Trump to delay the election

[Lower Nubia]

Of course. That doesn't stop the House unless the election is postponed till 2022.

Their terms would expire at noon on January 3rd. You'd have no congress.

Ah yes, it is a two year term limit. Not four. Nevermind.

[Lower Nubia]

Of course. I'm thinking about the hilarious conclusion of an actual postponed election.

It would be an interesting time if it happened......this however is simply Trump throwing shit at a fan.

As he gets older, he clearly regresses, maybe by then he'll be a monkey and will start throwing his own faeces.

[San Lumen]

Their terms would expire at noon on January 3rd. You'd have no congress.

Ah yes, it is a two year term limit. Not four. Nevermind.

a two year term not term limit.

[Lower Nubia]

Ah yes, it is a two year term limit. Not four. Nevermind.

a two year term not term limit.

Yes.

[Geneviev]

It would be an interesting time if it happened......this however is simply Trump throwing shit at a fan.

As he gets older, he clearly regresses, maybe by then he'll be a monkey and will start throwing his own faeces.

Please no. I like America.

[The Archregimancy]

Of course. That doesn't stop the House unless the election is postponed till 2022.

Their terms would expire at noon on January 3rd. You'd have no congress.

Also not entirely true.

The US Constitution sets different mechanisms for the elections of the legislature and the election of the president.

Article I, section 2 states that:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

In contrast, for the executive, Article II, Clause 4 states that (as quoted earlier):

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

So the power to arrange for congressional elections rests entirely with the states separately from the date for choosing presidential electors (ie, presidential elections). It's solely a matter of custom and convenience that those elections are held on the same day.

Since it's highly unlikely that all states would simultaneously agree to delay their congressional elections if Washington political shenanigans lead to a delay of the presidential election, you would still have a Congress seated on the 3rd of January regardless of what happens to the presidential election.

At which point Amendment XX, Clause 2 comes into play.

[Esternial]

Of course. That doesn't stop the House unless the election is postponed till 2022.

Their terms would expire at noon on January 3rd. You'd have no congress.

I haven't had a government for more than a year and a half. You'll get used to it.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics ... index.html

A number of Republicans in Congress have denounced his tweet including the Senate Majority Whip John Thune "who said we have had elections every November since the 1790s and that will be the case this year."

[No State Here]

Oh… so you’re just doing another "Haha Americans dumb" thing?

You have a president who said a dementia test was "very hard". So I think it's a pretty accurate thing to think for at least 50% of the population.

That makes no sense, it just seems another example of the overused trope of "America dumb me smart"

[Outer Sparta]

It really isn't a legitimate concern at all.

ballots are already conveniently misplaced all the time
just imagine the amount of fraud that would take place if your vote was only as secure as your mailbox

You mean like the 2018 NC-9 election with the GOP engaging in election fraud with ballot harvesting? Or do you think it's fine for them to engage in election fraud?

[Esternial]

I think letting people die to vote is a terrible idea. It will stop people from voting, and it will kill people.

Voting by mail has been done before and actually works. Any civilized nation can do it.

I've read an article earlier this year that the Belgian government is looking into finding a way to let people vote online.

Would be a significant step forward if it can be done securely and reliably, I reckon.

[Aureumterra]

Voting by mail has been done before and actually works. Any civilized nation can do it.

I've read an article earlier this year that the Belgian government is looking into finding a way to let people vote online.

Would be a significant step forward if it can be done securely and reliably, I reckon.

While it would make things much easier, I would be much more comfortable if there was some paper trail to make sure votes get accurately counted. We all know that nothing digital is safe from those who can access code

[Outer Sparta]

Voting by mail has been done before and actually works. Any civilized nation can do it.

I've read an article earlier this year that the Belgian government is looking into finding a way to let people vote online.

Would be a significant step forward if it can be done securely and reliably, I reckon.

I'm usually concerned with holding elections online or using voting machines due to its vulnerabilities. I prefer paper ballots and other measures with a paper trail instead of using technology like voting machines.

[Lower Nubia]

You have a president who said a dementia test was "very hard". So I think it's a pretty accurate thing to think for at least 50% of the population.

That makes no sense, it just seems another example of the overused trope of "America dumb me smart"

Why doesn't it make sense? President has difficulty doing test designed for potential dementia candidates. The President exhibited the same characteristics four years ago. Therefore the president is dumb - I.e. so are the voters that continue to defend him - despite the absurdity of his actions. Which is 40%.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Voting by mail has been done before and actually works. Any civilized nation can do it.

I've read an article earlier this year that the Belgian government is looking into finding a way to let people vote online.

Would be a significant step forward if it can be done securely and reliably, I reckon.

That’s the rub, methinks. I work in public policy, and there’s a relevant xkcd that comes to mind.

https://xkcd.com/2030/

[Esternial]

I've read an article earlier this year that the Belgian government is looking into finding a way to let people vote online.

Would be a significant step forward if it can be done securely and reliably, I reckon.

That’s the rub, methinks. I work in public policy, and there’s a relevant xkcd that comes to mind.

https://xkcd.com/2030/

Seems I'm a particularly naïve software engineer >.>

[G-Tech Corporation]

That’s the rub, methinks. I work in public policy, and there’s a relevant xkcd that comes to mind.

https://xkcd.com/2030/

Seems I'm a particularly naïve software engineer >.>

Granted, not something I know firsthand. That’s not my department anymore. But I did work with our local electoral department for half a decade, and they would basically always fear-laugh whenever one of our local representatives mooted the idea.

[Esternial]

Seems I'm a particularly naïve software engineer >.>

Granted, not something I know firsthand. That’s not my department anymore. But I did work with our local electoral department for half a decade, and they would basically always fear-laugh whenever one of our local representatives mooted the idea.

I reckon it's feasible.

These days you're already able to access your personal (& sensitive) information online using you (e)ID card or even an app (e.g. Itsme). To make it secure enough I figure some kind of multi-factor authentication will be needed.

I figure aiming for perfection is impossible. It just needs to perform better than pre-existing methods of remote voting and be at least user-friendly enough to allow a large enough subset of the population to use it.

[Shofercia]

So Trump is demanding a thing that the Constitution does not permit based on an entirely baseless concern.

Would you be so kind as to show me where that's in the Constitution, i.e. where the Constitution states that the vote must take place in November? You wouldn't just be making stuff up when it comes to President Trump, would you Vass?

Mail in votes are twice as likely to be spoiled, and that just included the ones that arrive for counting. We have no idea how many are "lost" in transit.

Mail-in ballots are unmarked, you don't know who the voter voted for so purposeful spoilering of ballots by postal worker would be... extremely difficult if not impossible. That's not even to mention that the USPS is fairly reliable in getting things to where they need to go, only about 3% of mail is eternally lost in the system and that's including packages and such. I'd imagine that it's lower for paper mail.

Paper ballots, by the way, are already postmarked so there'd have to be something extraordinary for it to get lost by accident.

That's assuming that they'd be returned by the USPS, rather than DNC affiliated "volunteers"

Also, why can't people vote at the ballot box, if that's what the people want? California wants to restrict all voting to mail in ballots, which is very sad. "We want to max out the amount of people who vote, therefore we'll only be following one voting method" - Gavin Newsom

Mail-in ballots are unmarked, you don't know who the voter voted for so purposeful spoilering of ballots by postal worker would be... extremely difficult if not impossible. That's not even to mention that the USPS is fairly reliable in getting things to where they need to go, only about 3% of mail is eternally lost in the system and that's including packages and such. I'd imagine that it's lower for paper mail.

Paper ballots, by the way, are already postmarked so there'd have to be something extraordinary for it to get lost by accident.

The Intelligent Mail Barcode will let employees see where a postal ballot originated from. It would be easy to lose some of the ballots from conservative or liberal areas. Union workers cannot be trusted in this regard. Maybe have the post office ran by Special Collections And Banding Squad ( SCABS for short) until after the election would be a reasonable compromise.

[Vassenor]

So Trump is demanding a thing that the Constitution does not permit based on an entirely baseless concern.

Would you be so kind as to show me where that's in the Constitution, i.e. where the Constitution states that the vote must take place in November? You wouldn't just be making stuff up when it comes to President Trump, would you Vass?

I believe it's been established that the power to delay the election is in the hands of Congress, not the President.

[Thermodolia]

So Trump is demanding a thing that the Constitution does not permit based on an entirely baseless concern.

Would you be so kind as to show me where that's in the Constitution, i.e. where the Constitution states that the vote must take place in November? You wouldn't just be making stuff up when it comes to President Trump, would you Vass?

The constitution doesn’t say that the vote has to take place in November however it does say that only congress has the power to set the date of election

[Celritannia]

Would you be so kind as to show me where that's in the Constitution, i.e. where the Constitution states that the vote must take place in November? You wouldn't just be making stuff up when it comes to President Trump, would you Vass?

The constitution doesn’t say that the vote has to take place in November however it does say that only congress has the power to set the date of election

And the election month has not been altered by congress since the first election, I am assuming?

[Shofercia]

Their terms would expire at noon on January 3rd. You'd have no congress.

Also not entirely true.

The US Constitution sets different mechanisms for the elections of the legislature and the election of the president.

Article I, section 2 states that:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

In contrast, for the executive, Article II, Clause 4 states that (as quoted earlier):

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

So the power to arrange for congressional elections rests entirely with the states separately from the date for choosing presidential electors (ie, presidential elections). It's solely a matter of custom and convenience that those elections are held on the same day.

Since it's highly unlikely that all states would simultaneously agree to delay their congressional elections if Washington political shenanigans lead to a delay of the presidential election, you would still have a Congress seated on the 3rd of January regardless of what happens to the presidential election.

At which point Amendment XX, Clause 2 comes into play.

^ That. Meaning that President Trump can only delay the election, until his term's up. After that, he won't be president, unless he runs and wins in November.

If he possessed Machiavellian intelligence, he'd let Pence run as president, and Josh Hawley as vice president. And then he could remain on board in an unelected position, as that would case Hawley vs Democratic VP, and considering that Democrats are delaying the announcement...

[Dollystana]

This is a direct violation of democracy.

[Celritannia]

Also not entirely true.

The US Constitution sets different mechanisms for the elections of the legislature and the election of the president.

Article I, section 2 states that:


In contrast, for the executive, Article II, Clause 4 states that (as quoted earlier):



So the power to arrange for congressional elections rests entirely with the states separately from the date for choosing presidential electors (ie, presidential elections). It's solely a matter of custom and convenience that those elections are held on the same day.

Since it's highly unlikely that all states would simultaneously agree to delay their congressional elections if Washington political shenanigans lead to a delay of the presidential election, you would still have a Congress seated on the 3rd of January regardless of what happens to the presidential election.

At which point Amendment XX, Clause 2 comes into play.

^ That. Meaning that President Trump can only delay the election, until his term's up. After that, he won't be president, unless he runs and wins in November.

No, only Congress can delay, not the President.