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.
-
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?
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
He incited Jan 6 without having to face any consequences, might he think he can incite something similar during elections? ( i.e. Violence from third parties incited by him but not part of any formal structure governed by him? )
If this was done in specific places as a form of voter suppression?
-
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.
@mattblaze this is unsurprisingly similar to when they make new public health rules these days
-
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.
@mattblaze didn't he promise, that people will not need to vote ever again, if he is getting president this time? he is president, i am sad and curious...
-
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 when baffoon Sydney Power accused Hugo Chavez of rigging US election machines, there was a logic behind it: exec branch gains powers if there is foreign interference with elections. It’s just that her claim wasn’t very credible since Chavez had been dead for a while :-). Trump can now concoct more credible evidence and repeat it often enough that MAGA are convinced.
-
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 With all the other craziness going on, the complexity and decentralization of the election system is a great comfort to me. Every guardrail in opposition to petulant felon kings is a blessing.
-
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 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 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
-
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?
But I would agree, that it is probably much easier to influence elections before and after (just not swearing in people, endless court cases, voter suppression) then it would be to tamper with the actual election data.
-
@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
@mattblaze the point that so many here have been making is that the laws may be good, and the system may be highly distributed, but those laws are worthless if the judicial and legislative branches keep rolling over in submission to the executive. We are becoming a country where might makes right, and it sickens me. /3
-
@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.
@mattblaze They should put that on billboards to remind everyone, every day.
-
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 dc elections are quite vulnerable
-
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 what do you think happens if the SAVE act passes?
-
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 While I agree that the full scale is huge, what would be the smallest subset that Trump needs to take control of or interfere with, to achieve his aims? Is it still in the realm of the impossible?
-
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.
@mattblaze
He is also far into dementia and not connected to reality very well. These factors play a role. -
You obviously have expertise regarding technical aspects of US elections, but this doesn't mean that you are an expert on totalitarian regimes & how they come about.
-
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.
@mattblaze it's really hard to find the balance between "I can't let this ignorance go unchallenged" and "I can't waste my life challenging every ignorant thing this man says." Am I responsibly responding to dangerous misinformation or am I being suckered into rolling around in the mud with a pig who enjoys rolling in the mud? It is so frustrating because the uncertainty just adds to the sense of hopelessness and feeds apathy.
