• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would happen in the event of a split vote in 2020?

P

pjohns

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
179
Reaction score
23
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
 
pjohns said:
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...

I would say this. I doubt there will be a civil war. But you can blame every republican over the past 4 years for enabling Donald Trump. It did not have to be this way. I'll admit it, I am a Trump hater. But I never was a republican hater until Donald Trump. He's turned the entire government upside down.
 
pjohns said:
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...

In how many states do governors have the power to replace the electors chosen by the party and popular vote?
 
pjohns said:
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...

The popular vote is irrelevant.

End of story.
 
a pretty far fetched outcome at this stage of the proceedings.
 
Mycroft said:
The popular vote is irrelevant.

End of story.
Click to expand...

Really? How are electors chosen? If not by the popular vote, why even have it then?
Or, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe the popular vote is not only relevant, it's central to the process.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I would say this. I doubt there will be a civil war. But you can blame every republican over the past 4 years for enabling Donald Trump. It did not have to be this way. I'll admit it, I am a Trump hater. But I never was a republican hater until Donald Trump. He's turned the entire government upside down.
Click to expand...

Whatever your feelings about Donald Trump, it is surely a case of blame-shifting to declare that replacing electors in a state carried by Donald Trump, with "faithless" ones, would be the fault of "every Republican" who has supported the party's standard-bearer (and every American's president), over the past four years.
 
Gator said:
In how many states do governors have the power to replace the electors chosen by the party and popular vote?
Click to expand...

That is a fair question.

But a truthful answer is that I really do not know.

(Byron York talked as if every governor has this power. But I simply cannot say with any certainty.)
 
Mycroft said:
The popular vote is irrelevant.

End of story.
Click to expand...

The popular vote is, indeed, irrelevant.

Constitutionally, at least.

But due to the widespread hatred of Donald Trump--among Democrats, especially--it might be quite relevant to the precipitation of the scenario suggested.
 
pjohns said:
I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...

No, there will be no civil war. There would not even be any unrest. People would peacefully demonstrate (99% would) and watch in pain the country continue go down the tubes. Yes, 1% of demonstrators will perform violent acts and Fox News will pretend like riots are happening everywhere. We will likely have another crack at impeachment for the impeachable offenses that Trump keeps accumulating.

Then, Trump may go completely wild and do something we may never recover from. What would it be - a nuke war? obliteration and prosecution of media? complete **** up of the environment and healthcare? - who knows... maybe all of the above and more.
 
Grand Mal said:
Really? How are electors chosen? If not by the popular vote, why even have it then?
Or, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe the popular vote is not only relevant, it's central to the process.
Click to expand...

The electors are chosen by the vote totals in each state. For example, if Biden wins Colorado, all of the state's electors will vote for Biden. It's the same for every other state (with a few variations). Then all the electoral votes are added up and whoever gets 270 or more electoral votes wins.

The popular vote is nothing more than all of the citizen's votes added up. For example, Hillary had more individual votes throughout the country than Trump.

But the popular vote doesn't decide anything. The Constitution defines our electoral college system and sets that as the way we determine who wins the Presidential election.

The popular vote is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
pjohns said:
The popular vote is, indeed, irrelevant.

Constitutionally, at least.

But due to the widespread hatred of Donald Trump--among Democrats, especially--it might be quite relevant to the precipitation of the scenario suggested.
Click to expand...

Okay...regarding the scenario suggested, no...there won't be a civil war. There will be screams into the night sky. There will be demonstrations. For sure, Antifa will get in on the act with their riots. We saw all that last election.

But life will go on.
 
pjohns said:
That is a fair question.

But a truthful answer is that I really do not know.

(Byron York talked as if every governor has this power. But I simply cannot say with any certainty.)
Click to expand...

It is the method determined by each state legislature. I don't the governor has that power except in FL and he must choose those nominated by party committee. Each party chooses a slate of electors (usually in the state convention) and the slate chosen by the voters in the popular vote are the electors.

How Are Electors Chosen? - Electoral Vote Map
 
i won't be participating in a civil war. violent people can **** off. i will vote against every Republican for the foreseeable future, however. in a real civil war situation, i'm probably going to ask for a transfer to another country, and i will almost certainly get it, as my skills are valuable. it would be be very difficult for us financially.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I would say this. I doubt there will be a civil war. But you can blame every republican over the past 4 years for enabling Donald Trump. It did not have to be this way. I'll admit it, I am a Trump hater. But I never was a republican hater until Donald Trump. He's turned the entire government upside down.
Click to expand...

Trump is a duly elected president that you can't get over. Not to mention that he didn't win the blue wall states by Republican only votes so your idea he won office by Republicans alone is just not reality.

When you put up people like Hillary and Biden, why do you expect anything different.
 
The AntiDonald said:
I would say this. I doubt there will be a civil war. But you can blame every republican over the past 4 years for enabling Donald Trump. It did not have to be this way. I'll admit it, I am a Trump hater. But I never was a republican hater until Donald Trump. He's turned the entire government upside down.
Click to expand...

You sure are a hater. You seem to only be paying attention to the misguided news as reported falsely by the left wing media ang the democrats. Did you miss the Collusion Delusion failure? Were you not paying attention when the Mueller report said no collusion? Did you never see a report on the Steele Dossier being admittedly fabricated and being spread by the Hillary campaign and the left media? Have you not noticed that the economy was booming until Covid 19 and even with it the market is still extremely strong which signals that the economy is still in fair shape and just waiting for a antivirus to come roaring back. Did you not know Hillary illegally had a server in her bathroom closet and sent classified email over it, illegally? Did you miss the Benghazi hoax, the attack on the embassy was not caused by a video on Mohammad, but was an attack by muslim terror groups. Have you not seen the accurate military explanation of how the air force could have provided support for the embassy and the ambassador during the night long attack? If you haven't seen these try using your internet and searching for the information its all out there.
 
Grand Mal said:
Really? How are electors chosen? If not by the popular vote, why even have it then?
Or, maybe you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe the popular vote is not only relevant, it's central to the process.
Click to expand...

Sets of electors are chosen for each party and are seated based on who wins the vote in that state. Whoever wins, those party's electors go vote.
 
Mycroft said:
The electors are chosen by the vote totals in each state. For example, if Biden wins Colorado, all of the state's electors will vote for Biden. It's the same for every other state (with a few variations). Then all the electoral votes are added up and whoever gets 270 or more electoral votes wins.

The popular vote is nothing more than all of the citizen's votes added up. For example, Hillary had more individual votes throughout the country than Trump.

But the popular vote doesn't decide anything. The Constitution defines our electoral college system and sets that as the way we determine who wins the Presidential election.

The popular vote is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The popular vote elects the electors. The popular vote decides how a state's electors will vote which decides who the President will be.
What's your problem here? Do you really not understand the term "relevant"? How, otherwise, could you possible say the means of deciding how the electors will vote is irrelevant? It's the central feature of the election, the popular vote IS the election.
If this is you making a joke, well, don't quit your day job.
 
Grand Mal said:
The popular vote elects the electors. The popular vote decides how a state's electors will vote which decides who the President will be.
What's your problem here? Do you really not understand the term "relevant"? How, otherwise, could you possible say the means of deciding how the electors will vote is irrelevant? It's the central feature of the election, the popular vote IS the election.
If this is you making a joke, well, don't quit your day job.
Click to expand...

What is known as the "popular vote" is the national popular vote. This is the sum total of all the people in the country who cast a vote.

There is a "popular" vote in each individual state that determines who the electors cast their votes for.

A national popular vote has NO effect on who gets elected President. It is irrelevant.
 
Gator said:
In how many states do governors have the power to replace the electors chosen by the party and popular vote?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure no governor has this power
 
Mycroft said:
What is known as the "popular vote" is the national popular vote. This is the sum total of all the people in the country who cast a vote.

There is a "popular" vote in each individual state that determines who the electors cast their votes for.

A national popular vote has NO effect on who gets elected President. It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Bull****. There's not two popular votes, there never was. Popular just means public in this case. People vote, their votes are counted and then you have the results of the popular vote. And in America the results of the popular vote decides the makeup of the electoral college.
But go ahead, have the last say. I find myself trying to find simpler ways to say what I've already said which tells me that I'm done here.
 
Grand Mal said:
Bull****. There's not two popular votes, there never was. Popular just means public in this case. People vote, their votes are counted and then you have the results of the popular vote. And in America the results of the popular vote decides the makeup of the electoral college.
But go ahead, have the last say. I find myself trying to find simpler ways to say what I've already said which tells me that I'm done here.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is only ONE vote...the vote a citizen casts in their state.

This "national popular vote" doesn't exist. It's something people made up and it has no effect on who gets elected.
 
pjohns said:
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...

Wont happen, trump will lose both the popular vote, too many know he is unfit, and he wont win the EC, too many swing states have swung away from him.
 
It will come down to the military in this scenario and we're lucky that our military leaders understand the constitution. Liberals will squawk like whiny bitches but ultimately they will only be able to burn things in liberal cities so no big deal.



pjohns said:
Byron York (of The Washington Examiner) was on Fox News this morning (Thursday, August 6, as I write this), speculating on what might happen under four different scenarios, as regarding the November presidential election.

One of those scenarios was as follows:

Joe Biden wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins the electoral vote. (This is exactly what happened in 2016--and even in 2000: a split.)

Many Democrats are outraged about the prospect of four more years of Donald Trump--even though their candidate won the popular vote.

So Democratic governors in states that Trump won try to replace the state electors with those who will be "faithless"--i.e. with those who will vote for Joe Biden, regardless of the fact that Donald Trump carried the state.

I think that this might well lead to a civil war (something which I certainly do not wish to occur).

At the very least, it would signal the end of our republic, as we have traditionally known it--and, truly, in any meaningful sense of the word.

Would others care to comment upon this?
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
There is a "popular" vote in each individual state that determines who the electors cast their votes for.
Click to expand...

True, although technically the state popular vote determines which slate of electors gets to cast their vote--not who they vote for. In most states they can vote for anyone they choose. In 2016 Colin Powell, John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle all received electoral votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom