2020 US General Election Thread X: For Those About to Vote

[Cisairse]

Because the succession act is fantastically unconstitutional and nearly every constitutional scholar worth their salt has been saying this for 30 years.

Members of Congress cannot accede to the presidency, only members of the executive branch can. If there's no president or vice-president, it's seriously an open question as to whether the rest of the succession act (ie, that puts Secretary of State as #5 in line) would remain in effect after SCOTUS rules the #3 and #4 slots unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional?

Wikipedia has a pretty good rundown of why the Succession Act of '47 is unconstitutional.
TLDR: The succession clause of the Constitution explicitly says that only "Officers of the United States" are eligible to act as president in the event of succession, and that phrase explicitly refers to members of the executive branch. There are notes from J. Madison during Convention that make this doubly explicit.

There are other, more minor concerns, but the "You can't actually put these people in the line of succession" is definitely the biggest one.

If its struck down who would be president if neither a president nor vice president can be chosen?

That would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. It is not clear.

[Torisakia]

At that point we just pull names from a hat.

Here's how Bernie can still win

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

[Albrenia]

And what purpose does that serve?

To protest the options available to me.

Why are you not voting for Jeb! then?

[Ranoria]

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

3 points:

1. Land Area=/=Population. Maybe if you actually put people in that land then their opinion might matter more, but since that ain't happening anytime soon, it doesn't. I don't know if you knew this but land isn't people, sorry.

2. The EC doesn't actually help people in states with lower populations. In reality it gives power to swing states. For example, a Presidential candidate hasn't campaigned in Wyoming for 30+ years.

3. Fun fact: The EC was made to keep the South happy, because those states were upset that in order to have equal representation they'd have to count their slave population as actual humans, maybe even free them, and they weren't about that. So if you support the EC then you also support institutional discrimination and disenfranchisement.

1: Again, this is why states have their own powers. If those people have no power, then the cities run the country. And that's not right. It wouldn't end well, because different groups of people have different needs, you can't run the entire country based on how it will do well for a single demographic.

2: Not how that works. Being a solid state in a race does not mean a state doesn't have power. By that logic, California has no power, because no one needs to campaign there. California is the ace in the hole, though. And land area isn't all that is. States have powers and separate governments, varying laws. One example would be Illinois not respecting concealed carry permits of Ohio, at the very least. So...nope. Those states have a say. Their being solid in their opinion is just more evidence that they need the electoral college to ensure they have that voice heard.

3: I'm aware of when it was put into place. Implying that I support racist policies and the like is simply absurd. Slavery isn't a thing anymore thank god, and this narrative of 'systemic/systematic racism' is getting old. We live in the most free country there ever was. Equality of opportunity.

[San Lumen]

And what purpose does that serve?

To protest the options available to me.

And it achieves absolutely nothing.

[Dominioan]

Here's how Bernie can still win

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

Lower the voting age to 3

[Cultural Posadism]

At that point we just pull names from a hat.

Here's how Bernie can still win

By god, here comes Bernie with the steel chair!!!!

[San Lumen]

3 points:

1. Land Area=/=Population. Maybe if you actually put people in that land then their opinion might matter more, but since that ain't happening anytime soon, it doesn't. I don't know if you knew this but land isn't people, sorry.

2. The EC doesn't actually help people in states with lower populations. In reality it gives power to swing states. For example, a Presidential candidate hasn't campaigned in Wyoming for 30+ years.

3. Fun fact: The EC was made to keep the South happy, because those states were upset that in order to have equal representation they'd have to count their slave population as actual humans, maybe even free them, and they weren't about that. So if you support the EC then you also support institutional discrimination and disenfranchisement.

1: Again, this is why states have their own powers. If those people have no power, then the cities run the country. And that's not right. It wouldn't end well, because different groups of people have different needs, you can't run the entire country based on how it will do well for a single demographic.

2: Not how that works. Being a solid state in a race does not mean a state doesn't have power. By that logic, California has no power, because no one needs to campaign there. California is the ace in the hole, though. And land area isn't all that is. States have powers and separate governments, varying laws. One example would be Illinois not respecting concealed carry permits of Ohio, at the very least. So...nope. Those states have a say. Their being solid in their opinion is just more evidence that they need the electoral college to ensure they have that voice heard.

3: I'm aware of when it was put into place. Implying that I support racist policies and the like is simply absurd. Slavery isn't a thing anymore thank god, and this narrative of 'systemic/systematic racism' is getting old. We live in the most free country there ever was. Equality of opportunity.

Your rewriting history to suit a narrative. The fact of the matter is the electoral college no longer serves its original purpose.

[US-SSR]

The succession act says she is third in line. Why can't she become president?

Because the succession act is fantastically unconstitutional and nearly every constitutional scholar worth their salt has been saying this for 30 years.

Members of Congress cannot accede to the presidency, only members of the executive branch can. If there's no president or vice-president, it's seriously an open question as to whether the rest of the succession act (ie, that puts Secretary of State as #5 in line) would remain in effect after SCOTUS rules the #3 and #4 slots unconstitutional.

wot m8?

...the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President... Art. II Sect. I Clause 6

Congress decided the Speaker and President pro tem are third and fourth in line, ergo they are, QED.

[Dominioan]

Here's how Bernie can still win

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

Did you hear it got flooded with adults voting for Trump

[Cisairse]

Because the succession act is fantastically unconstitutional and nearly every constitutional scholar worth their salt has been saying this for 30 years.

Members of Congress cannot accede to the presidency, only members of the executive branch can. If there's no president or vice-president, it's seriously an open question as to whether the rest of the succession act (ie, that puts Secretary of State as #5 in line) would remain in effect after SCOTUS rules the #3 and #4 slots unconstitutional.

wot m8?

...the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President... Art. II Sect. I Clause 6

Congress decided the Speaker and President pro tem are third and fourth in line, ergo they are, QED.

You're missing the part where "Officer" is a defined term in the Constitution, and explicitly excludes members of Congress.

[Torisakia]

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

Lower the voting age to 3

BREAKING NEWS: Caillou becomes the 46th President of the United States, winning 538 electoral votes.

[San Lumen]

wot m8?



Congress decided the Speaker and President pro tem are third and fourth in line, ergo they are, QED.

You're missing the part where "Officer" is a defined term in the Constitution, and explicitly excludes members of Congress.

I guess in that case we’d have no president or Vice President.

[Tarsonis]

How would she become president? I thought a tie went to a contingent vote?

This is correct.

If the House cannot select a president (which is very possible; Democrats only need to flip a few contingents today in order to prevent either party from reaching a majority of contingents), then the U.S. basically goes into constitutional limbo. Ms. Pelosi cannot become president, but it would take a lengthy court battle to determine that she cannot become president (during which she may temporarily take the reins as acting president). What happens after that is very, very uncertain.

That is incorrect. Per the 12th Amendment the house votes until a president is elected. The contingent election between Jefferson and burr took multiple ballots. Theoreticslly they could still be divided on inauguration day, if the senate has elected vice president, they would be sworn in and assume the presidency until such time a president is elected.

[Albrenia]

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

Did you hear it got flooded with adults voting for Trump

I imagine 4chan was behind that. They adore making online voting have hilarious results.

[Ranoria]

1: Again, this is why states have their own powers. If those people have no power, then the cities run the country. And that's not right. It wouldn't end well, because different groups of people have different needs, you can't run the entire country based on how it will do well for a single demographic.

2: Not how that works. Being a solid state in a race does not mean a state doesn't have power. By that logic, California has no power, because no one needs to campaign there. California is the ace in the hole, though. And land area isn't all that is. States have powers and separate governments, varying laws. One example would be Illinois not respecting concealed carry permits of Ohio, at the very least. So...nope. Those states have a say. Their being solid in their opinion is just more evidence that they need the electoral college to ensure they have that voice heard.

3: I'm aware of when it was put into place. Implying that I support racist policies and the like is simply absurd. Slavery isn't a thing anymore thank god, and this narrative of 'systemic/systematic racism' is getting old. We live in the most free country there ever was. Equality of opportunity.

Your rewriting history to suit a narrative. The fact of the matter is the electoral college no longer serves its original purpose.

I'm not rewriting history. Not serving its original purpose does not mean that it isn't viable today. The narrative of connecting everything on the right with racism is getting old, though.

Don't want to go green? "You're racist!"
Didn't stop what everyone said was a pandemic? "Trump's racist" (that one was just hilarious btw)
Are you white and own a dog? Racist!

Honestly, most of it's laughable except that people believe it.

[Rusozak]

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

Did you hear it got flooded with adults voting for Trump

Imagine being so petty you have to cheat a fake election and spoil a hands-on lesson in democracy for children just to "own the libs." Stay classy, Trump cult.

[Shrillland]

We have the midnight vote in: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/dixville-notch-2020-results/index.html

Dixville Notch was unanimous with Biden winning 5-0. In Millsfield, Trump won 16-5.

[Torisakia]

Did you hear it got flooded with adults voting for Trump

Imagine being so petty you have to cheat a fake election and spoil a hands-on lesson in democracy for children just to "own the libs." Stay classy, Trump cult.

It teaches kids that this is democracy manifest.

[Cisairse]

This is correct.

If the House cannot select a president (which is very possible; Democrats only need to flip a few contingents today in order to prevent either party from reaching a majority of contingents), then the U.S. basically goes into constitutional limbo. Ms. Pelosi cannot become president, but it would take a lengthy court battle to determine that she cannot become president (during which she may temporarily take the reins as acting president). What happens after that is very, very uncertain.

That is incorrect. Per the constitution, the house votes until a president is elected. The contingent election between Jefferson and burr took multiple ballots. Theoreticslly they could still be divided on inauguration day, if the senate has elected vice president, they would be sworn in and assume the presidency until such time a president is elected.

Actually you are incorrect. If the House does not decide on a president by January 20, Trump and Pence's terms end and the positions of president and vice-president become vacant.
That's where the constitutional crisis begins.

In the case of an EC tie, it is easy to imagine a Senate unable to decide on a VP either, especially in a (very likely) case where the Senate becomes 50-50 split.

[Albrenia]

We have the midnight vote in: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/dixville-notch-2020-results/index.html

Dixville Notch was unanimous with Biden winning 5-0. In Millsfield, Trump won 16-5.

Hehehe. Dix.

[Kowani]

fucked up the bbcode

[San Lumen]

Your rewriting history to suit a narrative. The fact of the matter is the electoral college no longer serves its original purpose.

I'm not rewriting history. Not serving its original purpose does not mean that it isn't viable today. The narrative of connecting everything on the right with racism is getting old, though.

Don't want to go green? "You're racist!"
Didn't stop what everyone said was a pandemic? "Trump's racist" (that one was just hilarious btw)
Are you white and own a dog? Racist!

Honestly, most of it's laughable except that people believe it.

You are rewriting history.

[New haven america]

3 points:

1. Land Area=/=Population. Maybe if you actually put people in that land then their opinion might matter more, but since that ain't happening anytime soon, it doesn't. I don't know if you knew this but land isn't people, sorry.

2. The EC doesn't actually help people in states with lower populations. In reality it gives power to swing states. For example, a Presidential candidate hasn't campaigned in Wyoming for 30+ years.

3. Fun fact: The EC was made to keep the South happy, because those states were upset that in order to have equal representation they'd have to count their slave population as actual humans, maybe even free them, and they weren't about that. So if you support the EC then you also support institutional discrimination and disenfranchisement.

1: Again, this is why states have their own powers. If those people have no power, then the cities run the country. And that's not right. It wouldn't end well, because different groups of people have different needs, you can't run the entire country based on how it will do well for a single demographic.

2: Not how that works. Being a solid state in a race does not mean a state doesn't have power. By that logic, California has no power, because no one needs to campaign there. California is the ace in the hole, though. And land area isn't all that is. States have powers and separate governments, varying laws. One example would be Illinois not respecting concealed carry permits of Ohio, at the very least. So...nope. Those states have a say. Their being solid in their opinion is just more evidence that they need the electoral college to ensure they have that voice heard.

3: I'm aware of when it was put into place. Implying that I support racist policies and the like is simply absurd. Slavery isn't a thing anymore thank god, and this narrative of 'systemic/systematic racism' is getting old. 4. We live in the most free country there ever was. Equality of opportunity.

1. This is also a fucking stupid argument. Cities can be conservative and rural areas can be liberal/progressive. Phoenix Arizona has ben historically conservative and the area I live in is rural and it's heavily progressive leaning. So please, get some new material, you guys have been repeating the same shit for 4 years now and it got old 4 years ago.

2. 100% how it works. Smaller states don't matter, swing states do. Sorry.

3. Well, you support the EC and presumably vote Republican, so it wouldn't be too far a stretch to believe that socioeconomic/racial/gender equality is too high up on your support/pro list.

4. Actually, those are the Fennoscandian countries. Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

[Kowani]

Here's how Bernie can still win

Better yet, just go with whoever won the Kids Pick The President vote on Nickelodeon.

I am very saddened that you missed my top tier comedy joke ;_;

3: I'm aware of when it was put into place. Implying that I support racist policies and the like is simply absurd.

Vote Republican? No, you definitely do, even though you might not realize it.

Slavery isn't a thing anymore thank god, and this narrative of 'systemic/systematic racism' is getting old.

Slavery>Jim Crow>New Deal Discrimination>War on Drugs
Hey look at that, state sponsored racism all the way to today!

We live in the most free country there ever was. Equality of opportunity.

The irony is that 26 other countries do this better. Even if we take out the anti LGBT+ ones, that's still like 22 other countries with more "equality of opportunity" than the US.