Hey Simon, I am just reading this post now and wanted to say thank you for writing it and opening a critical conversation. Recently, I have been having similar thoughts as you espouse here: that there will likely be… untraditional gameplay… in one of our upcoming POTUS elections, and that we need to be talking about how to respond to various potential outcomes. As such, I’m sharing some of my own thoughts here.
Thinking about 2024: I think the variables at play are pre-election measures (i.e. attempts by state legislatures to make it easier or harder for people to vote), post-election measures (i.e. legal challenges, state legislatures sending electors), and votes (that is, the actual popular/electoral will of the voters). I see four main paths…
1) The Republican nominee, whomever it is, wins in something of a landslide: they win enough votes in enough states to unambiguously win the election. As a liberal, I think Republican control is a negative for the country, but clearly this scenario is a legitimate win for Republicans, and Dems will need to accept that + keep fighting to win control in the future.
2) The election is a close one, but the Republican nominee ends up winning. However, they benefit from pre-election measures to suppress turnout (I’m thinking things like closing polling locations / purging voter rolls, someone more knowledgeable could probably speak more to specifics). Liberal groups leading up to November 2024 should definitely be fighting such tactics, but, I think, the rules of the game when the game begins are something that need to be accepted, and this scenario must be seen as a legitimate win for the Republican nominee.
a) As an aside, this is generally how I view the 2018 gubernatorial race in Georgia: Abrams lost, perhaps due to some not-so-nice gameplay before the election. I think she should have conceded, but you can empathize with her - if Republicans are going to use unfair tactics to win elections, and then use the power of government to roll out more unfair tactics + entrench power, well, then we might see the gradual erosion of democracy. So maybe you do need to draw the line somewhere.
3) The election is a close one, but Democratic nominee ends up winning enough votes enough states to win, as in 2020. OR, at least that’s what it seems. But after the election, Republicans use the courts to challenge this or that, similar to 2020. Except, unlike in 2020, a very controversial case goes their way (a la Bush v Gore but on steroids?) and the Republican nominee suddenly wins.
4) The election isn’t really all that close (not close enough for a few hundred thrown out votes to swing the election, as in scenario #3), but then, fraud is alleged…basically the scenario 1 that you describe but in an election that’s not actually close. Thus, we have high-level elected Republican officials clearly rejecting the popular will of voters in their states.
I view scenarios 1 and 2 as legal and legitimate. With 3, the Court would clearly be calling the Republican election victory “legal,” but is it legitimate - would people accept it? Scenario 4, if it ended in a candidate that had clearly lost the election becoming president, is illegitimate and would not, could not be accepted - similar to how we would not and could not have allowed Mike Pence to pull any shenanigans on Jan. 6 that somehow threw Trump the election.
This is my map as I understand things. I’m not an election lawyer, though, nor an expert on any of this, just a concerned citizen, so would love people smarter than myself to weigh in.
Thanks again for writing this and spurring me to put my own thoughts down on paper.
Hey Simon, I am just reading this post now and wanted to say thank you for writing it and opening a critical conversation. Recently, I have been having similar thoughts as you espouse here: that there will likely be… untraditional gameplay… in one of our upcoming POTUS elections, and that we need to be talking about how to respond to various potential outcomes. As such, I’m sharing some of my own thoughts here.
Thinking about 2024: I think the variables at play are pre-election measures (i.e. attempts by state legislatures to make it easier or harder for people to vote), post-election measures (i.e. legal challenges, state legislatures sending electors), and votes (that is, the actual popular/electoral will of the voters). I see four main paths…
1) The Republican nominee, whomever it is, wins in something of a landslide: they win enough votes in enough states to unambiguously win the election. As a liberal, I think Republican control is a negative for the country, but clearly this scenario is a legitimate win for Republicans, and Dems will need to accept that + keep fighting to win control in the future.
2) The election is a close one, but the Republican nominee ends up winning. However, they benefit from pre-election measures to suppress turnout (I’m thinking things like closing polling locations / purging voter rolls, someone more knowledgeable could probably speak more to specifics). Liberal groups leading up to November 2024 should definitely be fighting such tactics, but, I think, the rules of the game when the game begins are something that need to be accepted, and this scenario must be seen as a legitimate win for the Republican nominee.
a) As an aside, this is generally how I view the 2018 gubernatorial race in Georgia: Abrams lost, perhaps due to some not-so-nice gameplay before the election. I think she should have conceded, but you can empathize with her - if Republicans are going to use unfair tactics to win elections, and then use the power of government to roll out more unfair tactics + entrench power, well, then we might see the gradual erosion of democracy. So maybe you do need to draw the line somewhere.
3) The election is a close one, but Democratic nominee ends up winning enough votes enough states to win, as in 2020. OR, at least that’s what it seems. But after the election, Republicans use the courts to challenge this or that, similar to 2020. Except, unlike in 2020, a very controversial case goes their way (a la Bush v Gore but on steroids?) and the Republican nominee suddenly wins.
4) The election isn’t really all that close (not close enough for a few hundred thrown out votes to swing the election, as in scenario #3), but then, fraud is alleged…basically the scenario 1 that you describe but in an election that’s not actually close. Thus, we have high-level elected Republican officials clearly rejecting the popular will of voters in their states.
I view scenarios 1 and 2 as legal and legitimate. With 3, the Court would clearly be calling the Republican election victory “legal,” but is it legitimate - would people accept it? Scenario 4, if it ended in a candidate that had clearly lost the election becoming president, is illegitimate and would not, could not be accepted - similar to how we would not and could not have allowed Mike Pence to pull any shenanigans on Jan. 6 that somehow threw Trump the election.
This is my map as I understand things. I’m not an election lawyer, though, nor an expert on any of this, just a concerned citizen, so would love people smarter than myself to weigh in.
Thanks again for writing this and spurring me to put my own thoughts down on paper.