Should and could there be another election before 2020 if election was hacked?

[Doodley]

If it is proven that the election was affected by a Trump/Russia conspiracy, should there be another election before 2020?

If so, what do you think the red line should be that triggers that decision? Would it have to include the actual hacking of the election results? What form of proof would we need?

What mechanism would be used to call for a new election? Example, at least a two-thirds senate and house vote in favor?

[Fullduplexxx]

1. No hillary won

[marylandblue]

2. We'd need a constitutional amendment

[Doodley]

17. Thank you. This would be the first step.

[MineralMan]

33. Amending the Constitution takes years. Truly.

By that time, 2020 would have passed, so there's no point in doing that at this time. The only recourse now, is impeachment and removal, which could also include Pence. That should, however, wait until after the 2018 election, since no such impeachment is possible with Republicans in charge of both the House and Senate.

[Doodley]

38. Didn't take Bush Jr long did it?

[MichMary]

41. Huh?

No idea what you're talking about.

[MineralMan]

51. Neither does Doodly.

[MineralMan]

50. What are you talking about?

The last Amendment is the 27th. It was finally ratified by the last state in 1992. It was first introduced in 1789. Have you even read the Constitution? That amendment took the longest for the states to ratify of all of the amendments. GWB had virtually nothing to do with it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twenty-seventh-Amendment

The 26th Amendment, the one before that, was enacted and ratified in 1971, and took the shortest time of 20th century amendments to become part of the Constitution.

[CincyDem]

3. No

There's a constitutional mechanism for this...it's called impeachment. If you can get 2/3 of the senate and a majority of the house to find this is an illegitimate presidency, then they impeach in the house, convict in the senate and swear in Mike Pence.

Not my favorite outcome but that's the proverbial rule of law. Nothing anyway about invalidating elections.

Now it may be that Pence is equally guilty (which I actually think is likely). So the congress can go through it all again and then swear in whoever pence chooses as VP.

Wash, rinse, repeat...unfortunately, no number of cycles gets us to HRC.

[Keefer]

25. "...whoever pence chooses as VP."

That would be the Speaker of the House, per the constitution.

[lapfog_1]

32. no... if Pence takes the oath of office

he can nominate a new VP... and the HOUSE and Senate gets to approve by simple majority.

That person can be anyone qualified to be President (right age, natural born - whatever that means, etc).

If that all happens before Pence is impeached convicted and removed... then that person becomes President.

If Pence is impeached, convicted, and removed and there is no VP, then the Speaker becomes President (order of succession).

[Keefer]

35. Right-o

[CincyDem]

44. So...I'm a slow typer. :-)

[MichMary]

39. Nope.

In the 70's, Nixon's VP Spiro Agnew had to resign due to his legal issues. As provided by the 25th Amendment, Nixon was then able to nominate a new VP, who became President after Nixon resigned.

This is the way it works: Trump goes, Pence becomes President and nominates a new VP. If Pence goes first, Trump nominates a new VP. There is very, very little chance that the Speaker will ever become President.

[lapfog_1]

63. The House gets to approve the selection of a new VP

if Democrats hold the House, they can simply vote down or not vote on any nominee for VP (for either President Trump or President Pence), leaving the VP spot open.

Should the then President (whichever) also be impeached, convicted and removed... the Speaker becomes the new President.

However, it requires 67 Senate votes to convict and remove. And that isn't happening.

[MichMary]

70. As if that wouldn't be seen

as so openly partisan that in the next election the Prez - by - House - Democrat - obstruction would either be voted down in a landslide, or handed a completely new Congress.

You're very right about the current Senate. The Rs will hang together, and that means tRump will be there until (at least) 2021.

[CincyDem]

43. I think that's for Succession.

In this case, if Pence is elevated to President according to the order of succession outlined in the Constitution, he then has the authority to nominate any individual as his VP followed by Senate confirmation.

When chosen by Nixon (in this case due to Agnew's resignation), Ford was the Minority Leader in the House. Nixon resigned 8 months later and Ford became president - having received a whopping total of about 180,000 votes in his MI-5 '72 win. A month later in September 74, he pulled the ultimate Devin Nunes and pardon Nixon of any and all, known and unknown, past crimes.

[lapfog_1]

64. Senate and HOUSE have to approve.

It is the only time the House gets to approve a Presidential appointee.

[manor321]

4. NO

Why do people ask this question?

It's like asking if Oprah Winfrey can unilaterally amend the Constitution. The answer is NO.

[bearsfootball516]

8. It's unreal. It gets asked almost every day.

[Mariana]

9. They've never read the Constitution, and have no idea what it says. nt.

[Doodley]

16. The process would be to first amend the Constitution then.

[FSogol]

19. And we all know how easy that is, ammirite?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Maybe posting privileges on DU should be contingent on having read the Constitution

because these sorts of questions are posted with depressing regularity.

Read the damn Constitution, people.

[Hekate]

30. What you said

Getting a copy is really easy, too. I have a pocket-size one from the ACLU -- or one could just download it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. Getcher Consitution right here! Free an' hot off the Internet!

https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

[WillowTree]

59. It's asked, apparently, to prove the addage "Hope springs eternal". No other explanation, really.

[jberryhill]

5. There is no mechanism for doing so

[lapfog_1]

34. There is only one... which won't happen

without changing the constitution... and I see this bit of fantasy posted here frequently too.

Dems take the House and nominate Hillary Clinton to be Speaker (this can happen) in January.

They then vote to impeach Trump and Pence... and somehow get the Senate to convict and remove both.

Then Hillary becomes President... and the election is "undone".

[MichMary]

46. That would require a simultaneous

impeachment of both Pence and Trump. That wouldn't ever happen. If Trump were to be impeached AND convicted AND Pence became president, he would nominate a new VP.

To simultaneously impeach both would look like (and would actually be) a nakedly partisan move. A political coup.

[lapfog_1]

56. no... not quite

Impeach, convict, and remove Trump

VP Pence becomes President.

He may nominate someone to be VP... the House (in it's one shot at approving someone) denies whoever he nominates.

Then the House impeaches and the Senate convicts and removes Pence... in which case the Speaker (Hillary in this fantasy) becomes President and nominates someone to be her Veep.

It is possible... but it is mere fantasy.

Much more likely than changing the Constitution and having a retroactive "undo" to redo the 2016 Presidential election. That, too, is theoretically possible but is a fantasy too far.

The next Democratic President will be elected in 2020 and take office in 2021.

The best we can do in the interval is mitigate any further damage done by these traitor idiot assholes.

[bearsfootball516]

6. There is no mechanism for this.

Even if clear Russian influence was found, the electors legally voted and put Trump over 270, he was legally sworn into office, etc.

Technically speaking, it's not the citizens votes that matter, it's the electors. And since they legally voted for him, that's it.

[Zambero]

55. The Founders never anticipated a Donald Trump

Russia did however, and their "fix" on creating chaos and confusion was pulled off in a much shorter time frame than a constitutional amendment remedy ever could.

[jalan48]

7. Maybe, if we lived in England.

[SCantiGOP]

10. The answer is "I sure hope not"

Because that would mean the constitution was being ignored.
We have two remedies: impeachment, and win the next election.

[Doodley]

15. Suppose it was proven the voting machines were hacked and Clinton should have won.

Trump is impeached and admits this. You would rather keep the GOP in office, against the wishes and the votes of the people, than lawmakers vote for a new election because "that would mean the constitution was being ignored?"

[SCantiGOP]

26. Damn right

That would never happen, but if it did, you could rush through a constitutional amendment to correct the situation.
If you allow an acknowledged violation of the constitution why not also, as another fanciful scenario, the suspension of habeus corpus because of the emergency of illegal immigration? Or a suspension of the Freedom of Press due to the Fake News attacks on our President?
Can’t start down that slippery slope. We have done it in the past, most recently with the regrettable and unconstitutional internment of Japanese citizens during WWII.

[brooklynite]

40. I'd rather keep abiding by the constitution.

"the votes of the people" in this case are not legally binding on a national level.

[Frustratedlady]

11. Hillary should be installed as the actual/real POTUS.

She got the majority and should have the office by default. Don't bother with another election. Save the money.

Wouldn't that burn Trump's butt?

[Doodley]

18. Yes, you have the best solution!

[SCantiGOP]

28. Right

Why don’t you contact the GOP majorities in Senate and House and ask them to do that?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. There's no way to change or reschedule an election

without a constitutional amendment. And those take years to process and usually don't pass.

[NYC Liberal]

14. The president is chosen by the Electoral College.

You can hack/fix/rig millions of individual popular votes, but constitutionally, the only votes that matter are those of the 538 electors.

There’s no mechanism for “re-doing” an election, but even if there were, you’d have to show that the Electoral College votes were fraudulent, not the popular vote.

[sarisataka]

27. Why is this

So difficult for so many people to understand?
Constitutionally the popular vote is meaningless and doesn't even need to take place

[WillowTree]

60. Because they just plain don't want to believe it.

[NYC Liberal]

65. Yep. States can choose their electors by any means they want.

A state could have the governor hand pick the electors if they wanted to.

[Lee-Lee]

20. Only in fantasy land

You can waste time wishing, or you can work for something actually realistic.

[honest.abe]

21. Here's a good discussion of the options on Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/27/presidential-election-do-over/

[spicysista]

37. Great article!

It's a shame that we don't constantly push for change like the cons. They will try to pass legislation over and over again, constantly pushing the bar. Meanwhile, our side just says it's not possible or can't be done.....so why bother? How else does change arrive if you're not going to ever fight the rules. I was once 3/5ths of a person and now corporations are people, too.

Thanks for the link.

[brooklynite]

42. What Constitutional "change" have the conservatives achieved?

[spicysista]

48. Not a darned thing, actually.

But they have changed what is now considered to be constitutional. By pushing laws that are then challenged all the way to the scotus, they have set new precedents which in turn have reshaped who/what is considered constitutional.

[LanternWaste]

54. No one has argued the conservatives have achieved constitutional change.

(I like to argue against things no one says too...)

[FSogol]

22. Translation: Using the Constitutional Powers of Do-Over!

Actually, let's just get every to get off their ass to go and vote. No more "both parties are the same" or any other dumbshit excuse to depress turnout and split our party.

[brooklynite]

23. For the nine millionth time...YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT...

Your State chooses to grant you that right, but is not obliged to. All the Constitiuion says is that your State will select Electors. That was done. There is no legal basis for a re-do.

Add to which, there is no evidential basis that the election was “hacked”. We’re voters influenced?Probably, but not to a significant extent in my opinion. I don’t think Russian bots convinced Clinton voters to switch to Trump; they merely reinforced doubts and biases that were already there.

[bearsfootball516]

53. That's another conspiracy that gets raised around here far too often.

There is absolutely no evidence that vote totals were changed. Was there a Russian influence campaign in critical swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida) to influence people on how they should vote? Yes. We know that.

But as far as actual changing vote totals, there's literally zero evidence.

[Hekate]

24. There are no provisions in the US Constitution for any such thing. nt

[gibraltar72]

29. The only way we'll get justice is take to the streets biggly.

[Hekate]

36. And vote bigly

[sarisataka]

31. No and no

For reasons that have been explained many times.

If you want to change the electoral process, change the Constitution

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. A) No; B) No.

A majority in the electoral college voted for Trump. Constitutionally, he is president. There is no mechanism for his removal other than impeachment or resignation; there is no mechanism for another election before 2020.

[cutroot]

49. The speaker of the house does not have to be a congressperson

Although the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of the House, all Speakers have been Members. When a Congress convenes for the first time, each major party conference or caucus nominates a candidate for Speaker. Members customarily elect the Speaker by roll call vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.aspx

A new speaker of the house could be anyone.

[brooklynite]

66. What does that have to do with a new Presidential Election?

[cutroot]

69. If trump and pence were both impeached

and the speaker happened to be a democrat

[brooklynite]

72. You mean if 2/3 of the Senate convicted Trump and Pence simultaneously...

...never mind the fact that no charges or even accusations have been made against Pence.

Just as much a fantasy as holding a new Election.

[cutroot]

73. trump being elected was just a fantasy for most of us here.

[lapfog_1]

68. correct.

and the House has to approve the appointment of a new VP should either the VP resign or be impeached or be elevated to be the President.

By simple majority, both the Senate and the House have to approve of the new VP.

So... the House (in Jan after Democrats win the majority) elects Hillary as Speaker.

Then the House votes (simple majority) to impeach (pick one, Trump or Pence)... the Senate votes to convict (this is the rub), and the House blocks the vote to approve a new VP. At that point the House impeaches (Trump or Pence, whichever is left) and again the Senate votes to convict. At this point the Speaker becomes the new President.

Hillary finally wins the "election" she actually won.

Pipe dream... but it is the only path that doesn't require changing the Constitution.

[beachbum bob]

52. No mechanism exist. Our answer is 2018, 2020 and 2022

[Awsi Dooger]

57. Too much thinking going on

Find a sidewalk, stand there, and watch the world go on.

Normalcy. Complete normalcy. Nobody is talking about hacking or redoing an election. Donald Trump is president. Ask all the people on that sidewalk and they'll know it.

I can't believe how much time is wasted on following day to day story lines. It really screws up the perspective.

[jberryhill]

58. This

[End Of The Road]

61. NO

[suston96]

62. Constitutional republic........

.....was established by the founders with a very skeletal framework and presented to the states for ratification.

Only nine states were needed for ratification and so it happened. Easy enough. Not gonna happen again.

Chief Justice John Marshall said around 1820 that the constitution belonged to its authors, the people, who could do as they pleased with it including tearing it up and starting over again.

The present built in amendment process is ponderous and prohibitive and thus the government the new constitution created has few if any correction mechanisms when assaults such as electoral fraud are attempted.

Leaving the states in charge of times, places, and manner of elections was a naive notion as was the expectation that partisan politics would not have politically destructive effects on both federal and state constitutionally scheduled elections.

The presently prescribed amendment process does not and will not work. Time to gather the people into functionally organized meetings with the purpose of producing a really effective framing document that will yield a nearly flawless republican government that cannot be easily corrupted by partisanism fueled by wealth and greed.

We now have historical evidence how not to do it.

We must try again.

[brooklynite]

67. Our Presidential Election process runs for a minimum of 10 months...

...from the Iowa Caucus to the General Election. Not counting the advance time for fundraising and campaigning. Which other parts of the process are you going to streamline for the sake of holding your new election?

[NCTraveler]

71. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

[0rganism]

74. why? if we can't protect the 2016 election, why think we can protect a 2019 election?

our national fortune is predicated on the assumption that our elections are sound. if they're actively compromised, there is no way the people's will can be done when it conflicts with the controllers'.

[suston96]

75. CJ John Marshall

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821


Refer to my post earlier.

[beachbum bob]

76. Proof has no meaning, there is no constitutional mechanism that

allows this and all this kind of discussion is 100% waste of time