Jump to content

Menu

What constitutes a coup?


Recommended Posts

I found an article last night about stopping a coup.  Coups can be started by both right and left leaning groups, so it's sort of a non-partisan thing.  https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/09/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-stop-a-coup/?fbclid=IwAR0rh0xi92ee3D-Xxr2gx0oNTW3srUt6bSS8wAqlGJtiNSSLiIkfyu1IZ0I

One of the points of the article is how do we recognize that a coup is taking place.  The article says:  

We know it’s a coup if the government:

  • Stops counting votes;
  • Declares someone a winner who didn’t get the most votes; or
  • Allows someone to stay in power who didn’t win the election.

These are sensible red lines that people can grasp right away (and that the majority of Americans continue to believe in).

People who do power grabs always claim they’re doing it to save democracy or claim they know the “real” election results. So this doesn’t have to look like a military coup with one leader ordering the opposition to be arrested.

If any of those three principles are violated, we have to declare loudly and strongly: This is a coup.

What I want to know is, DO we all agree that these are the signs that a coup is occurring?  I sorta figure that if the Hive, which is one of the more reasonable and educated places on the internet, can't agree, then we really are doomed and I need to start making preparations on how to prepare for a civil war.  

I'm really hoping that the next thread I start isn't:  How should I prepare for a civil war?  

Edited by Terabith
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question wasn't is there a coup being planned right now, but do we agree that it's definitely a coup if the following happens:

stops counting votes

declares the loser to be the winner

allows the loser to assume or retain power

I think #1 is fuzzy when I reflect on what has happened in previous elections. There's often been complaints that counting has been stopped prematurely somewhere. I think it's definitely a coup if the other 2 happen and if #1 happens with enough outstanding votes to tip the scale. I think if someone is behind by 1000 and you have 1000 votes in a bag, then they should be counted even if it's statistically unlikely that every vote will be for the person who is behind. 

 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, those are not the clear-cut lines the author thinks they are. 

What does s/he  mean by "declares someone the winner who didn't get the most votes"? Popular votes? Electoral college votes?

Didn't we just have an election in which the declared winner lost the popular vote? Was that a coup? 

The terms need to be better defined, IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terabith said:

 

We know it’s a coup if the government:

  • Stops counting votes;
  • Declares someone a winner who didn’t get the most votes; or
  • Allows someone to stay in power who didn’t win the election.

 

none of these things are indicative of a coup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

So, what is indicative of a coup?

a coup d'état is marked by an abrupt seizure of power by a faction from a sitting government or organization, often violent, rarely administrative (i.e. refusing to count votes)

Edited by gaff
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bagels McGruffikin said:

As someone put it today, saying someone won the popular vote and lost the election is a little like saying someone won the World Series because of fan attendance. It’s not the metric our country uses.

Anywho, I just liked the illustration, since it’s become a point of contention that the electoral college should be abolished, as though calling for that without a constitutional amendment is somehow less coup like behavior than actually honoring the existing electoral process. For example.

I hadn't heard anyone suggest that the electoral college be abolished without a constitutional amendment?  I've heard lots of people suggest that we should work towards a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, but that is different.  Isn't it?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I hadn't heard anyone suggest that the electoral college be abolished without a constitutional amendment?  I've heard lots of people suggest that we should work towards a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, but that is different.  Isn't it?

There is the National Popular Vote Insterstate Compact. Which is sort of doing an end-run around the Constitution, but which is also sort of within the Constitution, and either way is not really enforceable - electors have the right to cast their votes however they like.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

There is the National Popular Vote Insterstate Compact. Which is sort of doing an end-run around the Constitution, but which is also sort of within the Constitution, and either way is not really enforceable - electors have the right to cast their votes however they like.

Thanks.  I hadn't heard about that one.  I agree that's hugely problematic.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

There is the National Popular Vote Insterstate Compact. Which is sort of doing an end-run around the Constitution, but which is also sort of within the Constitution, and either way is not really enforceable - electors have the right to cast their votes however they like.

I thought that the Supreme Court said that the electors don't have the right to cast their votes however they like?  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

(This was just the first article that came up on Google.  I don't know the reliability of this specific site.) 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

I feel your pain, but I refuse to change on principle.

I don't even know HOW to change.  I keep trying to make a photo or cute thing to identify myself beyond a T, and I can't figure out how to do it.  Even after reading the instructions.  All my pictures were too large, memory wise, according to the forum.  

Honestly, while in real life I usually find myself one of the smartest people in a given room, the forum reminds me every single day that I'm not really all that bright.  It keeps my ego in check!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

As someone put it today, saying someone won the popular vote and lost the election is a little like saying someone won the World Series because of fan attendance. It’s not the metric our country uses.

Anywho, I just liked the illustration, since it’s become a point of contention that the electoral college should be abolished, as though calling for that without a constitutional amendment is somehow less coup like behavior than actually honoring the existing electoral process. For example.

 Using this as a jumping off point, for the purpose of this discussion on what constitutes a coup, I think refusing to accept and act according to who wins according to the electoral college would be a good place to start.  Like it or not, it’s the system we have.  

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I thought that the Supreme Court said that the electors don't have the right to cast their votes however they like?  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

(This was just the first article that came up on Google.  I don't know the reliability of this specific site.) 

My understanding is that electors have to Vote according to the laws in their state.  Most states give all electors to the popular vote winner in that state.  (Maine and a couple of others do it weird.)  The compact is an agreement to change those state laws to give the electors to whoever wins the national popular vote instead.  So they wouldn’t be faithless electors going rogue, but electors acting in accordance with their state laws, it just changes those state laws. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeachyDoodle said:

IMO, those are not the clear-cut lines the author thinks they are. 

What does s/he  mean by "declares someone the winner who didn't get the most votes"? Popular votes? Electoral college votes?

Didn't we just have an election in which the declared winner lost the popular vote? Was that a coup? 

The terms need to be better defined, IMO.

Electoral college votes are, unfortunately, an issue in this election. There seems to be an attempt to make sure that state legislatures controlled by one party declare and certify sets of electors favorable to their preferred candidate before all votes are counted and a winner has been certified. That’s a coup to me.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I thought that the Supreme Court said that the electors don't have the right to cast their votes however they like?  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

(This was just the first article that came up on Google.  I don't know the reliability of this specific site.) 

They have to cast their votes according to state law which, in many cases, means according to the wishes/slate adopted by state legislatures. There are reports that candidates have been speaking with state legislative leaders in contested states to encourage them to select a slate of electors favorable to their preferred candidate prior to all votes being counted.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Terabith said:

I found an article last night about stopping a coup.  Coups can be started by both right and left leaning groups, so it's sort of a non-partisan thing.  https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/09/10-things-you-need-to-know-to-stop-a-coup/?fbclid=IwAR0rh0xi92ee3D-Xxr2gx0oNTW3srUt6bSS8wAqlGJtiNSSLiIkfyu1IZ0I

One of the points of the article is how do we recognize that a coup is taking place.  The article says:  

We know it’s a coup if the government:

  • Stops counting votes;
  • Declares someone a winner who didn’t get the most votes; or
  • Allows someone to stay in power who didn’t win the election.

These are sensible red lines that people can grasp right away (and that the majority of Americans continue to believe in).

People who do power grabs always claim they’re doing it to save democracy or claim they know the “real” election results. So this doesn’t have to look like a military coup with one leader ordering the opposition to be arrested.

If any of those three principles are violated, we have to declare loudly and strongly: This is a coup.

What I want to know is, DO we all agree that these are the signs that a coup is occurring?  I sorta figure that if the Hive, which is one of the more reasonable and educated places on the internet, can't agree, then we really are doomed and I need to start making preparations on how to prepare for a civil war.  

I'm really hoping that the next thread I start isn't:  How should I prepare for a civil war?  

But the most votes thing doesn’t count for the us as a whole because of the electoral college thing right?  So it would have to be on a state level?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But the most votes thing doesn’t count for the us as a whole because of the electoral college thing right?  So it would have to be on a state level?

I saw an extremely disturbing report this morning, by a reporter who  published it in the Atlantic, I believe, that state legislative leaders in some contested states have admitted to being contacted by national party leaders about selecting electors for their preferred candidate before all votes have been counted and the election certified. It remains to be seen if this reporting is verified, but it would not surprise me in the least.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart Gellman says he spoke directly to a PA legislative leader who admitted being contacted by the RNC about doing just this. Here is the associated article. People can make of it what they will. In Bart Gellman’s morning show appearance, he specifically named Ronna Romney. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Electoral college votes are, unfortunately, an issue in this election. There seems to be an attempt to make sure that state legislatures controlled by one party declare and certify sets of electors favorable to their preferred candidate before all votes are counted a winner has been certified. That’s a coup to me.

I have seen zero evidence of this but I will take your word for it. Doesn't change the fact that the parameters set forth here are far too vague.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But the most votes thing doesn’t count for the us as a whole because of the electoral college thing right?  So it would have to be on a state level?

It's complicated, and I may get it wrong, because different states do it differently.  The US Constitution just says the electors vote, and there is no requirement that they have any relationship with the popular vote.  I'm pretty sure it was designed because the Founding Fathers specifically didn't trust the population as a whole to choose government.  Some states have state laws about how electors have to vote.  A lot of them have laws saying that all the state's electoral votes have to go to who won the popular vote for the state.  Some avoid them according to percentage of popular vote.  And some states allow the electors to do whatever they want.  

The report @Sneezyone referenced said that the Trump campaign is going to states and trying to convince them to commit to voting for him regardless of popular vote, which is legal in some states and not in others.  But regardless of whether it is Constitutional or not, it would be the death keel for democracy in our country, and I think civil war would be inevitable.  Not in the way it was in the 1860s, but widespread civil unrest leading to societal collapse.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeachyDoodle said:

I have seen zero evidence of this but I will take your word for it. Doesn't change the fact that the parameters set forth here are far too vague.

You’d have to do the work to look at every state constitution and regulatory scheme. I don’t have time for that but trust the expertise of those who study and report on election law for a living.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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. 

I simply wish there were consistency and teeth in the rules. What we have now provides loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. We’ve never  before had a candidate so willing to exploit those. I have no confidence in the word of individuals who’ve so recently flip-flopped on major issues to maintain the norms that have kept us going this long. Power is a heckuva drug.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The suddenness would be covered by the sheer number of people who think this is impossible. They’d certainly see it as sudden even if those folks paying careful attention saw it coming. The violence would easily be covered by the resultant protests and militarized police responses. The illegality part is what’s in doubt. These actions would be illegal if you consider the ultimate arbiter being ‘consent of the governed’ but case law doesn’t actually support that principle.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

As someone put it today, saying someone won the popular vote and lost the election is a little like saying someone won the World Series because of fan attendance. It’s not the metric our country uses.

Anywho, I just liked the illustration, since it’s become a point of contention that the electoral college should be abolished, as though calling for that without a constitutional amendment is somehow less coup like behavior than actually honoring the existing electoral process. For example.

Ugh...yeah..people don't have a clue how the government is actually set up. 

4 hours ago, Terabith said:

I hadn't heard anyone suggest that the electoral college be abolished without a constitutional amendment?  I've heard lots of people suggest that we should work towards a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, but that is different.  Isn't it?

I haven't heard that either. 

I think the easy thing to do is if more states go to proportional allotment of electors. Instead of winner take all, do it proportionally. That can be done at the state level. 

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Electoral college votes are, unfortunately, an issue in this election. There seems to be an attempt to make sure that state legislatures controlled by one party declare and certify sets of electors favorable to their preferred candidate before all votes are counted and a winner has been certified. That’s a coup to me.

I don't know that it is a coup, I'm pretty sure it isn't...but it's not democracy, that's for sure. 

2 hours ago, PeachyDoodle said:

I have seen zero evidence of this but I will take your word for it. Doesn't change the fact that the parameters set forth here are far too vague.

It's been openly admitted to from what I'm reading. The idea is to replace the electors with ones loyal to the republican party in the event that it looks like that party has lost the vote in the state. Picture that Biden wins in Florida, so the Republican state lawmakers substitute in party loyalists as the electors, who promise to vote for trump despite him losing the state. So targeted at swing states that have Republican state legislatures only. (my state is one of them which may be why it is big news here)

1 hour 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. 

A few states do. I wish all did. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

And I want votes counted.  And we do declare Presidents who didn't get the most votes elected--- we have an electoral college.  Popular vote nationwide for President means nada.

I disagree the popular vote means nada. While it certainly doesn’t change who is president, it does reflect the will of the majority of voters.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

As someone put it today, saying someone won the popular vote and lost the election is a little like saying someone won the World Series because of fan attendance. It’s not the metric our country uses.

Anywho, I just liked the illustration, since it’s become a point of contention that the electoral college should be abolished, as though calling for that without a constitutional amendment is somehow less coup like behavior than actually honoring the existing electoral process. For example.

Already discussed.

Edited by Frances
Link to post
Share on other sites

re original purpose of Electoral College:

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

It's complicated, and I may get it wrong, because different states do it differently.  The US Constitution just says the [EC] electors vote, and there is no requirement that they have any relationship with the popular vote.  I'm pretty sure it was designed because the Founding Fathers specifically didn't trust the population as a whole to choose government.  Some states have state laws about how electors have to vote.  A lot of them have laws saying that all the state's electoral votes have to go to who won the popular vote for the state.  Some avoid them according to percentage of popular vote.  And some states allow the electors to do whatever they want. ...

Right. Federalist Paper 68 lays out the logic of how the EC structure would protect against the popular election of a charismatic but dangerous demagogue by putting an intermediate layer of calmer and wiser folk between the masses and the selection of the President:

Quote

...the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

So the Constitution provides for each state to figure out how it would select EC delegates, and thereafter those EC delegates actually would -- in the original Constitutional design -- have discretion over who was ultimately selected.  That is: the original idea was NEITHER what we today refer to as the "popular vote" (a notion that horrified both Hamilton and Jefferson, neither of whom trusted the masses to be up to the task), NOR the winner-take-all bound-EC delegates.

What happened in the interim is that nearly all states adopted both winner-take-all EC delegate allocation and bound-delegate rules (so that delegates are legally required to cast all votes to the candidate who won the state).  Neither of those conventions are outlined in the Constitution; states are able to determine their EC allocation as they see fit (including the adoption of the NPVIC, which is no more out-of-line with the US Constitution as the current allocation system, though there could be state constitution issues).

It is the winner-take-all aspect of the current system that is the driving factor behind the win popular/ lose EC phenomenon. The EC is nearly (not quite bc Senators) proportionate to the House, and the House is nearly (not quite because it has not increased with population, and districting lags) proportionate to population, so if all states allocated their delegates proportionate to the % generated by each nominee, the likelihood of different popular vs EC winners would be very small. But there is little incentive for the party that benefits from the current system to change the current system.

And

2 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

...for the purpose of this discussion on what constitutes a coup, I think refusing to accept and act according to who wins according to the electoral college would be a good place to start.  Like it or not, it’s the system we have.  

Going forward, a consortium of states signing on to the NPVIC (which would not require Constitutional amendment) or changing the EC structure (which would) might well be reasonable. But for this election, like it or not, this is the system we have.

 

That said, the system we have is based on counting the votes within the election certification intervals, which vary by state but range up through mid-December. 

If it were actually to happen, this

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Electoral college votes are, unfortunately, an issue in this election. There seems to be an attempt to make sure that state legislatures controlled by one party declare and certify sets of electors favorable to their preferred candidate before all votes are counted a winner has been certified. That’s a coup to me.

would NOT be "the system we have"; that would be a power-grab abuse to THWART the system we have.  And the Gellman article about the incumbent's campaign pitching what would clearly be abuses of state power in WI and PA in order to tip electoral outcomes are quite troubling.

 

I'm not entirely sure what all the definitional elements of a "coup" are.  But abuse of the power of the state (military power, administrative power, marshalling federal personnel to intimidate voters who don't "look right," and etc) to perpetuate power is certainly part of that criteria.

 

(And I don't think it has to be all-of-a-sudden. Belarus' coup has been unfolding slow-mo. #StillACoup.)

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(For those who don't have an Atlantic subscription and have used up their 3 free monthly articles, here's an interview with its author Barton Gellman that covers the gist, though not the specifics, of the concern)

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Frances said:

I disagree the popular vote means nada. While it certainly doesn’t change who is president, it does reflect the will of the majority of voters.

Maybe a majority of voters, but not the majority of the country.  Big cities overwhelming the voting process is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent by using the electoral college.  Otherwise a very small part of the country would be able to control the rest.  And the issues for people vary so much depending on where they live.

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

re "number of counties"

7 minutes ago, matrips said:

Maybe a majority of voters, but not the majority of the country.  Big cities overwhelming the voting process is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent by using the electoral college.  Otherwise a very small part of the country would be able to control the rest.  And the issues for people vary so much depending on where they live.

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. 

I don't understand this. Counties are units of LAND.  What relationship is there between units of LAND and representative efficacy?  It's not as if the LAND itself has either representational interests, or representative rights.  However dramatic are those maps are with vast tracts of colored-in counties... there's a lot less logic in empty acres "controlling the rest" than real people who happen to live in cities, KWIM?

 

I do understand the argument that "the issues for people vary so much depending on where they live," (though that argument similarly applies to seniors, or people with disabilities, or any number of other issue-interests than rural/urban).  And it is true that the Senate was designed to overbalance towards rural states on a per capita basis. 

That was NOT the design intent behind the EC -- the expressed design intent with the EC was to protect against the popular election of a charismatic demagogue, as per the Federalist Paper cited above.  When the states withdrew the EC delegates' discretion, that theoretical protective mechanism, like it or hate it, was removed.  And the rural overweight of the current EC structure results from the winner-take-all allocation mechanism, not anything provided for in the Constitution.  As a pp noted upthread, if CA's red votes and TX's blue votes (and etc) were all proportionately represented in the EC, the likelihood of a mismatch between the EC and the popular would be extremely low.

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I would think that the Senate itself would be the counterbalance to population/ big cities.  To have both the Senate And the Electoral College really puts a massively disproportionate amount of power in states like Wyoming.  The fact that people's votes vary in power to such a huge degree is frustrating and unjust.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Plus, I would think that the Senate itself would be the counterbalance to population/ big cities.  To have both the Senate And the Electoral College really puts a massively disproportionate amount of power in states like Wyoming.  The fact that people's votes vary in power to such a huge degree is frustrating and unjust.  

"...and is largely correctable within the current system if enough states were to decide to allocate their EC delegates differently, as is already within their Constitutional power, for example as the NPVIC provides"

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, matrips said:

Maybe a majority of voters, but not the majority of the country.  Big cities overwhelming the voting process is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent by using the electoral college.  Otherwise a very small part of the country would be able to control the rest.  And the issues for people vary so much depending on where they live.

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. 

Those counties are made of people- diverse people. No county is full of one party voters- most races are fairly close. Even as polarized as the states appear on paper, the minority (as in political party) voters are not insignificant. Hillary Clinton only got about 60% of the votes in California. Donald Trump only received about 60% of Kentucky votes. I don't understand the argument. Those unrepresented people in "safe" states would finally get a voice and there's no guarantee that it would favor any one party in a competitive race. More people voted for Trump in California (over 4 million) than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and North Carolina combined (populations about 600,000-750,000 a piece) and they got zero EC votes. 

Edited by Paige
grammar
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gaff said:

a coup d'état is marked by an abrupt seizure of power by a faction from a sitting government or organization, often violent, rarely administrative (i.e. refusing to count votes)

It may rarely happen administratively, but if it did happen that way, would we be okay with it? Would it be constitutional for a leader to stay in power despite losing the electoral college? Would it be helpful or harmful to maintaining our republic for him or her to do so?

5 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

 Using this as a jumping off point, for the purpose of this discussion on what constitutes a coup, I think refusing to accept and act according to who wins according to the electoral college would be a good place to start.  Like it or not, it’s the system we have.  

I agree this discussion has to take place with the understanding that winning the electoral college is the current definition of winning the election. If we want to change that part of the system, that has to happen separately, at a later time. I think awarding votes proportionally would certainly make more sense under our current system. I think most people having this discussion are doing so with the same understanding that we are talking about who wins the electoral college. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the discussion about a coup to be focusing on the flaws in our current system where some people’s vote matters much more than others. That’s a different discussion, but the coup discussion is still very much relevant given our ground rules. None of us win if our election doesn’t result in a peaceful transfer of power. That’s pretty much a bedrock of democracy, and we are all very much in trouble if that doesn’t happen. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matrips said:

Maybe a majority of voters, but not the majority of the country.  Big cities overwhelming the voting process is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent by using the electoral college.  Otherwise a very small part of the country would be able to control the rest.  And the issues for people vary so much depending on where they live.

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. 

 

Okay, let us not mince words. When you talk about what the founding fathers were trying to do with the electoral college, the answer is "they were trying to give more power to slave-owning states". Because slave states were less populous than free states, and remained that way.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the disparity in population between states changed dramatically over the years?  Here rural areas definitely don’t grow at the same pace as large cities.  I can imagine if there was small differences it wouldn’t be so important as when there’s huge variation in state population level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Has the disparity in population between states changed dramatically over the years?  Here rural areas definitely don’t grow at the same pace as large cities.  I can imagine if there was small differences it wouldn’t be so important as when there’s huge variation in state population level.

Yes, not just between states but within them. Rural areas are, by and large, being depopulated in favor of cities and larger towns within those states.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paige said:

More people voted for Trump in California (over 4 million) than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and North Carolina combined (populations about 600,000-750,000 a piece) and they got zero EC votes. 

I believe you probably meant North Dakota rather than North Carolina. NC has a population of over 10 million people, and is (I think, according to Wiki) the ninth most populous state.

Edited by Pawz4me
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...