Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[HVC]

Thanks grumbler

[HVC]

It's a bright spot.

Next time it's the mid terms. I guess the question then will be twofold:

• Will the anti-Trump voters show up? (I expect yes)
• How much will the Trump administration put their thumb on the scale and subvert democracy (more of an open question as far as I'm concerned).

For number 2 I had read that a lot of the gerrymandering was to better utilize the Hispanic vote. If, like grumblers article says, hispanics are abandoning ship then that's bad for the GOP... which is good for the world in general.

[Jacob]

Gerrymandering is one thing - it's kind of how the US has been rolling for a while I think. Unless the current attempts are of a new magnitude?

The thing I'm concerned about is systematic voter disenfranchisement, messing with voting machines, and brazen fraud. Will the Trumpists attempt something obvious? Will the US stand for it?

[Sophie Scholl]

While I hope it doesn't come to it, I also hope if they try any vote rigging, they are as blatant and hamfisted with it as they are with most things. Like... doing an old school Soviet 99% returns for Trump or some such shenanigans. Make it so obvious that everyone remotely sane will have to agree that they cheated.

[viper37]

Gerrymandering is one thing - it's kind of how the US has been rolling for a while I think. Unless the current attempts are of a new magnitude?

The thing I'm concerned about is systematic voter disenfranchisement, messing with voting machines, and brazen fraud. Will the Trumpists attempt something obvious? Will the US stand for it?

https://www.commondreams.org/news/bannon-tells-gop-seize-the-institutions-of-government-now-or-we-re-going-to-prison-after-2028

[Syt]

[Tonitrus]

Gerrymandering is one thing - it's kind of how the US has been rolling for a while I think. Unless the current attempts are of a new magnitude?

The thing I'm concerned about is systematic voter disenfranchisement, messing with voting machines, and brazen fraud. Will the Trumpists attempt something obvious? Will the US stand for it?

It's a new magnitude in that there had been a (very) slow roll in many states towards having independent commissions draw congressional districts.  So not so good setbacks there.

Honestly, I wonder if a pro-move the Dems could make (if they managed government control again)...would be to overturn Apportionment Act of 1911's 435-member limit on representatives...go crazy and make it 800-something.    It might make gerrymandering large, low-population rural districts that much harder.

[Josquius]

How many seats are there physically in the room?
But could be a good round about way since just managing a neutral body would be against states rights and all that.

Or I wonder if there's some sort of halfway dabble could be done... Like mandating something to control insane seat shapes. One direction can't be more than three times the size of the other or so.

It's quite sad to see that the dem held states are having to do stupid gerrymandering themselves just to counter the republican states.

[grumbler]

Gerrymandering is one thing - it's kind of how the US has been rolling for a while I think. Unless the current attempts are of a new magnitude?

I don't think that we have had between-census gerrymandering (bar a few cases forced by lawsuits) before. No president of the US has ever before demanded that members of his party redistrict their states because the president was terrified of the potential results of a midterm. Trump absolutely will be impeached if the Democrats regain control of the House.

The thing I'm concerned about is systematic voter disenfranchisement, messing with voting machines, and brazen fraud. Will the Trumpists attempt something obvious? Will the US stand for it?

That's the bigger question. I could easily see FBI agents seizing voting machines due to "suspicions of fraud." The backlash would be ferocious, but the MAGAts wouldn't care so long as the Republicans retained control of the House.

[Tonitrus]

That's the bigger question. I could easily see FBI agents seizing voting machines due to "suspicions of fraud." The backlash would be ferocious, but the MAGAts wouldn't care so long as the Republicans retained control of the House.

The ones that aren't Dominion Liberty Vote anyway... 

[Syt]

What about recognizing the outcome? Let's say the Dems take the House or Senate - what if Trump/Vance says those elections were fraudulent and refuses to have them sworn in (or swears in GOP candidates instead) ?

[Tonitrus]

For example, refuse to swear in California's entire House congressional delegation (after the presumed redistricting)? 

- Trump/Vance are not part of that process.  It wouldn't be like a VP Pence thing back in 2020.
- My understanding is each new Congress (2 years for the House) is essentially a reset...so there would be no one in the Speaker position (Johnson) until the new one is elected by the new majority.  The new Speaker would then swear in the rest.

They would need a corrupt Clerk of the House (who fills the interim role), and make up a way to refuse a state's newly elected congresspersons...and would almost certainly precipitate a major political crisis.  Far worse than what we've seen so far.

[Valmy]

What about recognizing the outcome? Let's say the Dems take the House or Senate - what if Trump/Vance says those elections were fraudulent and refuses to have them sworn in (or swears in GOP candidates instead) ?

They can only do this under current rules until 2027. It's crazy how formalities are now used to keep people from taking the office they were elected to. It never occured to me such a thing was possible. But I guess now it will be the new normal.

[grumbler]

What about recognizing the outcome? Let's say the Dems take the House or Senate - what if Trump/Vance says those elections were fraudulent and refuses to have them sworn in (or swears in GOP candidates instead) ?

They can only do this under current rules until 2027. It's crazy how formalities are now used to keep people from taking the office they were elected to. It never occured to me such a thing was possible. But I guess now it will be the new normal.

Neither Trump nor Vance have any say in who gets sworn in to Congress now or after 2027. Not even the Speaker can decide who is and is not sworn in. If the Secretary of State of the state the member is from has certified the member's election, the Speaker must swear them in. To challenge the member's election, House ,members must vote by two-thirds majority to expel them.

Bad as it is (and it is a gratuitous insult to Arizona voters), Johnson is within his traditional powers as he declines to swear in Grijalva until the House re-convenes.

The issue is that she cannot serve her constituents until sworn in, because she doesn't get the paid staff and constituent offices until she is. Johnson is making no friends in Arizona,

[Valmy]

I mean within his theoretical powers but as I said this is supposed to be a formality. They were not to be abused that way. But now that he has done this everybody will. Just another way our system of government is being destroyed and pushed to its absurd limits.