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.
-
@novelgazer I stand by comments. Trump has no effective ability or authority to nationalize US elections. Sounds like you agree. Great.
@mattblaze I do!
-
@mattblaze but I do still worry that he has effective power to disrupt the election, nonetheless, and his constant "jokes" about it suggest it's not unlikely he'll try
-
@mattblaze Do I have this right?
There is no possible way for him to do illegal things here without controlling the state election administrations?
Even if most of their employees turn out to be MAGA loyalists willing to do his bidding?
@soatok @mattblaze This is where I got a twinge. Not trying to put words in Matt's mouth but the post was clearly about nationalizing elections. the president can't - there's no mechanism (even illegal) available that would be effectively nationalize elections.
Can we imagine up scenarios where the president and his true believers *fuck with* the elections? Well, yeah, but that's not nationalization. Which is what the post was about. Which the president *cannot* do. -
@soatok @mattblaze This is where I got a twinge. Not trying to put words in Matt's mouth but the post was clearly about nationalizing elections. the president can't - there's no mechanism (even illegal) available that would be effectively nationalize elections.
Can we imagine up scenarios where the president and his true believers *fuck with* the elections? Well, yeah, but that's not nationalization. Which is what the post was about. Which the president *cannot* do.@just_one_bear Yeah but then you see shit like this and wonder if it's going to happen anyway: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/house-speaker-welcomes-trump-call-to-take-over-elections-claims-dem-wins-appear-fraudulent/
-
@mattblaze sorry if it seemed like I was trying to contradict you. I agree with everything you said, and your nuclear option brought to mind a subtler possibility
-
The presidency is an extremely powerful office, but it’s not all powerful. There are limits - legal, structural, and practical - that shape what someone like Trump can and can’t do unilaterally. The fact that he can order thugish enforcement of immigration laws (something that was already almost entirely within executive control) doesn’t mean he can just unilaterally rewrite the constitution or usurp state sovereignty.
Not all abuses are equally plausible.
@mattblaze I agree. But he does things every day that we’re all assured are illegal and impossible. I can understand why people are confused.
-
@just_one_bear Yeah but then you see shit like this and wonder if it's going to happen anyway: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/house-speaker-welcomes-trump-call-to-take-over-elections-claims-dem-wins-appear-fraudulent/
@soatok @just_one_bear
also, as we saw with doge, he has no qualms about sending a group of loyalists into a formerly independent institution and declaring "we run this now". its totally possible he could hostile takeover the election admins of blue states. he's already pushing that direction with georgia.
maybe he won't but i think its a scenario blue states need to prepare for. -
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 having worked in a presidential election at a data engineering role, while the apparatus is huge and federated, generally the end result can be influenced by narrowly targeting a small number of precincts. If they try to use force or intimidation, it will be applied at those points unfortunately.
-
@mattblaze having worked in a presidential election at a data engineering role, while the apparatus is huge and federated, generally the end result can be influenced by narrowly targeting a small number of precincts. If they try to use force or intimidation, it will be applied at those points unfortunately.
@phredmoyer that’s still not nationalizing elections. That’s just intimidation.
Elections are run by states. Period. It’s literally in the constitution.
-
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.
He says "nationalize" the elections, but he doesn't mean nationwide. He knows that if he "nationalizes" the elections in Alabama or Texas or GA or NC or SC or... his "base" won't stand for that. Same for rural parts of Minnesota, Ohio, etc., etc.
By "nationalizing" he means Federal goons and military stealing ballot boxes and voting machines (and arresting voters) in Democrat-leaning cities of the states he hates. "15 places" or thereabouts. Just enough to steal the election.
-
He says "nationalize" the elections, but he doesn't mean nationwide. He knows that if he "nationalizes" the elections in Alabama or Texas or GA or NC or SC or... his "base" won't stand for that. Same for rural parts of Minnesota, Ohio, etc., etc.
By "nationalizing" he means Federal goons and military stealing ballot boxes and voting machines (and arresting voters) in Democrat-leaning cities of the states he hates. "15 places" or thereabouts. Just enough to steal the election.
@oldclumsy_nowmad he was very specific that he meant the federal government runs the elections in some states. Which is simply not a thing that the constitution provides for.
-
@oldclumsy_nowmad he was very specific that he meant the federal government runs the elections in some states. Which is simply not a thing that the constitution provides for.
I'm with you. Nationalizing elections is totally contrary to the Constitution.
But how much of the Constitution have they already thrown away? A bunch! They're confident they can toss it all out. I'm not sure they are right about that, but I'm also not sure they are wrong. If the 15+- cities include State capitals...
We can't assume the Constitution will hold, unless we make a fierce fight. And be prepared to support the honest judges and governors to the bitter end.
-
I'm with you. Nationalizing elections is totally contrary to the Constitution.
But how much of the Constitution have they already thrown away? A bunch! They're confident they can toss it all out. I'm not sure they are right about that, but I'm also not sure they are wrong. If the 15+- cities include State capitals...
We can't assume the Constitution will hold, unless we make a fierce fight. And be prepared to support the honest judges and governors to the bitter end.
@oldclumsy_nowmad please explain how they actually do this. There are already states currently running elections, with enormous infrastructure and staffing at the county level that follow state laws. How does the federal government take them over? How exactly is this supposed to work?
-
E energisch_@troet.cafe shared this topic
