How We Know that Reactionary Republicans are Wrong to Oppose Certifying Election

[KarateCowboy]

I know every republican that has investigated has said the same thing there is not enough fraudulent votes to make a difference

This is misinformation. As I just pointed out an increase in over 100k in Wisconsin, which is more than enough to flip the state

 

[iluvatar5150]

Another point raised by the challengers is that the courts changed the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots. To the challengers this is an infuriating last-minute change in election procedures. What they fail to note is that this occurred against a backdrop of the Trump Administration undermining the Post Office in the past year. With more people being allowed to use mail-in ballots than ever before, and more people choosing to use them, the Post Office is moving slower than usual. Again, rules were sensibly changed with the goal of getting every legitimate ballot counted.

They haven't "failed to note" this. They just don't care. It's clear that much of the Republican holds views on electoral politics that are just wildly undemocratic. We've seen it in their extensive attempts at gerrymandering. We've seen it in their extensive attempts at disenfranchising voters via voter ID laws and restrictions on polling places. We've seen it in their resistance to expanded mail-in voting. And now we've seen it in their inability to accept the fact that most of the country didn't agree with them and chose somebody else as president.

One could argue that this is merely partisan opportunism - and that's probably part of it. But even if you accept that as the primary motivation, it's still undemocratic - Republicans are sacrificing the ideal of democracy for the self-serving benefits of winning.

 

[Dale]

They haven't "failed to note" this. They just don't care. It's clear that much of the Republican holds views on electoral politics that are just wildly undemocratic. We've seen it in their extensive attempts at gerrymandering. We've seen it in their extensive attempts at disenfranchising voters via voter ID laws and restrictions on polling places. We've seen it in their resistance to expanded mail-in voting. And now we've seen it in their inability to accept the fact that most of the country didn't agree with them and chose somebody else as president.

One could argue that this is merely partisan opportunism - and that's probably part of it. But even if you accept that as the primary motivation, it's still undemocratic - Republicans are sacrificing the ideal of democracy for the self-serving benefits of winning.

Iluvatar: “We've seen it in their extensive attempts at gerrymandering.”

Funny that you should mention gerrymandering. I live in a congressional district shaped like a barbell. I live in the bar. Our Congressman is a Republican.

 

[Redwingfan9]

You may feel intuitively that the Republicans who objected to Congress counting Electoral College votes were wrong. It certainly looks like partisan gridlock has grown beyond tolerable bounds. Congress counting the votes of the EC is normally a ceremonial matter. There is virtually no parallel to the fracas on the floor of Congress on January 6-7, even if you ignore the rioters.

Richard Nixon was Vice-President and presided when a joint session of Congress counted the Electoral votes that made John F. Kennedy President. Nixon certainly didn’t like the result but neither he nor any other Republican challenged it. Actually, there were significant allegations of election regularities in 1960. It is widely believed that ballot boxes were stuffed in Chicago. Nevertheless, Republicans realized that they had no documentary evidence, no “smoking gun” to present that Congress could reasonably consider.

I did watch the counting of votes and Congressional debate over certifying the Electoral vote from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was the only state where a challenge was signed by members of both Houses and so the only one where the Senate and House had to vote separately to accept or reject the challenge.

Over and over the challengers pointed to the provision in the Constitution that gives the state legislature the authority to set rules for the election in their state. Claims were made that the Governor and other persons in Pennsylvania state government exceeded their power by issuing new rules within a month of the election. If the Governor and other officials did exceed their authority under state law, it seems to me that this would have to be settled in Pennsylvania. A conflict between the Pennsylvania legislature and the Governor, if it even exists in this case, can’t settled by the US Congress.

Where does this allegation leave us? After the Pennsylvania Electors met and voted, the Pennsylvania legislature certified the vote and sent it to Washington, to be counted in a joint session of Congress. According to the challengers, to show respect for the authority of the legislature to set election rules, Congress should throw out the Electoral votes which have been certified by the state legislature. To show respect for the legislature, Congress should throw out the vote tally sent by the legislature. This reduces to absurdity. Rejecting the Pennsylvania Electoral vote would leave Pennsylvanians without a say in who becomes President.

Those challenging the Electoral vote from Pennsylvania fail to notice some crucial points. The Governor and other officials did issue new regulations with an election looming. They did so because of the unprecedented challenge of holding national and state elections while under partial lockdown because of the corona virus epidemic.

Another point raised by the challengers is that the courts changed the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots. To the challengers this is an infuriating last-minute change in election procedures. What they fail to note is that this occurred against a backdrop of the Trump Administration undermining the Post Office in the past year. With more people being allowed to use mail-in ballots than ever before, and more people choosing to use them, the Post Office is moving slower than usual. Again, rules were sensibly changed with the goal of getting every legitimate ballot counted.

Is election fraud an issue? A good point was made by defenders of the 2020 vote count. Republican operatives filed about fifty lawsuits around the country challenging the election results. All these lawsuits have been thrown out for lack of evidence. What did these lawsuits say about fraud? NOTHING. The evidence for fraud is so slight that no lawyer could sign a suit alleging fraud without serious risk of being disbarred. No, fraud isn’t really an issue, it’s just another word that gets tossed around.

I agree there is no evidence of fraud. Having said that, this is hardly the first time members of Congress have challenged electors. Democrats challenged electors in 2004 and 2016. There is no doubt that they will challenge electors next time they lose. I fear this will become a regular feature each time power is handed to the other party.

 

[Dale]

I agree there is no evidence of fraud. Having said that, this is hardly the first time members of Congress have challenged electors. Democrats challenged electors in 2004 and 2016. There is no doubt that they will challenge electors next time they lose. I fear this will become a regular feature each time power is handed to the other party.

Redwingfan: "Democrats challenged electors in 2004 and 2016."


Do you have a source for this?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Redwingfan: "Democrats challenged electors in 2004 and 2016."


Do you have a source for this?

Feinstein challenged Ohio electors in 2004.
CNN.com - Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes - Jan 6, 2005

They also challenged electors in 2016. Congressional Democrats plan to challenge Trump's Electoral College victory

It is curious that the mainstream press has failed to mention these two events for the most part this week. (Both the articles posted were from 2004 and 2016) To listen to them the Republican challenge is unprecedented, which it isn't.

 

[Dale]

Feinstein challenged Ohio electors in 2004.
CNN.com - Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes - Jan 6, 2005

They also challenged electors in 2016. Congressional Democrats plan to challenge Trump's Electoral College victory

It is curious that the mainstream press has failed to mention these two events for the most part this week. (Both the articles posted were from 2004 and 2016) To listen to them the Republican challenge is unprecedented, which it isn't.

Thanks for that information.

From the first of the two links you provide:



<< The move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, most of whom are House members, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. >>



That move in 2004 was not intended to prevent George W. Bush from being sworn in for a second term. It was meant to call attention to election irregularities.

The Trump supporters who wanted members of Congress to object to certifying the 2020 election clearly do want to overturn the election of Joe Biden as President.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Thanks for that information.

From the first of the two links you provide:



<< The move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, most of whom are House members, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. >>



That move in 2004 was not intended to prevent George W. Bush from being sworn in for a second term. It was meant to call attention to election irregularities.

The Trump supporters who wanted members of Congress to object to certifying the 2020 election clearly do want to overturn the election of Joe Biden as President.

This highlights the problem of creating precedents over trivial matters. Feinstein had no legitimate reason to challenge the electors and in doing so she gave people in the future the precedent to do exactly as she did. It's hardly surprising that eventually it would lead to a group trying to overturn an entire election. In fact, at some point in the future one of the parties will be successful at overturning an election. That will mark the end of the republic. I fear it will happen sooner rather than later.