Call me... Let's talk.
Posted on 12/02/2020 9:55:08 PM PST by SteveH
all other alternatives to an emergency special election seem to end in some form of violence or permanent dislocation of one main party or the other.
a re-election would be fine but suffers from the flaw that it invites a repeat in the forseeable future simply by the precedent that it sets.
holding an emergency election between the two top second tier contestants is not ideal but there is no ideal alternative. this alternative might be the fairest among the hobbesian universe of unequally unfair choices that do not ultimately involve a government collapse.
if the two major parties agree, emergency legislation could be passed in time for a short campaign, a one day election, a foreshortened but otherwise normal electoral college process, and an inauguration by january 20.
trump and biden negotiate and agree for the benefit of the country to sit this one out and let their seconds battle peacefully for the presidency. it is not a re-co and so forms an generally unpalatable precedent for all future parties in all future elections. there will be less temptation to repeat this emergency election, and the temptation to set a vanilla repeat election which would lead to an unwise precedent is removed.
major parties don't have to agree on much except for the situation to be an emergency requiring extraordinary measures to recover from the emergency. if there is not enough time, then the inauguration and other deadlines could be moved forwards by a couple of months, by mutual agreement.
i used the term democracy as a shorthand for what we have currently, no intent to propose going to Athenian model.
well then, would you take pence over biden?
Understood
if i can just come up with one idea that would avoid a civil war before going to bed... :)
1. There is absolutely no provision whatsoever in the Constitution for an “emergency run-off election” of any sort.
2. There is, however, a provision for either state legislatures to decide who are going to be their respective Electors and, if insufficient EVs are available to win a majority for any candidate, there is a provision for the top 3 (2 in this election) earners of EVs to be put up in a state-by-state election in the House of Representatives.
3. Our Republic has survived confusing and contentious elections 3 separate times, the last in 1876 in which the election was decided in the House of Representatives, and it will survive another such election.
4. What our Republic cannot survive are:
a) Remedies that are made up on the spot, to solve a problem for which there ARE remedies; and
b) Elections in which the voting public has no confidence because of the ease with which fraud and/or mistakes can occur.
The solution for 4a is simple: rely upon the Constitution (and, if one finds it insufficient, amend it later according to the rules specified within it), and stop making stuff up on the spot because it sounds like a good compromise. The solution for 4b is not so easy, not so long as one party seeks to maintain the current system because of the ease with which it can game that system to enhance it’s own power. Otherwise, it would be easy to institute a system that had multiple levels of safeguards for all federal elections, and which would provide for a quick and open verification of ballots that had been legally cast (and to find and trace those which had not been legally cast).
As an aside, you will find very few Trump voters who would be satisfied with dumping Trump and replacing him with Pence - not when EVERYONE knows that Trump actually won, and deserves to have won because he did a great job during his first term (with multiple impediments from political opponents, including Republicans). So, while I can admire you for trying to come up with a solution, it is just not workable from numerous standpoints.
Call me... Let's talk.
Great thought but I don’t see it happening.
Not because we don’t want it, but because the left wants a civil war.
That way they can control the level of anarchy and offer to come in as the heroes and end it. It would just be a tool to get themselves in power.
Which is why your suggestion would not fly.
we probably agree in principle, but how could we get there without insurrection of one side or another? most us history is dominated by compromises that were less than palatable if you look at them closely enough.
Are you working on the presumption that the left can be reasoned with?
yes in the sense that they have nuch to lose in a civil war and that they and we would all live through this without insurrection. i figured it is worth a pitch at the high level at least.
visualize just trump and biden meeting in an otherwise empty room and having tea while they discuss the finer points of the total consequences to the usa a prospective hot or cold civil war. how could either want that?
i figure that trump has at least some military support as well as considerable loyal republican support. if not, this would probably not work.
i was watching michigan this evening and trying to figure out if and how any democrats could watch these hearings and excuse themselves from culpability of their leaders staging a rigged election. i think there is a poll out in which a decided majority of people on the street believe that the election was stolen from trump. if so, there should be ways to avoid a hot/cold civil war, so long as the leaders can agree and everyone can save face.
maybe as part of the tea meeting, trump can promise biden a pardon as part of the deal. i know it stinks but biden seems to hold a pretty good hand at the moment and he might be tempted to reach for the pot thinking no one is going to object.
trump might not object, but trump is only one person, many people voted, and many people witnessed what happened as we can see and are confirmed in the swing state hearings.
since biden is currently showing a winning hand, then biden presumably would ask for a concession from trump at a tea meeting. the logical concession that trump could make— for the good of the country— is to step aside voluntarily before the inauguration, but ask biden for the same concession.
(I)t is very clear that in fundamental theory, socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. …The “spirit of democracy” is something that needs to be exorcised, not conjured. The USA is a Constitutional republic.
Woodrow Wilson
No
trump would ask biden to step aside for the good of the country and for symmetry. they would both step aside for the good of the country.
that would leave pence and harris to battle for president. they too could step aside, but it would take months for the parties to come up with new candidates, and it is probably impractical for the country to remain for multiple months in a political holding pattern.
if biden says no dice, then biden effectively owns taking advantage of a dishonest election to further his selfish ends and the ends of his masters. trump could make that clear at the meeting, and wash his hands of the outcome, should that lead to some catastrophe. it would be at that point 100% on biden.
at this point i am a bit worried for trump’s personal safety under a biden presidency. i don’t think trump would pardon himself— bad precedent for the country. only biden could pardon trump and even then trump might need to accept in order to derive any benefit— not sure that trump would accept a pardon since he has not done anything wrong (quite the opposite, at least in his view if not the view of millions of other voters). could biden safely pardon trump? biden has to satisfy his constituencies, among which are radicals waiting for expected transformative social change under a biden harris presidency. biden would thus be inviting political instability to pardon trump. biden might not have any good political choices. and that is even before trump goes politically free range, possibly even forming a new party to challenge biden in 2024.
(what would pro-trump folks all do if trump was arrested on fake charges?)
trump could decline a pardon, but that would condemn his entire family to similar danger of becoming political prisoners. so i am not sure he would do that, nor would he tolerate a blanket pardon for his family since that would shame them in history forever through no fault or even choice of their own.
i already conceded that point and noted that i used the term democracy as shorthand for what we have now, not in the literal sense of the term. i posted that in a previous response.
Well, since China has been a major player in the Democrat effort since well before COVID...
If you really want something to keep you up at night...with America being a powder keg of internal conflict, what if China decided to set it off by assassination? It could be someone big on either side of the internal divide...Trump, Pence, Rudy or Obama, Biden, Kamala or Hillary. One side would blame the other (not China) and that could be the spark that sets off internal conflict.
Who gains?
If the war is a bad one, China becomes the world’s superpower almost overnight.
I wouldn’t discount that the Chinese aren’t thinking that war in America would greatly shorten the time required for them to become the world’s pre-eminent power.
spirit of democracy might be another imperfect phrase. how about democratic republic. in any case, whatever we have now versus pure democracy.
No thanks. I don’t negotiate with thieves.
Just because a majority of the states are “GOP” what promise do we have for them to actually vote for 45 in the event they get to select?
Nonsense.....Trump already won this and everyone knows it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.