How overtly stolen would a presidential election have to be for a civil war or for states to secede?

[Ferguson97]

How "obviously" stolen would a presidential election have to be for states who backed the "losing" candidate who really won to honestly considering secession, whether individually or as a group? Or if you think states wouldn't do that, Syria-level skirmishes/a "the Troubles" scenario?

Would it be as simple as "run of the mill" voter suppression? A Supreme Court ruling that states can throw out mail-in ballots? Faithless electors? State legislatures/governors ignoring the popular vote and sending their own slate of electors? Could it ever happen?

[DrScholl]

It would have to be the court outright ignoring clear results and throwing out ballots on flimsy evidence. Secession would probably be on the table for many states as opposed to any militarized type action.

[TopShelfGoal]

Yeah it'll most likely lead to secession than a "civil war".

[Big Abraham]

Yeah it'll most likely lead to secession than a "civil war".

Surely, that would be the same thing? The Civil War was triggered over secession, which since Texas v White, has been declared unconstitutional. I don't see how any state could violate that ruling and have Washington go along with it

[GlobeSoc]

I don't think you'd see either secession or civil war, but two parallel governments existing alongside each other until the military picks a side and rolls up the other side very fast

[PSOL]

lmao, most likely one side pu$$i?s out like in Nigeria with Buharto.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

The North would never succeed and the South won't succeed due to the fact EC college benefits Rs. So, this question is moot, that's why when Gore lost there wasn't any contingency plans for Northern states to sede. WVA and TX are the only states to have voted to sede

[Crumpets]

Civil wars only really tend to happen if the resources and fighters are split down the middle and I can only think of a couple of specific scenarios where that's the case - namely one where Biden wins but there's enough controversy around it that members of the military top brass are split on who to support as both Trump and Biden try to assume the role of president.

I think people are underestimating the probability (admittedly still a pretty small probability, but more likely than a full civil war) of Trump just outright assuming authoritarian rule with all resistance quashed very quickly by both the military and local authorities. I was more concerned about this before Trump's comments on the military came out, and I have a lot harder time now seeing anyone with any kind of significant military strength letting Trump get away with that. Maybe I'm overestimating people, maybe I'm underestimating them, either way, I'll rest assured the day Trump is sitting at the capitol watching his successor get inaugurated and not a day before.

[Anni di ghiaccio]

Civil wars only really tend to happen if the resources and fighters are split down the middle and I can only think of a couple of specific scenarios where that's the case - namely one where Biden wins but there's enough controversy around it that members of the military top brass are split on who to support as both Trump and Biden try to assume the role of president.

I think people are underestimating the probability (admittedly still a pretty small probability, but more likely than a full civil war) of Trump just outright assuming authoritarian rule with all resistance quashed very quickly by both the military and local authorities. I was more concerned about this before Trump's comments on the military came out, and I have a lot harder time now seeing anyone with any kind of significant military strength letting Trump get away with that. Maybe I'm overestimating people, maybe I'm underestimating them, either way, I'll rest assured the day Trump is sitting at the capitol watching his successor get inaugurated and not a day before.

You're definitely overestimating the military. Although Trump, as Commander in Chief, has made them worse during his tenure by pardoning war criminals.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Yeah it'll most likely lead to secession than a "civil war".

Surely, that would be the same thing? The Civil War was triggered over secession, which since Texas v White, has been declared unconstitutional. I don't see how any state could violate that ruling and have Washington go along with it

Easy.  Imagine sometimes in the next two years, California secedes (pick your reason for why). The ruling Gross Oligarchs & Pedophiles administration takes one look at the impact of no more California on the House and the Electoral College and cackles. (My understanding is that the net impact would be the disappearance of two seats in the Senate, and the eventual re-allocation of the now-empty House seats among US States, with corresponding effects on the EC.)  In coming years, the GOP will do everything possible to keep California from rejoining, while simultaneously blaming them for every single problem the nation encounters.

Remember, we're in a post-democracy (and post-rule of law) era at this point. Technical legality only becomes relevant when it's to the GOP's benefit. If having CA gone benefits the Republicans, gone is what it will be.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pretty much nothing happened after 2000 was obviously stolen.

[DrScholl]

Yeah it'll most likely lead to secession than a "civil war".

Surely, that would be the same thing? The Civil War was triggered over secession, which since Texas v White, has been declared unconstitutional. I don't see how any state could violate that ruling and have Washington go along with it

Easy.  Imagine sometimes in the next two years, California secedes (pick your reason for why). The ruling Gross Oligarchs & Pedophiles administration takes one look at the impact of no more California on the House and the Electoral College and cackles. (My understanding is that the net impact would be the disappearance of two seats in the Senate, and the eventual re-allocation of the now-empty House seats among US States, with corresponding effects on the EC.)  In coming years, the GOP will do everything possible to keep California from rejoining, while simultaneously blaming them for every single problem the nation encounters.

Remember, we're in a post-democracy (and post-rule of law) era at this point. Technical legality only becomes relevant when it's to the GOP's benefit. If having CA gone benefits the Republicans, gone is what it will be.

There is the economic impact to consider. California has several key shipping ports that are vital to the economy not to mention a large amount of economic revenue. The GOP wouldn't want to give that up too easily. And assuming other states like Illinois, New York and Washington seceded as well there would be an even bigger revenue problem. Florida and Texas would be left to carry the more dependent states and you might have more states slip into being dependent. The GOP would almost certainly attempt to push for an aggressive trade accord since any state that seceded would still need to use US roadways, airports and be able to export into what was left of the US.

[Badger]

If on a scale from zero to a hundred, the Supreme Court's decision in Bush V Gore with a 40, I put it in the mid-60s to 70.

Anymore specific historical analogy, I would say it a repeat of the 1876 presidential election where Republicans just flat-out stole the race in multiple States and crammed through the certification of their own electors over the Democratic nominee, it's not only a very real threat, but also the sufficient threshold to ignite a low-level Civil War and massive level civil disobedience that would make the BLM protest look tame. Things didn't completely hit the fan back then for three basic reasons. First, Southern Democrats which at the time dominated the party received a major and to them delightful concession in Republicans agreed to remove the troops from the south to enforce reconstruction. Secondly, the presidency was nowhere near as powerful and institution as it is today with the power to cause immense harm As Trump has repeatedly proven. Third, is icing on the cake, the Democratic nominee Samuel J Tilden died of natural causes on New Year's Eve following the election, leading Maney to Simply desire the devil one new with Rutherford B Hayes rather than some still not yet established method of succession by the elected vice president.

Assuming Biden doesn't die between the election and the inauguration, none of those things apply here in the slightest. Again, such a scenario is not only the likely triggering point, but it is a very very real threat which Republicans have quite explicitly started maneuvering to do in case the election is closed. Which, I will add, makes supporting Trump or the Republican Party absolutely outlandish and mind-boggling to anyone. At what point does being a conservative and a republican become more important to you then not undermining fundamental American values of democracy and free elections?!? Serious question.

[SWE]

At the end of the day, Americans are a very pacified people and are very hostile to any sort of resistance to authority, so a scenario where a civil war is born out of resistance to tyranny is pretty hard to imagine.