
@mattblaze @dominykas He has no legal ability. He has plenty of illegal ones he may or may not risk.
@mattblaze @dominykas @lastofthem Such as?
-
@mattblaze @dominykas Matt - first of kudos for your patience and for your long years of expertise in the topic (and the fact you engage with the public).
As an outside observer (not from the US, so certainly cannot appreciate all the intrinsic issues for the US), I think that the sentiment fueling the fear is based on things people see ICE (or similar schenenigans). The federal gov't seems to operate ICE outside the local law in many places, not adhering to the rule of law >>>
@mkilmo @dominykas Trump has done all sorts of terrible things. That doesn’t mean that his powers are unlimited, or that every terrible thing he might want to do is equally achievable.
What ICE is doing is terrible, but enforcing immigration laws has long (and uncontroversially) been an executive branch power. Running elections, on the other hand, simply isn’t.
-
@mattblaze @dominykas Top that with the inuerent fragility and unstability of the US elections from outcome perspective (where a voter in Georgia has a much greater impact on the outcome than the voter in California), topped with a bit of history of gerrymandering, voter suppression and all the "goodies" that you are much more qualified than any of us to list, and the collaboration of Trumpists in local/state level, does projects instability >>>
@mattblaze @dominykas I mean, a bit of voter suppression in purple counties (with much better information about who to target befause of state records), a bit of making sure some district has a huge "mistrust" in the mechanism, so you add one Trumpist to the board to "prove you have nothing to hide" (the logical thing to do in general, and wrongest in these adversarial settings), could fuel more conspiracy theories. >>>
-
@mattblaze @dominykas I mean, a bit of voter suppression in purple counties (with much better information about who to target befause of state records), a bit of making sure some district has a huge "mistrust" in the mechanism, so you add one Trumpist to the board to "prove you have nothing to hide" (the logical thing to do in general, and wrongest in these adversarial settings), could fuel more conspiracy theories. >>>
@mattblaze @dominykas I mean - think of a scenario where one of the officials in the elections committee in Mariposa county (a Trumpist) insists that there was a miscount?
This will fuel all conspiracists, and Jan 6th would be a walk in the park.
-
@mkilmo @dominykas Trump has done all sorts of terrible things. That doesn’t mean that his powers are unlimited, or that every terrible thing he might want to do is equally achievable.
What ICE is doing is terrible, but enforcing immigration laws has long (and uncontroversially) been an executive branch power. Running elections, on the other hand, simply isn’t.
@mattblaze @dominykas Again, I agree that Trump as the executive branch is not legally capable.
But a. Trump does not adhere to rule of law (think of ICE agents happening to run around Latin neighbourhoods in Arizona).
B. He has accomplices and allies in the local/state legal "playgrounds" -
@mkilmo @dominykas Trump has done all sorts of terrible things. That doesn’t mean that his powers are unlimited, or that every terrible thing he might want to do is equally achievable.
What ICE is doing is terrible, but enforcing immigration laws has long (and uncontroversially) been an executive branch power. Running elections, on the other hand, simply isn’t.
@mkilmo @dominykas Elections are simply totally outside of what the president controls, not to mention what anyone involved in them thinks he controls. This is very different from almost everything else he’s done, which involved misusing or abusing existing presidential power in some way.
It’s like if he declared that Rhode Island is no longer a state. Everyone would just shrug.
-
@mkilmo @dominykas Elections are simply totally outside of what the president controls, not to mention what anyone involved in them thinks he controls. This is very different from almost everything else he’s done, which involved misusing or abusing existing presidential power in some way.
It’s like if he declared that Rhode Island is no longer a state. Everyone would just shrug.
@mattblaze @mkilmo @dominykas Serious Q: do you trust J. D. Vance to certify the election count is accurate on January 6th 2028? (Assuming Trump lasts that long.)
-
@mkilmo @dominykas Elections are simply totally outside of what the president controls, not to mention what anyone involved in them thinks he controls. This is very different from almost everything else he’s done, which involved misusing or abusing existing presidential power in some way.
It’s like if he declared that Rhode Island is no longer a state. Everyone would just shrug.
@mkilmo @dominykas And he’s done this ineffective stuff before, including with elections. A few months back he issued an executive order “banning” vote-by-mail, which had exactly no effect whatsoever. This is the same as that.
-
@mattblaze @mkilmo @dominykas Serious Q: do you trust J. D. Vance to certify the election count is accurate on January 6th 2028? (Assuming Trump lasts that long.)
@cstross @mkilmo @dominykas On that specific point I’m fairly unconcerned, because legislation post 2020 made clear that the VP’s role in the certification is entirely ministerial and non-discretionary.
-
hi, longtime follower of yours, the daisy account joined a day or two ago and is engagement farming (if that is the right word), not even sincerely if annoyingly arguing. "her" handful of interactions are replying to a couple/few big accts including yours
@inquiline in my time we used the term “trolling”, but I guess “engagement farming” works as a synonym 8-D
-
@cstross @mkilmo @dominykas On that specific point I’m fairly unconcerned, because legislation post 2020 made clear that the VP’s role in the certification is entirely ministerial and non-discretionary.
@mattblaze @cstross @mkilmo @dominykas
Serious sincere question: what is the mechanism for forcing Vance to certify if he refuses?
-
hi, longtime follower of yours, the daisy account joined a day or two ago and is engagement farming (if that is the right word), not even sincerely if annoyingly arguing. "her" handful of interactions are replying to a couple/few big accts including yours
@inquiline @mattblaze
Lolz:
