McConnell cracks door to Electoral Count Act reform, the 1887 law which allows members of Congress to dispute election results

[basquebromance]

McConnell cracks door to Electoral Count Act reform

“It obviously has some flaws. And it is worth, I think, discussing,” the Senate minority leader said Wednesday.

www.politico.com

why would anyone not be on board? excerpts:

The discussions on changing the Electoral Count Act to make it harder for lawmakers to derail election certifications are in their earliest stages in the Senate. And Schumer scoffed at the possibility of a small-ball deal on Wednesday, the day before the Jan. 6 anniversary.

“The Electoral Count Act [reform] says you can rig the elections anyway you want and then we’ll count it accurately,” Schumer said in an interview. He said he has “very little hope” for a bipartisan deal that includes the more comprehensive reforms his party is seeking to campaign finance and voter access. “We’ve tried for four months and got no support.”

Republicans would view any discussion of the Electoral Count Act as separate from Schumer's Democratic-only effort and would likely wait for that to conclude before engaging with Democrats. Yet Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said "there have been some expressions of interest" among Republicans with narrowing Congress or the vice president's ability to change the election results.

"The role of the vice president needs to be codified, so it's clear what that is," Thune said. "There's some question about how many senators or House members it ought to take to object before it triggers a vote."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said because he’s “an optimist” there’s some merit to at least engaging Republicans on the question of the Electoral Count Act. While he prefers far more sweeping reforms, he said Republicans simply just do not see eye-to-eye with Democrats on expanding voter access.

“If there remains any path forward on making changes to how we protect the Electoral College process and how we ensure a free and fair vote, I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said in an interview. He described his talks with Republicans “as just the tiniest door crack.”

 

[White 6]

I am happy with the Electoral Count Act of 1887, just the way it is, if used for the narrow guides of what it was designed to do, leaving the states as the place to work out any disputes of the elections in their individual states during the two months, leading up to only receiving and certifying into the Federal record of the decision of the states. It should not ever be possible to change the decision on any states at the point of receiving the Electoral Vote on January 6, as the decision is up to the individual states, and they have had two months of deadlines to get to a decision on a slate of electors, based on the tally of the votes of the citizens in their state.

 

[bendog]

I am happy with the Electoral Count Act of 1887, just the way it is, if used for the narrow guides of what it was designed to do, leaving the states as the place to work out any disputes of the elections in their individual states during the two months, leading up to only receiving and certifying into the Federal record of the decision of the states. It should not ever be possible to change the decision on any states at the point of receiving the Electoral Vote on January 6, as the decision is up to the individual states, and they have had two months of deadlines to get to a decision on a slate of electors, based on the tally of the votes of the citizens in their state.

I don't think that is what the law accomplishes in the age to Trumpeters. It allows congress to meddle in what States have certified. But imo what traditional gopers like McConnell would do is to "leave it up to states." The reason why the 1887 law came into being was because of corruption at the state level. Ironically, the republican states like pa az ga wisc all followed the laws and properly certified their votes, and Congress tried to meddle, which is exactly THE OPPOSITE OF what the 1887 was aimed at preventing. So the question is, who guards then hen houses - States or Congress?

But what dems want to do with voter reform, is to take away control from the states, and simply make it easier for traditionally dem leaning voters to vote. The gop ain't buying that.

The question is whether voting "reforms" passed in az and ga will actually disenfranchise minorities. I don't really know. In AZ MOST voters are in Tucson and Pho, and they have greater % of latinos that other places. I don't see why it will be hard to vote. The bigger issue is how will native americans on reservations vote. In ga, there's less mail in voting, but I believe polls are actually open for more hours.

 

[1srelluc]

Nothing will happen for $500 Alex......Simple maneuvering.

 

[Synthaholic]

Mitch rightfully sees this as a way to relieve pressure on senior senators and the vp being put in a position of overturning the will of the people or facing the anger of their own voters.

 

[White 6]

I don't think that is what the law accomplishes in the age to Trumpeters. It allows congress to meddle in what States have certified. But imo what traditional gopers like McConnell would do is to "leave it up to states." The reason why the 1887 law came into being was because of corruption at the state level. Ironically, the republican states like pa az ga wisc all followed the laws and properly certified their votes, and Congress tried to meddle, which is exactly THE OPPOSITE OF what the 1887 was aimed at preventing. So the question is, who guards then hen houses - States or Congress?

But what dems want to do with voter reform, is to take away control from the states, and simply make it easier for traditionally dem leaning voters to vote. The gop ain't buying that.

The question is whether voting "reforms" passed in az and ga will actually disenfranchise minorities. I don't really know. In AZ MOST voters are in Tucson and Pho, and they have greater % of latinos that other places. I don't see why it will be hard to vote. The bigger issue is how will native americans on reservations vote. In ga, there's less mail in voting, but I believe polls are actually open for more hours.

It was designed to come into play if a state submitted two slates of electors. Somebody had to decide which slate to accept, not to change or reject what the voters decided, the counties and state certified as true. By that time, it should not be a matter of politic, but a matter of math and recognizing the actions and verifications of one state are valid among the many states.

 

[toobfreak]

McConnell cracks door to Electoral Count Act reform​

Lemme guess-- -- -- Mitch tripped, fell, and hit his head on the door! Hope the poor guy is OK. The door, too.

 

[ColonelAngus]

MANY MANY MANY Democrats have contested electoral results before.

Dems are such frauds to tweak over Pubs objecting to 2020 results.

FLASHBACK: Dems Challenge Trump's 2016 Victory in Congress — And It’s Not The First Time - We'll Do It Live

"There's no comparison ..."

www.welldoitlive.com

 

[Samofvt]

McConnell cracks door to Electoral Count Act reform

“It obviously has some flaws. And it is worth, I think, discussing,” the Senate minority leader said Wednesday.

www.politico.com

why would anyone not be on board? excerpts:

The discussions on changing the Electoral Count Act to make it harder for lawmakers to derail election certifications are in their earliest stages in the Senate. And Schumer scoffed at the possibility of a small-ball deal on Wednesday, the day before the Jan. 6 anniversary.

“The Electoral Count Act [reform] says you can rig the elections anyway you want and then we’ll count it accurately,” Schumer said in an interview. He said he has “very little hope” for a bipartisan deal that includes the more comprehensive reforms his party is seeking to campaign finance and voter access. “We’ve tried for four months and got no support.”

Republicans would view any discussion of the Electoral Count Act as separate from Schumer's Democratic-only effort and would likely wait for that to conclude before engaging with Democrats. Yet Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said "there have been some expressions of interest" among Republicans with narrowing Congress or the vice president's ability to change the election results.

"The role of the vice president needs to be codified, so it's clear what that is," Thune said. "There's some question about how many senators or House members it ought to take to object before it triggers a vote."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said because he’s “an optimist” there’s some merit to at least engaging Republicans on the question of the Electoral Count Act. While he prefers far more sweeping reforms, he said Republicans simply just do not see eye-to-eye with Democrats on expanding voter access.

“If there remains any path forward on making changes to how we protect the Electoral College process and how we ensure a free and fair vote, I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said in an interview. He described his talks with Republicans “as just the tiniest door crack.”

Has the "Electoral Count Act" every been successfully used to change the results of an election in the past 100 years? I don't recall even one instance in the last 50 when it was used and changed the results.

If so, this is a non-issue to begin with.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[bendog]

It was designed to come into play if a state submitted two slates of electors. Somebody had to decide which slate to accept, not to change or reject what the voters decided, the counties and state certified as true. By that time, it should not be a matter of politic, but a matter of math and recognizing the actions and verifications of one state are valid among the many states.

Perhaps, but objections by a senator and congressperson may be made even if a state submits only one return. Which was what happened in the last election.

 

[Samofvt]

"...so that our freedom is determined by the voice of the people..."

Agree 100%.

"...not by the violent lies and even mob rule..."

The question then becomes how do we stop the lies and censorship of the MEDIA and groups like BLACK LIVES MATTER, who do not serve people of color as their title suggests, but serve their own agenda of installing a marxist, anti-democratic and anti-American system where a few can usurp the power of the many people.

Why should it be so difficult to implement a policy of VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS and ban the heinous and fraud ridden policy of mail in ballots with no chain of custody?

"State legislatures are working day and night to undermine our democratic process"

False statement!!! Most states are working toward making voting a more secure vehicle for the CITEZENS to express their will. If we do not enforce identification and in-person ballot security, what is to stop even a foreign power from coming across our border and voting illegally to corrupt our elections?

The Federal Government should not meddle with the freedom and autonomy of individual states, which is the theoretical point McConnel is making by holding up that as a potential target. The point goes over the top of the heads of the socialist (aka Democratic) party, and it appears they took the bait and wasted time on it. Kind of funny that one of the heads of "mob rule" federalist party is denouncing mob rule

 

[basquebromance]

Not always thrilled with Chuck Schumer but he nailed it - Mitch McConnell's fake offer on the Electoral College is like saying "we're going to rig the game but we'll let you count the score."

 

[basquebromance]

i've studied the electoral count act. it is a dense, opaque law

 

[BertramN]

McConnell cracks door to Electoral Count Act reform

“It obviously has some flaws. And it is worth, I think, discussing,” the Senate minority leader said Wednesday.

www.politico.com

why would anyone not be on board? excerpts:

The discussions on changing the Electoral Count Act to make it harder for lawmakers to derail election certifications are in their earliest stages in the Senate. And Schumer scoffed at the possibility of a small-ball deal on Wednesday, the day before the Jan. 6 anniversary.

“The Electoral Count Act [reform] says you can rig the elections anyway you want and then we’ll count it accurately,” Schumer said in an interview. He said he has “very little hope” for a bipartisan deal that includes the more comprehensive reforms his party is seeking to campaign finance and voter access. “We’ve tried for four months and got no support.”

Republicans would view any discussion of the Electoral Count Act as separate from Schumer's Democratic-only effort and would likely wait for that to conclude before engaging with Democrats. Yet Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said "there have been some expressions of interest" among Republicans with narrowing Congress or the vice president's ability to change the election results.

"The role of the vice president needs to be codified, so it's clear what that is," Thune said. "There's some question about how many senators or House members it ought to take to object before it triggers a vote."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said because he’s “an optimist” there’s some merit to at least engaging Republicans on the question of the Electoral Count Act. While he prefers far more sweeping reforms, he said Republicans simply just do not see eye-to-eye with Democrats on expanding voter access.

“If there remains any path forward on making changes to how we protect the Electoral College process and how we ensure a free and fair vote, I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said in an interview. He described his talks with Republicans “as just the tiniest door crack.”

.
Majority in new poll backs reforming law Trump tried to use to subvert Electoral College.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 failed to clarify the vice president's role during the certification of presidential election results. Whether it is ceremonial or if the VP can choose to reject state-certified electoral votes was left open to interpretation.

Until trump’s attempt to overturn the choice of the Electoral College in 2020, it was believed the role of the vice president in the certification process was ceremonial.

In the poll, voters were asked the question, “if it should be clarified that the vice president would not be allowed to reject electoral votes and would limit the person to a ceremonial role, which former vice presidents have taken in the past.”

“Fifty-five percent of voters in the poll said the law should be changed to make the vice president's role in the certification of presidential election results strictly ceremonial.” Only twenty percent oppose the change.

It would seem the majority approve of the voting results of the 2020 Electoral College, and do not want another election threatened by a Big Lie by the loser. At twenty percent opposing reform, the trump Nazis, like in the 2020 election, are in the minority.

MSN

www.msn.com

.