Jump to content

Menu

What constitutes a coup?


Terabith
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:


If Trump were to lose the electoral college and refuse to leave office anyway I think it would technically be something other than a coup, equally bad but not a coup exactly.  A coup seems to be the taking of power from those that already have it.  Trump technically has power, he would just be refusing to give it up.  Although I guess you could say it was a coup because he would be keeping power from the rightful winner. 

 

Yes, I was wondering if a leader of a country who was at one point rightfully elected refusing to give up power (or changing the rules in a shady way to stay in power) is still called a coup or if it has another name.  There's also the situation in countries like Venezuela where a leader was elected, but many people thing he may have rigged/cheated to get elected.  It may not be totally legitimate but it doesn't seem to be called a coup.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re state level decisions to change how they allocate EC delegates

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

And since that is controlled on a state level, that’s where one lobbies to change it. It’s not a federal issue, really. But convincing a state government to make their states’ EC vote pot less lucrative to campaigning candidates by making it proportional has not traditionally gone over well. 

Right, because although the how-to-allocate decision rests with the states, it has obvious national level ramifications: that is precisely the point.

It would be partisan suicide for some states to go proportional allocation unless all the other states also went proportional allocation -- that would be ceding partisan power (by rendering -- forex -- California's red votes to suddenly count towards the 273 post when Texas' blue votes still were vanished under winner-take-all allocation). 

That is how the NPVIC came into being.  And it's difficult to imagine the scenario would play out, where (hypothetically) Pennsylvania's popular vote were to go GOP but the NPVIC bound its EC delegates to go Dem.  Court challenges would ensue, for sure; and there may be language in some state constitutions that could come into play. But the *US* Constitution allows the states to allocate however they choose.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kand said:

I think whether it’s a coup or not is somewhat of a semantics issue. The loser refusing to transition power would clearly be a massive breach of the constitution—arguably akin to just tearing the constitution in pieces. A sitting president threatening lawsuits and Supreme Court and not conceding and all of that before the election has even happened is not what democracy is about. That is a very different situation in my mind to what happened in Bush/Gore, where it  ended up with the courts involved, but it’s not like that was the original plan before the election even happened. (Hopefully that last part doesn’t breach politics rules, it being a historical point of reference from the past. I will delete if I should.)

I don't think it's simply semantics -- the essence of "coup" is using the apparatus of the government (most commonly the apparatus of physical force) to seize power in rather than complying with the succession procedure established under Rule of Law.  Might makes right, is the essence of "coup."

Military / police power isn't the *only* relevant apparatus of power an incumbent has to wield -- there have been many occasions throughout history throughout the world -- not, mercifully, here -- where the sitting ruler has simply canceled elections called for under that nation's established Rule of Law.  Still a coup.  Or put an armed soldier at every polling place in a setup where ballots were visible to that show of force. Still a coup.  Or any other number of variations, some of which lean far more into administrative power (ie, waiting for the moment where Incumbent is ahead and then summarily announcing the vote count is over). Still a coup.

Rule of Law, not might makes right, is the Big Picture of what characterizes democratic transitions.  Might Makes Right characterizes totalitarian transitions.

We are extremely lucky, as a nation, that we have never before had to sift through in our minds all the little-picture details of a particular definition. A lot of other places on this planet are not so lucky.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Paige said:

Off topic, but I wish we had proportional representation with the EC. California's red votes get wiped out; Kentucky's blue votes get wiped out. I think the winner take all proportioning of the electoral college is a significant cause of polarization and why we can't have significant 3rd party representation. No state is really one party, but the EC makes candidates campaign as if they were. 

Not all states are winner takes all.  Mine is and I definitely lobby for a proportional system.  It does feel to minority that their votes don't count.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kand said:

I think whether it’s a coup or not is somewhat of a semantics issue. The loser refusing to transition power would clearly be a massive breach of the constitution—arguably akin to just tearing the constitution in pieces.

I was listening to a podcast earlier and it made me think of this thread.  Maybe the question of what is or is not a coup doesn't go far enough.  What comes after a coup/coup-by-another-name? Does a coup leave a country as a failed state? Is it a dictatorship at that point? What is Hungary considered at this point? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize I’m a little late to this conversation. Something no one has pointed out in this thread is that the Presidency actually expires. I think the Atlantic article rightfully pointed out that the period between the election and the inauguration is critical. It would seem that in our current system the integrity of the EC is paramount. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I realize I’m a little late to this conversation. Something no one has pointed out in this thread is that the Presidency actually expires. I think the Atlantic article rightfully pointed out that the period between the election and the inauguration is critical. It would seem that in our current system the integrity of the EC is paramount. 

and, relatedly, the integrity of the state-level election certification processes that feed into the EC itself.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kand said:

I don’t know what Hungary is considered. 

A cautionary tale? People who think everything is fine and normal in the US would do well to read about Hungary: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump

Edited by bibiche
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I don't know anyone who thinks everything is A-OK here in the U.S., but I also don't know anyone in real life, or online away from here, who thinks we're in any danger of a coup, dictatorship, or a president staying past his term, from either major party.

https://medium.com/@mikeselinker/a-wargame-designer-describes-our-four-possible-civil-wars-cf5b2e980099

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

I was listening to a podcast earlier and it made me think of this thread.  Maybe the question of what is or is not a coup doesn't go far enough.  What comes after a coup/coup-by-another-name? Does a coup leave a country as a failed state? Is it a dictatorship at that point? What is Hungary considered at this point? 

Honestly, when we have people having to choose between risking their life from a pandemic or starve, I'm pretty sure we are already at least on the edge of failed state. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kand said:

Ugh. I could only skim the medium piece, because I have too many immediate life crises right now to start also worrying about actually, literal war. The Atlantic piece was helpful to me, though. I do wonder if those scenarios would change if they ran them now, particularly post RBG. I’m sure this will sound odd, but the Atlantic piece was actually somewhat reassuring to me, because while clearly all of those are bad scenarios, they’re within the realm of what seems tolerable to me right now. Everyone buying guns and taking up arms, not so much. 

They reran a more recent Atlantic article in which they talked to people who ran the simulations.  The participants feel that the danger is significantly worse now than it was this summer.  

We're not buying guns, but I'm stocking our pantry, withdrawing cash to prepare for no electrical grid, and contemplating burner phones and deleting social media.  And kicking myself for not having gotten passports pre-pandemic.  I'd started to, but then I got distracted.  I figure if I need a gun, realistically, it's too late, and 4/4 of us have mental illness, including two teens.  We do have an antique gun with no bullets in the basement that I guess could look intimidating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

I don't know anyone who thinks everything is A-OK here in the U.S., but I also don't know anyone in real life, or online away from here, who thinks we're in any danger of a coup, dictatorship, or a president staying past his term, from either major party.

There are a great number of folks in real life and online away from here who ARE grappling with that danger.

The article by Barton Gellman cited upthread, which is the cover article of the longtime (and until our recent polarized cleave rather centrist) Atlantic, which as been widely read and discussed since it was published three days ago, is titled  "The Election That Could Break America - If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?" and is centered on the near-certainty that election results will not be known by 11p on Election night as we've all grown accustomed to due to the exponentially larger number of mail-in and absentee ballots; and the potential that the incumbent use an extended interval of uncertainty about the election outcome to wield the apparatus of the state to determine the outcome before votes are fully counted. As dictators loath to surrender power have repeatedly done in other nations in other contexts.

The concern has been percolating for some time, since it's been clear since primary season that there will be vastly more mail-in and absentee votes throughout the nation due to COVID, and those ballots take substantially longer to process (with details such as outer envelops and signatures requiring checks, and the ballots often can't be run through the regular tabulators to count).

But the concerns spiked substantially this week when the POTUS made public remarks in which he declined to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he lost and suggested (?) a need to "get rid of the ballots."

Quote

“I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. We want to have — get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans- — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly; there'll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control,

 

Who knows what he "meant" in that particular response -- it's a word salad Rorsach.

But the concerns attendant to calls by a sitting President to "get rid of the ballots" are in fact being widely discussed in all kinds of forums well beyond our cozy circle here.

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of fears on both sides of the aisle.  Biden has also been advised not to concede the election no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

This, along with states sending out ballots to all citizens, not just those who requested absentee ballots, has many on the Republican side of the aisle fearing an attempt by Democrats to steal the election also.  This concern along with reports of Republican mailed-in ballots being found in the garbage, people receiving multiple ballots sent to them by their (mostly blue) states, the knowledge that there will be tons of ballots being sent out that could be tampered with (and have been in past elections), recent elections that ran into lots of issues with mail-in ballots, and former Democratic operatives admitting to and describing in detail how they have cheated with mail-in voting in prior elections, has many Republicans fearing a "coup" from Democrats.  The reporting of this type of stuff is constantly in the more right leaning news reports, just as the reporting about Trump not conceding is in the left leaning news.  It seems both sides are scared to death that their side is going to be cheated out of a rightful win.

It is also being reported that even if Trump "seems" to win in a landslide on election night, that everyone needs to wait and be patient for all of the mail-in votes to be counted, which may take weeks.  This is where all of the legal battles will come in to play and it is why both sides are indicating they will not be willing to concede right away, because they do expect there to be legal battles.  I have heard reported multiple times that the Biden Campaign has hired over 700 lawyers to be prepared for this battle and I am sure Trump's Campaign has also.

I just wanted to note here that the "coup" concern/discussion is not just coming from one side of the aisle. It seems to be very strong on both sides.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lea1 said:

the knowledge that there will be tons of ballots being sent out that could be tampered with (and have been in past elections), recent elections that ran into lots of issues with mail-in ballots, and former Democratic operatives admitting to and describing in detail how they have cheated with mail-in voting in prior elections, has many Republicans fearing a "coup" from Democrats.

Can you cite some sources for the above? The only large(r) scale fraud involving absentee/mail in ballots that I'm aware of is what the Republican operatives tried to pull off in NC House District 9 in the last election.

ETA: What I'm interested in are any large(r) scale incidents where charges were brought and convictions rendered (as happened in the above NC case involving Republicans). I'm not interested in charts listing random ballot issues here and there that would have had no impact on any race, or in hearsay allegations, rumors, etc.

Edited by Pawz4me
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Half of this country prefers liars. I’m not sure what it will take to make people understand this. They will overlook all of the outright lies, and then spend time telling us how religious they are, how they want what’s best for all kids, etc. Why? Because they are liars, too

There are liars on the right and the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lea1 said:

There are plenty of fears on both sides of the aisle.  Biden has also been advised not to concede the election no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

It is also being reported that even if Trump "seems" to win in a landslide on election night, that everyone needs to wait and be patient for all of the mail-in votes to be counted, which may take weeks.  This is where all of the legal battles will come in to play and it is why both sides are indicating they will not be willing to concede right away, because they do expect there to be legal battles.  I have heard reported multiple times that the Biden Campaign has hired over 700 lawyers to be prepared for this battle and I am sure Trump's Campaign has also.

I just wanted to note here that the "coup" concern/discussion is not just coming from one side of the aisle. It seems to be very strong on both sides.

It's quite different for someone who isn't running for office to run her mouth vs the candidate who is a sitting President. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen with no authority to do anything. I don't think either candidate should concede on election night but I also don't think we automatically are going to need the Supreme Court to intervene again. 

Let the states certify their own elections and hopefully Biden and Trump will be patient and accept the results whatever the outcome. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lea1 said:

It is also being reported that even if Trump "seems" to win in a landslide on election night, that everyone needs to wait and be patient for all of the mail-in votes to be counted, which may take weeks. 

Right. Because that's true. We won't have all the votes in on election night. Do you have a better suggestion than waiting and being patient? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lea1 said:

There are plenty of fears on both sides of the aisle.  Biden has also been advised not to concede the election no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

 

That was about not conceding on election night, until all ballots are counted. Waiting for ballots to be counted still falls within "peaceful transition of power". The thing Trump said he couldn't commit to. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That was about not conceding on election night, until all ballots are counted. Waiting for ballots to be counted still falls within "peaceful transition of power". The thing Trump said he couldn't commit to. 

And we have seen him tweet in 2018 that DeSantis and Scott should be declared winners and the counting should stop, because he saw that the votes coming in were blue and he was afraid they would lose. Quote:

The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged. An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!
 
 
  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SanDiegoMom said:

And we have seen him tweet in 2018 that DeSantis and Scott should be declared winners and the counting should stop, because he saw that the votes coming in were blue and he was afraid they would lose. Quote:

The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged. An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!
 
 

It's very convenient when any time that you lose, you declare there must have been fraud. (If you win, though, there's no way there could have been fraud.) 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

And we have seen him tweet in 2018 that DeSantis and Scott should be declared winners and the counting should stop, because he saw that the votes coming in were blue and he was afraid they would lose. Quote:

The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged. An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!
 
 

You ever play a game with a kid around 10 years old who starts making up new “rules” when they start looking like they will lose? Like they suddenly say, “Oh yeah, I forgot; if one player rolls doubles twice in a row, they have to skip their turn and the other player gets to roll twice...”? That’s what Trump reminds me of. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re the now-expected ritual of the Concession Speech

9 hours ago, lea1 said:

There are plenty of fears on both sides of the aisle.  Biden has also been advised not to concede the election no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

This, along with states sending out ballots to all citizens, not just those who requested absentee ballots, has many on the Republican side of the aisle fearing an attempt by Democrats to steal the election also.  This concern along with reports of Republican mailed-in ballots being found in the garbage, people receiving multiple ballots sent to them by their (mostly blue) states, the knowledge that there will be tons of ballots being sent out that could be tampered with (and have been in past elections), recent elections that ran into lots of issues with mail-in ballots, and former Democratic operatives admitting to and describing in detail how they have cheated with mail-in voting in prior elections, has many Republicans fearing a "coup" from Democrats.  The reporting of this type of stuff is constantly in the more right leaning news reports, just as the reporting about Trump not conceding is in the left leaning news.  It seems both sides are scared to death that their side is going to be cheated out of a rightful win.

It is also being reported that even if Trump "seems" to win in a landslide on election night, that everyone needs to wait and be patient for all of the mail-in votes to be counted, which may take weeks.  This is where all of the legal battles will come in to play and it is why both sides are indicating they will not be willing to concede right away, because they do expect there to be legal battles.  I have heard reported multiple times that the Biden Campaign has hired over 700 lawyers to be prepared for this battle and I am sure Trump's Campaign has also.

I just wanted to note here that the "coup" concern/discussion is not just coming from one side of the aisle. It seems to be very strong on both sides.

Right. The expectation, to which we've all become accustomed, is that all but a minuscule handful of ballots will be counted by ~11p on Election Night, and that we'll all stay up and watch the district results come in, until that point where it's arithmetically impossible for the candidate who's behind to catch up (because the remaining dribble of outstanding votes cast is less than the winning candidate's margin), won't happen this year.

There will be too many outstanding ballots already-in or coming in by statutory deadlines (in some states, the deadline is postmark date, not arrival-in-the-registrar's office date).  That critical measure, "it's arithmetically impossible for the uncounted votes to make up the winning candidate's margin" simply will not happen, because of the MASSIVELY higher number of voters opting to use mail-in and absentee ballots because of COVID. We already KNOW this because in a number of states the applications for mail-in or absentee ballots have already started pouring in.  (And from the primaries.)

And if the votes haven't been counted, the electoral outcome hasn't been determined. 

 

There's nothing in the Constitution, or state law, that demands the ritual Concession Speech we've all become accustomed to.  Back before automated tabulator machines and computers and instant communications, counting the ballots commonly took weeks -- that's why the EC does not convene until mid-December after the states have had a sufficient interval to both finish counting and to certify the results. 

The first concession is believed to have been William Jennings Bryan to William McKinley in 1896 --  and it was neither instant, nor in a speech, but in a private telegram. The ritual we now expect didn't come into being until Stevenson to Eisenhower in 1956.

God KNOWS I enjoy, personally, the drama of Election Night, staying up watching the district returns, trading notes with friends and family on what website we're perseverating on and which races we think have a chance of going the way we're hoping.  And sitting-on-the-edge-of-the-seat waiting for the first network to "call" the result, and waiting up for the ritual Concession Speech, are both essential parts of that drama.

But representative democracy is not, actually a drama; and the winner isn't actually declared by network fiat: the winner is determined by votes.

Which need to be counted.

And if a crap ton of votes haven't been counted yet, the winner is not yet clear. 

Of course neither candidate should concede if the winner is not yet clear.

 

That's not a coup, that's the existing system that we have.  Where votes are counted.

Edited by Pam in CT
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Paige said:

It's probably too much to hope for, but I wish the networks would all act responsibly and refuse to call any states election night.

I’m ok with calling a race when all outstanding ballots, if counted, would not change the outcome. This is possible in states that require ballots to be received by election day. In all other instances tho, they should wait.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...