The constitutional maneuver McConnell could use to steal the presidency in January.

[lutherj]

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2020, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Please note that I have been corrected by mouseplayingdaffodil in post 15 below. I read the law that he/she cited and found that the scenario I describe below is very unlikely. I apologize, and am relieved to discover my error.


The article from the Atlantic that I link to below was published last summer. I don’t know if it was referenced then on DU, but regardless I think it’s worth taking note. I have no doubt that McConnell would stoop to this.

After a presidential election, the electoral college vote is submitted to both houses of Congress to be certified. In other words, to be accepted as official, the election results are confirmed by resolution in both the House and Senate.

In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral college votes the Constitution provides that the House votes to choose the President, and the Senate votes for the Vice President. But the vote in the House is not a simple majority vote. Each state’s delegation gets together and casts one vote. As it stands, Republicans control 26 of the House state delegations.

So here’s the scenario. Suppose the Democratic candidate wins in November. It could be a narrow victory, it could be a landslide — it doesn’t matter. Trump, of course, will immediately start bellowing like a stuck pig about rigged elections and corruption and the dirty democrats. He’ll name certain states and make unfounded claims about how the votes were stolen just like he did in 2016. On January 6th when the Senate is set to certify the vote, McConnell announces that he has deep concerns about the validity of the tallies in certain states and refuses to certify the vote. No candidate receives a majority of the votes, and the election of the President is thrown to the House and decided by the Republican state delegations.

In order to pull this off Republicans must retain the Senate, and retain a majority of the House delegations. If they fail in either of those then this is all academic.

By the way, if there is a tie in the House, then the Vice President chosen by the Senate will assume the presidency until such time as the House decides a winner, which could presumably happen after the midterm.

It strikes me that this is a plausible concern. I have zero doubt that if McConnell finds himself in this situation he will use it to his advantage. I think we all need to be aware of this possibility, and if we see these conditions arise in November we need to be vocal about it and take to the streets so McConnell can’t pull a fast one on the nation in January. Not that he won’t anyway, but at least we can put a spotlight on his nihilistic cynicism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/what-happens-if-2020-election-tie/593608/

[dem4decades]

1. Just win the election, case closed.

[lutherj]

3. You obviously didn't read the post. The whole point is that McConnell could negate our win.

[Wounded Bear]

14. Which means we have to win the election, for the Senate...

[coti]

2. Again, people need to cut it out with this shit. Stop creating avenues for corruption.

Stop giving them ideas and stop normalizing this.

[lutherj]

4. I'm not normalizing anything. You think McConnell doesn't already know this? Sticking your head

in the sand won’t solve anything.

[Nikki28]

5. we need

a million women march like we had after Trump's election. We should be as bad as the tea party was when Obama was elected. Mitch started to work that night. I wish Obama would have rolled over Moscow Mitch and stacked ever last one of the vacancies and ask RB if she would like to resign early and receive her pension.If Putin would not have tipped the election in Trump's favor, we would still be a democracy.

[lutherj]

9. Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. Thank you. We need to be ready to shut down the streets.

[Hassler]

6. Moscow Mitch might not be around on January 6.

[lutherj]

11. True. I say this in paragraph 4. If we take back the Senate or flip 2 delegations in the House this

can’t happen. But we need to be aware of this scenario in November. If the stage is set McConnell will try to use it.

[Chemisse]

7. Wouldn't the lame duck House and Senate be in charge of this?

Worrisome scenario.

[lutherj]

10. No, it happens after the new Congress convenes. Which gives us a chance to change the balance.

[Thomas Hurt]

8. The Democratic nominee, whoever it is, better have a plan to deal

with all the possible Trump and GOP ratf**kery.

[lutherj]

12. I agree, although history doesn't give me much optimism. Remember John Kerry and

his “army of lawyers”? Anyway, this is in the constitution and there’s nothing anybody could do about it, except for the people taking to the streets.

[struggle4progress]

13. If the idiots tried that, more than half of America would experience a heated hatred of Republicans

and I'd expect plenty of really grumpy crazies with guns to follow the traitors everywhere

We'll see. But I think a majority of Republicans wouldn't be eager to be remembered as the shitheads who tried to murder their country

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

15. Sorry, but no . . .

. . . it doesn't work that way. Read the provisions of 3 U.S.C. sec. 15. It would take a heck of lot more than "McConnell announc[ing] that he has deep concerns about the validity of the tallies in certain states and refus[ing] to certify the vote." Neither McConnell nor any other single person serving in Congress wields that sort of power under federal law. Not by a long shot.

The scenario you sketch out here is simply a non-starter. The provisions of 3 U.S.C. sect 15 control.

[dware]

16. Thank you for this info.

These doomsday scenarios are getting really tiring.

[unblock]

17. Enough republicans could do it

More or less what happened in the election of 1876, Tilden-Hayes

[lutherj]

18. Ok, thanks. It appears you're right. When I said what you quoted: "McConnell ... has deep concerns"

I was abbreviating the process, but reading the law you cited (assuming I’m interpreting the legalese correctly), it sounds like both houses of Congress would have to agree that the votes were invalid. There are also other provisions we don’t need to try to summarize.

Thanks for setting me straight. I’ll edit the OP.

[lutherj]

19. I retracted the post. Thanks again.