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.

@mattblaze @blasen if you were uninterested you wouldn't be answering. That's the point. You don't need to be rude. You wouldn't answer like that to people in your workplace, grocery or village.

If you don't want to have interactions with people, the I have bad news for you from the Internet.

@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

Normally speaking. But aren't things changed now? His personal law firm, also known as DOJ is putting the screws on blue states to get voter data. And his personal police force, also known as FBI, has taken actual physical voter material from a state.

@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas I see no indication that anything has changed or shifted in the foundational principle that states run elections.

Feel free to worry about whatever you want, but this just seems wildly implausible to me.

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 @mkilmo @dominykas

That they run them, yes. But personally I feel doubtful that they are still safe from federal executive interference, combined with the present #scotus. If he tries, can you be sure he will fail?

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.

@gvenema @mkilmo @dominykas you’ve lost me. this is too vague for me. Please explain exactly what you worry will happen, and how it would be brought about.

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.

I dread when Trump makes these proclamations, because it’s a denial of service attack against me and every other election expert with better things to do than explain why this is BS over and over. But other than that, it’s just empty, meaningless blather.

But this is far fetched and almost certainly counter to Trump’s interests, which presumably include not getting himself killed in a coup if he fails. And again, disrupting elections isn’t really essential for this.

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.

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.

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.

@mattblaze election worker here. I simultaneously believe our elections are secure, and that they are vulnerable to a fascist takeover. When the laws are followed, any fraud is easy to detect and on an individual level that won't change the outcome. /1

@mattblaze @mkilmo @dominykas

Well, say the DOJ detected "irregularities in voting", some "foreign interference" perhaps or suspected "antifa activity", and they send the FBI to impound the voting source material, is it then impossible for them to tamper with it and give it back?

@mattblaze But if masked agents show up before the polls open, give a list of Republicans, order us to only allow those people to vote, tell us they know where we all live, and doing anything against their demands will result in masked agents busting in our doors at 3am to disappear us,... I'm not sure there are enough 60+ year old retirees willing to defy that. The few that resist may only result in their precinct being declared as invalid, which is just as good for this regime's goals. /2

@lastofthem @dominykas You know what’s *really* dangerous and full of privilege? Ignoring the details of how complex things you don’t actually understand(like how US elections work) work in order to make dramatic but unwarranted pronouncements of doom.

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.