TIN FOIL HAT: Bizarre (But Very Possible) Election Day Scenarios

[indyjones1938]

:tinfoilhat: Some bizarre (but very possible) Election Day scenarios:


(1) Buying of Electors by the GOP :tinfoilhat:

The webmaster of www.electoral-vote.com has outlined several possible ways by which a 270 Kerry/268 Bush scenario could result. Carry it a bit further and you could have 272 Kerry/266 Bush, or whatever.

At this point, it would seem that Kerry has won the election. Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans and everyone else in the world would rejoice. But...not so fast! After all, this is Karl Rove we're dealing with here. The ends justify the means, no matter how unethical, illegal or destructive those means are.

The www.electoral-vote.com webmaster, and others, have hypothesized that - in the event of a narrow Kerry victory - the GOP would stoop to paying off electors. You see, electors are pledged - but by no means legally bound - to vote for a given candidate when the Electoral College meets in December to officially elect the president. If the contest was 270 Kerry/268 Bush, for instance, paying off just one Kerry elector to vote for Bush instead would swing it to a 269/269 tie, at which point the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would select Bush as president. Or, they could simply pay off two Kerry electors, give Bush the 270 votes, and bypass the House altogether. "How much does an elector cost?" asks www.electoral-vote.com. "$1 million? $5 million? $10 million?. Another possibility is that the Rove Machine has already planted moles amongst the potential Democratic delegates, secretly planning to vote for Bush no matter who "wins" the election.

It's unethical, disgraceful, disgusting and immoral - but it's not illegal. In past elections, several electors have voted against their pledged candidate, most recently in 2000.

(2) Bush as President, Edwards as Vice President? :tinfoilhat:

It's the night of November 2nd, and both Kerry and Bush end up with 269 electoral votes. It's a tie, so the Republican-controlled House will select Bush as President. But...what about Vice President? That role goes to the incoming Senate. If the Republicans hold on to the Senate, then Dick Cheney (or :tinfoilhat: John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki :tinfoilhat:) will be selected as Vice-President. But, if the Democrats take back control of the Senate, then they would logically choose John Edwards as Vice President. A long shot? Maybe. But not impossible by any means.

Now, I am not sure what would happen if the incoming Senate ends up being 50 Democrats/50 Republicans. I have read conflicting theories both here on DU and on other websites. Would John Edwards cast the decisive vote for himself as Vice President? In that case, the Senate would effectively by 51 Democrats/50 Republicans, since the Vice President casts tiebreaking votes in the Senate.

Under either of these scenarios, John Edwards, as Vice President in a divided administration, would end up wielding tremendous power. Bush would find it very difficult to push any legislation through the Senate when his Vice President is casting tiebreaking votes against it.

(3) No Election at All :tinfoilhat:

There are dozens of possible scenarios by which this could come to play. There are also other, less tinfoilhattish scenarios where Bush could use his power to execute an "all or nothing" move on Election Day (or maybe the day before). Consider this: he has absolutely nothing to lose. And we all know that a man with nothing to lose is a dangerous man indeed. If he goes through with such a move, he's probably going to win four more years, and nobody can do a damn thing about it. If, by some small chance this move backfires and he loses, we'll be able to conclude that he was so desperate he thought he was going to lose anyway.

One of the more popular variations on this theme is the idea of a "Noon Alert" on Election Day, when Tom Ridge rolls out a red alert and everyone goes into lockdown. The theory - somewhat weak, I admit - is that the blue-collar crowd votes later in the afternoon/early evening after work, and the "Bush base" - farmers, businessmen, fundies - vote early in the morning.

I think it's more likely that Ridge issues a red alert the night before the election. It would be the ultimate scare tactic, and Bush would get last-minute coverage on network television "reassuring" and "soothing" the nation like he did after 9/11. He would get prime time coverage of his speech, seemingly "rallying" the nation against this deadly and omnipresent enemy. The naive, stupid and simple-minded American people would willingly consent, rushing out en masse to their local convenience stores to stock up on batteries, duct tape and canned foods in anticipation of the imminent attack that exists only in Bush's mind. Then, the next morning, after hanging an American flag from their porch and calling all their relatives to make sure they're safe, they would sneak out quickly to their local polling booth and cast a vote for their heroic leader as he stands up like John Wayne to the evildoers in the world. Bush, of course, would win in a landslide.

It's evil, it's fearmongering, it's immoral, it's boy-that-cried-wolfish, and somewhat tinfoilhattish...but it's very, very possible. Remember - Bush has nothing to lose, and a man with nothing to lose is a very, very dangerous man.

[displacedyankeedem]

1. #3

I think that the nation would see right through a red alert the night before. It's gotten to the point that the electorate will be surprised if nothing happens.

[arcane1]

2. or maybe a red alert in Cali when the polls start closing in the east

if it's looking close

I put nothing past these devils

[indyjones1938]

4. #3

I used to think so, too.

But then I realized that, on average, Americans have the intelligence level of a rock.

Something else that plays in Bush's favor with these scare tactics is that Americans are extremely protective of their children and families in an evolutionary sense. It makes you wonder if Rove reads psychology textbooks for fun. Look at 9/11. Even if their son or husband or third cousin twice-removed was 1,000 miles away from New York or D.C., Americans were on their cell phones the second they heard of the attacks making sure they were okay.

We have not yet had a red alert, but if we do, literally everything, everywhere goes on lockdown. Schools, city governments and businesses in every city from New York to Peoria to Cow Town, Kansas will shut down. It will be mass hysteria, and in such situations, everyone becomes protective of their families. When Bush comes on national television in a special report, urging mothers and fathers to huddle closely with their children, to hope for the best but prepare for the worst, that's exactly what those mothers and fathers are going to do.

[JackintheGreen]

3. creepy scenarios, but

to relate to a phrase you use - fear-mongering - it's not the repubs talking about these possibilities (duh...of course not). But it is liberals/progressives/tinfoilhatoids stirring the pot-o-fear that there will be no election.

I worry about it, too, but this post is mongering fear among our side just as much as Ridge mongs fear on theirs.

(I know 'mong' isn't a word, but I'm from Amrrrcuh, so it doesn't matter what you think, FRENCHY!)

[indyjones1938]

5. err

"it's not the repubs talking about these possibilities (duh...of course not). But it is liberals/progressives/tinfoilhatoids stirring the pot-o-fear that there will be no election"


Have you watched the news in the last two months? There has been a constant theme out of the Department of Homeland Security about how to "postpone" the election in the event of a terrorist attack. There was, in fact, a black and white proposal on the table to postpone the election without any credible information indicating a terrorist attack.

Consider also the most recent terralert, which charged that New York City's financial district and other sites in Newark and Boston were under the threat of an imminent attack. It was then revealed that there was no imminent attack. The information was over three years old, and Ridge knew that it was three years old. The only reason the alert was issued was because Bush's poll numbers were faltering, and "terra" is the last card he can play. It's tried and true. Howard Dean and others had the guts to call Ridge out on it, forcing Ridge himself to go on the defensive.

[indyjones1938]

6. kick n/t

[Walt Starr]

7. One statement is false, some electors ARE bound by law

But not all. It's a state by state thing.

[ramblin_dave]

8. But what are the penalties for breaking the law?

In past elections when this was discussed I read that the penalties are not severe. Maybe just a fine. But I don't really know.

[indyjones1938]

9. well

The statement is not "false" by means. It is not illegal for the Bush-Cheney campaign to seek out faithless electors and pay them off to jump ship. It doesn't matter if the faithless elector is from Nevada or Hawaii or New York.

"And then there is the problem of faithless electors. How much does it cost to buy an elector? $5 million? $10 million? $50 million? Can they be auctioned off on E-Bay? Throughout history, there have been eight faithless electors, most recently in 2000. The problem also occurs if the electoral college score is Kerry 270, Bush 268. If one Kerry elector jumps ship it becomes a tie and the House elects Bush."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug11.html

And further, while it may be illegal to offer cash in exchange for an electoral vote in some states, there are other ways to reward a faithless elector.

"If the final election comes down to 269 to 269, the likely consequences are as follows. First, both candidates will look carefully for potential faithless electors, that is, electors who can be persuaded to vote for the candidate they are not pledged to. Offering cash in trade for a vote might be illegal in some states, but there might be subtle questions like: "If I were president, is there anything I might be able to do to help you in some way? Government contracts, government jobs, you name it? Everything would be on the table. It would make Florida 2000 look like a model of good government.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/jun/jun26.html

And, just in case you're a fan of deja vu, here's what might happen if things go really wacky and the House ends up in a tie. How? The Republicans control the House - and probably still will after the November elections. But some state delegations are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. If a state's delegation can't break the tie, it loses its vote.


"Presumably the representatives would vote a straight party line. A state with an evenly-divided delegation would lose its vote. If the House vote came down to an exact tie, that's when it would start to get real hairy. And the Republicans might ask the Supreme Court to put in their two cents worth again. It's anyone's guess what would happen then."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/jun/jun26.html

[The Ref]

10. Ya wanna see some fun?

Bush wins Colorado, but doesn't quite get enough electoral votes to win election race. If a popular referendum passes, as it probably will, Colorado will divide electoral votes according to share of the popular vote. So Dems are virtually assured of at least four of the votes. But some Reps are already claiming that the law can't effect the 2000 election, because it will only be decided on as the election is completed. Of course it'll really be fun when we win Colorado, and the Republicans try to grab a few electoral votes. :^)