Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election

[econ41]

The real reason we have an electoral college

Thanks - a useful reminder for me as a non US person.

However I suggest the more relevant question for 2020 is "Why do we retain the protocols and trappings of electoral college when what remains of the original intention can be achieved without it?"

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Because it gives Republicans an advantage that they will not give up. Demographic changes have made it virtually impossible for a Rep candidate to win the national popular vote.

The last serious attempt to get rid of the Electoral College came in 1969, when President Richard Nixon and his defeated 1968 opponent – Hubert H. Humphrey – backed the elimination of the system. The reason? Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who ran as an independent in 1968, had won 48 electoral votes in 1968 – and the two major parties were scared about the impact a third-party candidate could have on future outcomes.

The legislation passed the House in 1969 but died in the Senate. As Lee writes:

"Mark Weston, a historian of the Electoral College and author of the 'The Runner-Up Presidency,' said the amendment was filibustered and finally killed in the Senate by a group of Southern senators concerned that states with large populations would dominate elections."

It is retained for the same reason it came into being. There are two rival cultures. The rival culture with the lower population must have an artificial advantage..

An amendment to the constitution of the U.S. would be required.

1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

 

[JMartJr]

Worth noting that the US Constitution has been successfully amended 17 times (not counting the first 10 in the Bill of Rights, which were sort of "baked in!") In spite of the difficulties, it can and has been done repeatedly, as recently as 1992 when the 27th, originally proposed in 1789 with no expiration date, finally was ratified by enough states.

There are four amendments that were submitted to the states by Congress with no time limit for ratification that are still out there, dealing with Child Labor, Apportionment of Members of the House among the states, the "Corwin Amendment" which would shield state "domestic institutions" from being changed by Constitutional Amendment (a pre-Civil War effort to protect slavery and possibly to put off the tensions leading towards the war, as I understand it) and one to strip you of your citizenship if you accept a Title of Nobility from a foreign country -- so don't do that, just in case it is ever ratified by enough states.

To my knowledge, there is no serious effort underway to submit and ratify an amendment to address the Electoral College.

 

[econ41]

Worth noting that the US Constitution has been successfully amended 17 times...

Yes. But it is not easy and I would suggest near impossible to make amendments that reduce the politicians' power to manipulate. Currently perceived problems are from Republicans but in a different situation it could be Democrat. Which is why - as a non-US person - I'm trying to be both rigorously objective and uninvolved in domestic US details.

Hence the framing of my recent question. Can the time delays associated with the "protocols and trappings of electoral college" be reduced administratively removing ONE aspect allowing the "dramas" to be prolonged?

To my knowledge, there is no serious effort underway to submit and ratify an amendment to address the Electoral College.

Do changes to administrative procedures require amendment of the constitution? The result of an election should be available within days. But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief. Is the two month delay mandated by the Constitution? OR is it one aspect contributing to the current on going farce which could be modified administratively without constitutional amendment?

And - yes - there are many such issues to be addressed. I am not suggesting that one issue will solve problems - the whole complexity needs to be addressed. And - yes again - much of it if not all will be politically contentious.

 

[econ41]

Because it gives Republicans an advantage that they will not give up. Demographic changes have made it virtually impossible for a Rep candidate to win the national popular vote.

It is retained for the same reason it came into being. There are two rival cultures. The rival culture with the lower population must have an artificial advantage..

Isn't that restating the problem and saying "It is too hard"? My starting position is that there are problems. That they derive in part from ~230 years of political and cultural evolution. And the associated administrative processes are deeply embedded in both US politics and US culture.

If the current situation is acceptable >> no point in debate.
If it is not desirable debate must consider options for change including how much can be achieved by administrative action and how much needs Constitutional amendment. And in both cases having regard to pragmatics.

An amendment to the constitution of the U.S. would be required.

I suggest that is premature at the start of a debate.
There are many factors contributing so it is not singular "it" needing one singular solution "an" amendment. And many of the details could well be amenable to administrative action.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If the current situation is acceptable >> no point in debate.
If it is not desirable debate must consider options for change including how much can be achieved by administrative action and how much needs Constitutional amendment. And in both cases having regard to pragmatics.

I'm really struggling to understand what you're saying here. It almost seems you're saying that because the electoral college system causes problems, the problems should be fixed... as if everyone agrees that there is an objective problem or everyone agrees there is not a problem. Or as if the problem is whether people want to put in the effort or don't want to put in the effort to fix a problem.

The Republicans like it and want to preserve it because it gives them a political advantage. The Democrats don't like it but lack the power to change it. It's a part of the Constitution of the United States and the system must be followed in all detail. The end.


It seems as if you picture the political process as a method to come to an agreement on how to pragmatically solve problems.

Sort of like... The ship is sinking. How do we repair it? Let's talk about it and come to an agreement.



But politics is usually more like...

A: The ship is sinking. How do we repair it?

B: The ship should sink. Repairing it would be preserving a costly problem.

A: What? You're insane. Ships are the finest achievement of human history.

B: No, you're insane. Ships are the root cause of all mankind's problems. I hate all ships.

A: But if this ship goes down, we'll all die.

B: Nonsense. We'll get in the boats.

A: There are only enough boats for half of us.

B: There's room for all of us. (Meaning all of B Party.)

They have a vote. Result: Fifty point one percent of the votes go to "let the ship sink." The A Party tries to repair the ship anyway, and the B Party sabotages their efforts. And so on.

 

[deirdre]

But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief.

you keep bringing up this point, so it must be important to you. but ive never heard any party American complaining about the transition period. and i doubt it would have anything to do with the electoral college. even if we went full popular vote, there would be court deadlines set and a transition period.

Plus if we got rid of the Electoral College then who would call the winner? it would cost like 185 billion dollars to work out and restaff for the New Election Crier to call the election. and take about 123 years to work out the details.

 

[Landru]

Do changes to administrative procedures require amendment of the constitution? The result of an election should be available within days. But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief. Is the two month delay mandated by the Constitution? OR is it one aspect contributing to the current on going farce which could be modified administratively without constitutional amendment?

The original date for the inauguration was March 4th. It was changed by the 20th amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration?wprov=sfla1

This was easily found using Google.

 

[Mauro]

There is a way to change the electoral college dynamics and to redress the unfair advantage the system gives to Republicans, without the need for a constitutional amendment: enough states (with at least 270 electoral votes) could change their laws so that their votes go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote (I have read about an initiative to get this, sorry I cannot get a reference now). That would not be easy, but easier than a constitutional amendment I think.

A federal law against gerrymandering (invented by Democrats, but now mostly favoring Republicans for what I know) would be useful too, but this looks as difficult as reforming the electoral college, they're not going to give up their privileges easily.

 

[Leak]

There is a way to change the electoral college dynamics and to redress the unfair advantage the system gives to Republicans, without the need for a constitutional amendment: enough states (with at least 270 electoral votes) could change their laws so that their votes go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote (I have read about an initiative to get this, sorry I cannot get a reference now). That would not be easy, but easier than a constitutional amendment I think.

CGP Grey made an informative video on the topic of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact some time ago, which I'd suggest checking out.

 

[deirdre]

(I have read about an initiative to get this, sorry I cannot get a reference now)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[JMartJr]

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

WIll be interesting, if that comes into being, to see how long it can withstand states with a strong Red or Blue tint having to throw their electors to the candidate their own voters rejected strongly.

 

[Hevach]

WIll be interesting, if that comes into being, to see how long it can withstand states with a strong Red or Blue tint having to throw their electors to the candidate their own voters rejected strongly.

I fully expect it to be a house of cards. Legislatures can't bind themselves, most states aren't enshrining this in their constitution, and even if they do almost every state constitution is relatively easy to change.

The real test isn't just going to be states assigning electors against the local votes, I think. It's going to be a 2000/2016/2020 situation where the popular vote loser would win the per-state electoral college but loses due to the compact.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

The only hope for reform in the USA, as I see it... is if the republicans over reach and essentially self destruct.... and lose the majorities they hold in the small states. This is possible but how likely it is hard to know. But...
If the dems control both houses and the POTUS they would then be able to make fundamental changes like... make PR a state or DC... and perhaps pass new election law. However the republican base is getting radicalized and not prone to play by the rules these days. Hard to envision a path to a better USA.

 

[econ41]

However the republican base is getting radicalized and not prone to play by the rules these days. Hard to envision a path to a better USA.

I also see those as two of the dominating issues also Jeffrey. The move against democracy is strong. The Trump era and recent ongoing events boosting radicalisation. Effectively not possible to amend the Constitution. And no pragmatic way forward because so much of the administrative detail is tied to specific aspects of the Constitution.

 

[deirdre]

Hard to envision a path to a better USA.

Hopefully drama fatigue will set in soon for both sides and we can go back to trying to be somewhat reasonable and compromising.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Hopefully drama fatigue will set in soon for both sides and we can go back to trying to be somewhat reasonable and compromising.

I see the problem of achieving reason and compromise is the influence of the base of the republican party. Repubs are hostage to their base which will settle for not compromise and are agitating for a civil war. These R's will lose support. So this may lead to a dem majority in congress but a more agitated and out of control base and trouble in the streets.

Can the base ever be satisfied with democracy as we know it?

 

[deirdre]

Can the base ever be satisfied with democracy as we know it?

i don't know what you mean by this. what is democracy as you know it?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

i don't know what you mean by this. what is democracy as you know it?

Base seems to want to install Trump as autocrat... They are standing back and standing by.

 

[deirdre]

Base seems to want to install Trump as autocrat

that's news to me.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Let's put this in the proper perspective.

This current maneuver - the subject of this thread - is a political struggle between Trump and Mitch McConnell and the factions they lead. And it's part of a larger struggle. The Trumpists - the leaders - have no belief that they can overturn this election. But the continuing effort to do so is a political badge. Trump wants followers who are willing to commit sedition against the U.S. constitutional government - a system which he has no allegiance to at all. That's all he sees it as; a system. A system which is obsolete at best.

This is a battle to preserve the republic against autocracy; and it's a serious battle. It's part of a worldwide battle of liberal democracy versus democratic autocracy. A battle which we are currently losing.

In another thread - and elsewhere - there's been a call for understanding and empathy and so on. Maybe the Grinch's heart will grow three sizes.

The autocrats have a neurotic hyper-masculine style. Kindness and understanding and so on are met with contempt, because empathy is weakness. Empathy is something which repulses them and is one of the things which makes them hate us. So being more empathetic - toward them - is a losing strategy.

This is why I'm so strongly against autocracy. It's wrong.

And by "us" I don't mean Democrat vs Republican. It's now between liberal democracy and democratic autocracy.

This is just the beginning, not the end. We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them. To a large extent because so many people are still in denial about what's really happening.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

To be specific:

Republican members of Congress have been forced into this choice:
Support this effort - anti-democratic (but legal!) as it is - and face the consequences, or do not support it and face different consequences.

They risk being "primary-ed." (A neologism which doesn't yet have a standardized spelling.) Even Republicans in safe Republican districts/states will face defeat, not from a Democrat in the general election, but from a radicalized autocratic Republican candidate in the primary election.

The very fact that it is an anti-democratic effort is the point. One has to commit this radical act, which forever brands one as a radical anti-democrat, or face being branded as a RINO. It's a decision point.

That's the battle right now, and it's serious.

 

[deirdre]

We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them. To a large extent because so many people are still in denial about what's really happening.

I think the vast majority of non-radicals on both sides would agree with this statement. (not the rest of what you said, just this bit)

But if there is no effective opposition to them, why try strategies that just drive more people to radicalization?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Because it doesn't do that. That's not how it works. The base is following the leaders of the anti-democratic movement. They have been isolated and indoctrinated into a mindset which is highly resistant to any form of logic... or of human feeling.

Again, that's why I am so passionately opposed to the autocrats. This is horrible.

The role of Russia under Putin in this process is highly underappreciated.

 

[Mendel]

We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them.

I don't know what your standards for effectiveness are, but you probably noticed Trump has been voted out of office effective January 20th? That's pretty effective in my book. Of course, one always wishes for more sooner, but saying there is *no* effective opposition is an understatement that doesn't do the actual opposition justice. All Republican governors in the battleground states that voted for Biden have certified that vote. They've upheld the principles of democracy over autocracy. And this is happening worldwide, there's no established democracy that has succumbed to autocracy; the ones that did or are close to it (e.g. Hungary) are comparatively young.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Voting out Trump is not nothing. Good. But the end of the Trump presidency isn't the end of the story. What I just saw in the last few weeks since the election was a shocking acceleration in the normalization of autocracy in the U.S. On January 6th we may well have another shocking display.

We also learned about the Russian Hack - how did that really happen? Who let it happen or helped it happen? What's going to happen next?

I don't want to be rude or confrontational... truly. But tell me about...
Alternative für Deutschland
Junge Alternative für Deutschland
Der fehlende Part
Compact – Magazin für Souveränität

I hear that this Russian backed party is on the decline. What can you say about this?

 

[Mendel]

I don't want to be rude or confrontational... truly. But tell me about...
Alternative für Deutschland

They've been elected to some German parliament seats, but don't hold executive power anywhere on a national or state level; they're known to be affiliating with neo-nazis, and kind of dismantling themselves as a party over these issues.
You could say that they're encountering effective opposition.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

We now know it's on.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/30/hawley-challenge-biden-electors-forcing-vote-452319

Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday pledged to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania and possibly other states on Jan. 6, when Congress is set to certify the results of the 2020 election.

One year ago Hawley was named as a potential presidential candidate in 2024.

Article on Hawley, from last January.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article239391873.html

It took Sen. Josh Hawley just two years to make the jump from state attorney general to U.S. senator. After only one year in Washington, there are signs that the Missouri Republican is preparing for another promotion.

Hawley has established himself as a national brand within the GOP in ways that could serve as a prelude to a presidential run. He's carved out a niche issue with his push to crack down on the tech industry and begun to articulate a foreign policy vision, which would shift the nation's focus from the Middle East to China.

He's become a fixture of cable news, a sought-after speaker for events hosted by high-profile conservative groups and has repeatedly generated national media attention with legislation that plays to the conservative base. Most recent was his proposal to change the Senate rules to allow for the dismissal of President Donald Trump's impeachment.

"I think he's the future of not just the conservative movement, but the Republican Party. I view him as a Trump 2.0 candidate… someone who can fill Trump's shoes," said Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, a Virginia-based social conservative group that gave Hawley an award at its annual gala last year.

Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.

 

[deirdre]

Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.

i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?

Article:

House Democrats have challenged the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but only after the 2004 election did a senator — California's Barbara Boxer — join in the challenge. That year, Democrats objected to Ohio's electoral votes, which forced a two-hour debate and was ultimately defeated by a wide margin.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/30/hawley-challenge-biden-electors-forcing-vote-452319

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?

Article:

House Democrats have challenged the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but only after the 2004 election did a senator — California's Barbara Boxer — join in the challenge. That year, Democrats objected to Ohio's electoral votes, which forced a two-hour debate and was ultimately defeated by a wide margin.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/30/hawley-challenge-biden-electors-forcing-vote-452319

Homework for you. Research the specific issues and goals in 2000, 2004, and 2016 and report them here. Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- overturning an election? [Edit to make the point clear: Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- a sham attempt to overturn an election through deliberate fraud?]

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Republican Senator for Nebraska Ben Sasse has issued a condemnation in an open letter to his constituents.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655


Excerpts...

WHAT HAPPENS ON JANUARY 6th

In November, 160 million Americans voted. On December 14, members of the Electoral College – spread across all 50 states and the District of Columbia – assembled to cast their votes to confirm the winning candidate. And on January 6, the Congress will gather together to formally count the Electoral College's votes and bring this process to a close.

Some members of the House and the Senate are apparently going to object to counting the votes of some states that were won by Joe Biden. Just like the rest of Senate Republicans, I have been approached by many Nebraskans demanding that I join in this project.

Having been in private conversation with two dozen of my colleagues over the past few weeks, it seems useful to explain in public why I will not be participating in a project to overturn the election – and why I have been urging my colleagues also to reject this dangerous ploy.

Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:

Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.
Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.
Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are "allegations" of voter fraud.

I can't simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is "on the take" because they didn't send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive "allegations" of corruption.

The president and his allies are playing with fire. They have been asking – first the courts, then state legislatures, now the Congress – to overturn the results of a presidential election. They have unsuccessfully called on judges and are now calling on federal officeholders to invalidate millions and millions of votes. If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn't and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.

Let's be clear what is happening here: We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there's a quick way to tap into the president's populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they're wrong – and this issue is bigger than anyone's personal ambitions. Adults don't point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.

 

[Landru]

Homework for you. Research the specific goals in 2000, 2004, and 2016 and report them here. Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- overturning an election?

If you have an assertion to make you should make it an support it rather than handing out homework assignments. In the 2000 election 20 congressmen objected to Florida's vote. Was there another intention?

 

[econ41]

Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.

That is the trend which I see of concern. My own interest from the perspective of an Australian whose country is suffering co-lateral damage as a possible consequence of the Trump era.

But also from the perspective of how can the USA reverse the underlying issues which have caused of the perceived problems.

Republican Senator for Nebraska Ben Sasse has issued a condemnation in an open letter to his constituents.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655

Excerpts...

But they're wrong – and this issue is bigger than anyone's personal ambitions. Adults don't point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.

That looks like "one small step".

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If you have an assertion to make you should make it an support it rather than handing out homework assignments. In the 2000 election 20 congressmen objected to Florida's vote. Was there another intention?

I put it this way to be as neutral as possible. Do you want me to express an opinion about motive?


The issue in the 2000 election was voter suppression perpetrated by the state of Florida, and this was based in fact.* A genuine violation of The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Democrats did not force a vote in both houses in the year 2000. Al Gore, as president of the Senate silenced members of the Congressional Black Caucus by ruling their objections and parliamentary maneuvers out of order. Al Gore was the losing candidate that year for those unaware.

This is not equivalent in any way to the situation this year.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
*

According to the Palm Beach Post (among other issues), though blacks accounted for 88% of those removed from the rolls, they made up only about 11% of Florida's voters.[7]

Voter demographics authority David Bositis, a former senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed The Nation's findings and concluded that the purge-and-block program was "a patently obvious technique to discriminate against black voters".

The issue in 2004 was voter suppression perpetrated by the state of Ohio, and this was based in fact. A genuine violation of the The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Senator for California Barbara Boxer did join the challenge. This was not an attempt, sham or otherwise, to overturn the election. It was a gesture to highlight the issue of illegal voter suppression in Ohio and elsewhere.

The year 2016
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/5085...cting-to-electoral-college-results-it-is-over

More than half a dozen members rose at different points to object to the results of the election, citing Russian hacking, the legitimacy of the election and electors, voting machines, voter suppression and more.

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts was the first to rise. Amid grumbling from other members, Vice President Biden, who presided in his role as president of the Senate, gaveled the body to order. He noted that any objection must be in writing, signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate.

He asked McGovern if he had fulfilled all three. McGovern admitted the objection was not signed by a member of the Senate, and Biden threw it out.

No official challenge was made.

 

[econ41]

I put it this way to be as neutral as possible. Do you want me to express an opinion about the motive?

It is an interesting topic - and warrants it's own thread IMO.

And the topic runs parallel with the concerns I have been expressing without success.

As I see it you are identifying political manipulation of the system. I comprehend the points you make. I accept or agree with many of them tho they are not my area of interst or current expertise. My focus has been - still is - on the mix of Constitutional provisions and related adminstative processes which IMO underpin the recent events which I regard as farcical.

My theme - whether it fits the same OP or not - 'What options are available to minimise seditious and dishonest manipulation of the "system"?' So it is at least a partial approach to options for constraining the negative aspects of the trends you identify. The topics should be complementary.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've found this.




Hawley

Democrats have done this for years in order to raise concerns about election integrity. Now when Republicans - 74 million Americans- have concerns about election integrity; we're supposed to just sit down and shut up?

I have no problem calling this deliberately deceptive. I'll just cut and paste a point Senator Sasse made.

Right now we are locked in a destructive, vicious circle:

Step 1: Allege widespread voter fraud.
Step 2: Fail to offer specific evidence of widespread fraud.
Step 3: Demand investigation, on grounds that there are "allegations" of voter fraud.

I can't simply allege that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee is "on the take" because they didn't send the Cornhuskers to the Rose Bowl, and then – after I fail to show evidence that anyone on the Selection Committee is corrupt – argue that we need to investigate because of these pervasive "allegations" of corruption.

He's also lying about the 74 million figure. He's claiming, by inference, that every person who voted for Trump believes the stolen election narrative. He knows this isn't true. This is intolerable.




Boxer reinforces the point I made simply from memory. My living memory.

Number one: John Kerry had conceded the race. We have a president here who is orchestrating... an overthrow of the election.
Secondly: We said up front, we had no interest in overturning the election. All we wanted, was to focus on voter suppression, that we saw in Ohio.

I emphasize "my living memory" because I'm not going to tolerate this Room 101 effort to take Reality from me. I'm not going to say I don't know how many fingers.

This is intolerable, this is un-American, this is wrong.

 

[Mendel]

i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?

It is so bad now because the objection is not based on reality. The "concerns" are a conspiracy theory.

No Republican has had their vote suppressed this year. There was no vote counted (with few exceptions, I hear there's a Republican who cast a second ballot in the name of his dead mother!) that wasn't by a legitimate voter with the right to vote; as becomes clear when you read the amicus brief that the congressional Republicans filed for the Texas lawsuit at the Supreme Court.

The 2021 objection is propaganda in support of a narrative that is founded on lies.

We have discussed the 2005 objection on this forum recently; you should have learned that it was to highlight the difficulties black voters faced in many counties in Ohio, which were provably real and not imagined. (Remember, you objected to me calling that sad?)

There is *nothing* the Republicans have shown about the 2020 election that compares. Their concern is, "we lost the election (like the polls predicted), therefore there must have been fraud". But the core of democracy is that we accept when others have a different opinion than we do; and that we submit to the majority when a decision needs to be made. The refusal to do that is at the core of the Republican objections; the single purpose of the amicus brief I mentioned was to throw out legitimate votes that did not favor the Republicans.

Today's push is not based on democratic principles; it does not champion anyone's right to vote; it is no more than a tantrum based on the fact that Trump did not succeed in getting re-elected, and it is calling the foundation of democracy into question because of it. The "concerns" are about losing an election fair and square. No politician who supports democracy should ever be concerned about that.

--

The objection in the electoral college will fail because the House will not support it. It won't have legal consequences, Biden will be elected. Z.W.Wolf should not be scared for Biden. Wolf is scared because one of the two big American parties has forgotten how to stand up for democracy. (There are many Republicans who remember! But they're in the minority in their party, it seems.)

The Democrat objections of the past, in the electoral vote counting, were standing up for democracy. They did not intend to call the outcome of the vote into question, they intended to highlight proven infringements of people's right to vote. These objections were fighting for democracy, not against it.

 

[deirdre]

i see. so standing up (checks and balances) for election integrity is good and noble when liberals feel the intent is justified, but is evil when liberals feel the intent is bad but conservatives feel the intent is justified. color me surprised.

Just because many of the complaints we see highlighted in the mainstream media have no evidence to back them up, or are outright conspiracy theories, does not negate the few legitimate issues that arose from this unique situation of untested mass mail-in voting or election officials illegally changing state voting law.

The right to vote isnt an open border situation. ie. i cant go to my townhall Nov 12th and say "i was too lazy to get my vote in on time so i have a right to vote now". or "I voted too late and the u.s. mail didnt deliver my ballot on time so i want it counted anyway because i have a right to vote" or "i have a right for my vote to be counted even though i didnt fill the ballot out properly because noone taught me how".

In every year, the right to vote is granted citizens WITHIN the laws (as determined by state legislators) that govern those rights. (you need to show ID, you need to get your vote in by 9pm, poll watchers must be granted access etc etc)


I'm glad Biden won but there were funky issues in a few states (as Barr said. Though, as Barr also said... not enough funky issues to change the election results.). I doubt any alleged suppression of the black vote in prior years was enough to change election results, but still most people would agree that any election integrity issues should be examined so people - of ANY color- feel confident in the election and post-election process.

Democrats should be thrilled the laws and protocols are being seen through in this election, it gives (checks and balances) much more credence to Biden's win.

I think people are too fixated on Trump and his sometimes over-the-top die hard supporters. The sun does not rise and set with Trump. Not every citizen with concerns is a die hard Trump supporter, and their concerns should not be just dismissed out of hand as conspiracy theories.

*and for the record, i would be defending Democrat right to lawsuits and recounts also if Trump had won. As i stated before the election. (and i guarantee you in this unique Covid year, and the utter hatred of the anti-Christ Trump, there would be lawsuits coming from Democrats. )

The Democrat objections of the past, in the electoral vote counting, were standing up for democracy. They did not intend to call the outcome of the vote into question, they intended to highlight proven infringements of people's right to vote.

and btw... no. they wanted the election win to go to Gore. which is fine and good and VERY American and VERY pro democracy.

 

[Mendel]

standing up (checks and balances) for election integrity is good and noble when liberals feel the intent is justified, but is evil when liberals feel the intent is bad but conservatives feel the intent is justified.

Nobody said "evil".

"Checks and balances" are the judicial system, it's been employed, but even after these checks we're still waiting for a concession speech from Trump. That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks.

The "funky issues in a few states", what are they? Do they discriminate against certain group of voters? Do they impact constitutional rights? Or are you treating this as a game, where rules matter more than constitutional rights?

 

[deirdre]

"Checks and balances" are the judicial system

we have 3 branches of government. the judicial system is one.

That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks.

are you sure you want to generalize like this, considering the majority, even McConnell has said Biden won?

Do they discriminate against certain group of voters?

why do they have to discriminate? why does it have to be against a certain 'group'?

where rules matter more than constitutional rights?

America is a land of laws. I don't know how you do things in Germany, and i don't care. it's not a matter of "more". and don't accuse me of treating this as a game. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.