2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Barrister]

So in 2020 things focused on Mike Pence, as his constitutional duty was to "count" the electoral votes.  But it was a Democratic-controlled senate.

What if in 2024 it's a GOP controlled senate?  What if they refuse to ratify the election?

What if secretaries of state in key states refuse to ratify the election results?

Yeah, there's a lot of ways things can get ugly in the US with this election

Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC.  It does have a 6-3 conservative majority.  It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.

And really - the thought the election might have to come down to the USSC is scary.  People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.

[Grey Fox]

And I'm worried he won't lose.  He's polling much better then he did in either 2016 or 2020.

I'm worried too but one of the factors of the better Trump polling this time is that Polling firms have adapted their, well, polling to better capture prospective Trump voters. I read an article that mentioned that they now will ask the who you voting for question as the 1st question. Registering that answer even if the person hangs up right after.

[PJL]

My one hope in the polling is that they may even be overestimating Trump's support. Granted this is only based on polling having overestimated Republican support in the 2022 mid-terms, but it could become a factor.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC.  It does have a 6-3 conservative majority.  It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.

It has definitely slanted towards Trump. The scheduling of the immunity case and the handling of the questions presented, are hard to explain absent a motive to deliberately delay the criminal case. It's true that as to substance, the Court will not rule whatever Trump says because they are aware of the implications that such a precedent will set for other Presidents. But there are many things they can do and have done to help Trump short of that.

People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.

Right in what sense?  The opinion didn't make a lot of sense in terms of reasoning or precedent, and even the majority was sufficiently embarrassed to take the extraordinary step of declaring it to be non-precedential.  The Court got it "right" in that the after of fact recounts didn't support Gore and it's true there wasn't any plausible scenario where Gore would have won the election regardless of how the Court ruled.  But it was far from a shining moment of glory for the Court.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of things that Congress managed to do right was amend the Electoral Count Act. That does not eliminate the possibility of any 2020 style shenanigans but it reduces the risk. It is now unequivocal in statute that the Vice President can't decide to throw away the real count and adopt others. As for Congress, the objections that can made are limited to: (1) the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors (2) the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. I.e. a general objection of "voter fraud" in the underlying election doesn't count. The objection has to be stated in writing without argument so no filibustering. No objection can be sustained unless the House and Senate both jointly agree.

[Jacob]

So Minsky, how big is the risk of blatant and significant voter fraud in your view? And if the risk is non-trivial, what are the most likely methods by which it'll happen in your assessment?