79 Days Report
| Formation | 2020 |
|---|---|
| Type | October 2020 political scenario exercise |
| Purpose | To examine the possible post-election period in 2020 |
| Location |
|
| Methods | Simulation exercise |
Key people |
|
| Website | www |
The 79 Days Report was a 2020 post-election simulation jointly run by the Claremont Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, bringing together 35 experts in constitutional law, election law, foreign affairs, law enforcement, media, and social media in addition to former elected state legislators and federal officials.[1]
The simulation anticipated legal challenges, media coverage, and foreign and domestic attempts to foment urban unrest after the 2020 United States presidential election and in the run up to the transition. The effort was partially motivated as a response to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a June 2020 political exercise billed as bipartisan but run by Democrats and so-called "Never Trump" Republicans.
Background[edit]
The 79 Days Report was run over a period of seven days in October with the scenario designed and led by Chuck DeVore, a former California lawmaker and U.S. Army lieutenant colonel with extensive wargame experience. The effort aimed at meeting some of the shortcomings identified by the TIP simulation, namely, the lack of legal analysis and no input from players representing the media and social media giants.
The key takeaways from the effort included:[2]
- Regardless of the outcome, the winner isn’t likely to be known on election night.
- The large number of mail-in ballots may prove hard to validate in many states, as systems have not been prepared to process the ballots and count them, while tremendous pressure will be brought to bypass safeguards against fraud and produce results.
- When employed, the legal system will be up to the task of adjudicating disputes over election results.
- There is a significant chance for unrest, stoked by a dominant corporate media in which the American people have lost trust; internet giants actively deciding what information to allow the public to see; domestic opponents to America’s constitutional system, and by foreign powers, mainly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia.
- There is a heightened danger of international adventurism by the PRC and Russia, the leaders of which, misperceiving the nature of American governance, may think the post-election uncertainty gives them opportunity for military action. This would be a grievous error on their parts.
- If the contest doesn’t produce a majority (50 percent plus 1) of the votes of seated electors by Jan. 6, there are clearly established constitutional procedures to determine a victor.
- There are two areas of uncertainty at the late stage of a contested election:
- Each house determines the final election results of its membership. This means the Democratic majority in the U.S. House might decide not to seat duly elected Republican members to prevent the Republicans from holding a 26-seat majority in the state delegations if they, with one vote per state, are used to determine the president if no candidate has the needed absolute majority of seated electors’ votes. Given that the majority’s power to determine the membership of the body, House or Senate, is absolute, the sole check on the use of this political power is the potentially dire consequences of its abuse.
- Should the results be undetermined through Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, the Succession Act would suggest that the speaker of the House would become acting president until one is determined and, if the House cannot decide, then elevating the vice president, even if selected out of the Senate.
Participants included:
- Ryan Williams—President of the Claremont Institute
- Kevin Roberts—Executive Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation
- KT McFarland—former Deputy National Security Advisor
- John C. Eastman—constitutional law professor
- Brian Kennedy—former President of the Claremont Institute
- Chuck DeVore—former member of the California State Assembly and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel
- Jason Isaac—former member of the Texas House of Representatives
- Ron Simmons—former member Texas House of Representatives
Conclusions[edit]
The two think tank leaders wrote in The Federalist "...that America has a well-established 'transition integrity' procedure — the Constitution."[3] After the simulation, they were confident that the American system was up to the task of even a difficult transition.
References[edit]
- ↑ Fund, John (2020-10-19). "Election Day: What If We Have No Winner for Months?". National Review. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
- ↑ Williams, Ryan (2020-10-19). "We Gamed Out The 2020 Election And Found Our Constitution Can Handle The Madness". The Federalist. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
- ↑ Williams, Ryan (2020-10-19). "We Gamed Out The 2020 Election And Found Our Constitution Can Handle The Madness". The Federalist. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
This article "79 Days Report" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:79 Days Report. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
