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 @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 >>>

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 @dominykas He has no legal ability. He has plenty of illegal ones he may or may not risk.

@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 >>>

@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. >>>

@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 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.)

@mattblaze

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

@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

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

@mattblaze @cstross @mkilmo @dominykas

Serious sincere question: what is the mechanism for forcing Vance to certify if he refuses?

@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?

@theklan ok, bye

@mattblaze @theklan

Hi, historian here! Not the first time in history that a professor got the future wrong. Many colleagues from Russian studies were also saying that Russia wouldn't launch a full-fledged war on Ukraine and that Putin's Russia wasn't a dictatorship. Now they have become experts on Ukraine.

@blasen @theklan I never predicted anything about the Ukrane war, something about which I know very little. I do, however, know quite a bit about US election law and logistics, and I think knowing about stuff has value, which is why I try to share the stuff I know.

@mattblaze @blasen and that's why I followed you, because the information was interesting (also the great BW photos). The problem is answering rudely to anyone making a valid point. You don't need to be harsh against people for that.