The animating concept behind the Trump campaign will be chaos. This is what history shows us fascists do when given the chance to participate in democratic political campaigns: They create chaos. They do it because chaos works to their advantage. They revel in it, because they can see how profoundly chaos unnerves democratic-republicans—everyone, that is, whether liberal or conservative, who believes in the basic idea of a representative government that is built around neutral rules. Fascism exists to pulverize neutral rules.

So they campaign with explicit intention to instill a sense of chaos. And then comes the topper: They have the audacity to insist that the only solution to the chaos—that they themselves have either grossly exaggerated or in some cases created!—is to vote for them: “You see, there is nothing but chaos afoot, and only we can restore order!”

  • BeautifulMind ♾️
    link
    English
    011 months ago

    Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?

    It doesn’t have to be. If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress in the ‘contingent election’ procedure, whereby state congressional delegations each have 1 vote. If 26 states have republican delegations (which seems plausible, given how many states are controlled by the gop) it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

    If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes in any FPTP election

    • @UnderpantsWeevil
      link
      111 months ago

      If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress

      Well, double damn then. I’m in a heavily gerrymandered house seat so now my vote extra doesn’t matter.

      it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

      That’s heavily predicated on how midwestern states manage their house seats in the next election. Pennsylvania’s forced redrawing of maps in 2018 flipped five or six house seats. Wisconsin and Michigan redistricting fights could cost as many more, each. Dems are within range of the House (barring another landslide swing like in 2010 or 2018) if too many of these break the Dems’ way. And now that Dems appear more focused on winning state SCOTUS elections, that’s not inconceivable.

      If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes

      I’m guessing you’re not a Lieberman 2008 guy. And who can blame you?

      But folks with sufficiently high name recognition can definitely win third party. Just ask Lisa Murkowski. Or Jesse Ventura, for that matter.