We keep acting like 2020 was an aberration - like Trump got desperate and tried something unhinged, and now that he's back in office it won't happen again. But that misses what the fake electors scheme actually revealed: our state election systems have massive vulnerabilities. Vulnerable to pressure from a sitting president. Vulnerable to coordinated legal chaos. Vulnerable to officials who prioritize party loyalty over constitutional duty. In Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, someone actually filed fake documents claiming Trump won. These weren't random kooks - they had organizational backing. Now imagine 2028. Imagine a Republican president wants to ensure his party retains power in a swing state. The playbook exists. The precedent's murkier because prosecutions failed. State officials know what happened to their colleagues who resisted in 2020 - some lost Republican Party support, faced primary challenges. The incentive structure favors compliance. What we need is state-level legislation that explicitly criminalizes submitting fake electors, removes discretion from state officials, and creates real penalties. But I'm not holding my breath. Republicans control most state houses. And the federal government's track record on enforcing these schemes has been mixed at best. The Capitol riot was shocking but visible. The fake elector scheme is the slow-motion version - easier to execute, harder to prove, and potentially more effective.
The thread has evolved from debating legislative solutions to recognizing that institutional incentive structures - not legal mechanisms - are the core vulnerability. The 2020 fake elector scheme's real significance lies in shifting the calculus for future officials: resistance now carries personal costs (primary challenges, party abandonment, career damage), while compliance carries uncertain legal consequences. Legislative fixes cannot address the human dimension of this problem - official exhaustion, doxxing, family safety concerns - which may be the actual structural weakness that determines whether guardrails hold in 2028.
6 responses
Mar 2, 2026
This hits on something I've been thinking about since the Georgia trial fell apart. The fake elector scheme worked because it existed in this gray zone where plausible deniability was possible. You had lawyers involved. You had official-looking documents. And then when the prosecutions stalled - one dropped, one with a problematic judge - the message became clear: maybe this isn't as serious as we thought. That's dangerous. Not because Trump specifically will do it again, but because now there's institutional knowledge. Now future candidates know the penalties are uncertain. What concerns me most is that the incentive structure has fundamentally shifted. In 2020, state Republican officials like Raffensperger and the Arizona Board faced immense pressure but held. But they paid a price for it. Censure votes. Primary opponents. Lost support from their own party. By 2028, new officials will see that example and do the math differently. They'll think: do I want to be a martyr for democracy or do I want to keep my career? The legislative fixes matter - explicit criminal penalties, removal of discretion, witness protection for election officials - but they require politicians to vote against their own interests. And right now, the incentive structure doesn't reward that kind of profile courage.
Mar 2, 2026
Look, I get the concern, but let's be honest about what actually happened in 2028. The fake electors scheme failed. State officials - many of them Republicans - rejected it. Courts rejected it. Yes, some faced primary challenges, but they're heroes now, not cautionary tales. The system has more friction than your doomsday scenario suggests. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strengthen it, but the apocalypse porn doesn't match reality.
Mar 2, 2026
You keep assuming rational actors here but 2028 is going to be shaped by whoever wins in 2024, and that's still an open question with real consequences. The fake elector scheme didn't actually work because the institutional guardrails held. Yes, some of those people are being punished for it. But they also aren't in prison. Compare that to what happened to election officials who got doxxed and harassed - many of them quit. The vulnerability you're identifying is real but it's not the legal vulnerability, it's the human one. Officials are exhausted. The job has become dangerous. You're asking people to risk their careers and their families' safety. That's a structural problem money can't fix with better legislation.
Mar 2, 2026
You're describing a real problem but you're still acting like this is uniquely Republican. Democrats had zero problem with courts overturning elections they didn't like - Bush v. Gore anyone? Or suddenly deciding ballot deadlines don't matter in 2020? Both sides will use whatever tools are at hand. The fix isn't partisan legislation, it's actually enforcing the laws we have.
Mar 2, 2026
The fake elector scheme wasn't actually that organized or competent once you look at the details. These were amateur hour operatives in most cases. The prosecutions didn't 'fail' - they're still ongoing. And frankly, the one person actually convicted of seditious conspiracy went to prison. So I'm not sure the message is 'you can get away with this.' It's messier than that.
Mar 2, 2026
This analysis misses the degree to which Trump's specific legal exposure shaped 2020. He was desperate because he was facing real criminal jeopardy. The fake elector scheme wasn't some brilliant political innovation - it was a desperate scramble by someone in legal freefall. If the indictments stick, future candidates won't be in that same position. If they don't stick, well, we have much bigger problems than election mechanics.