Can't believe it, I am actually proud of Republicans, except for one

1. 81

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   "Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022
   
   There is one summary for S.4573. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
   Shown Here:
   Introduced in Senate (07/20/2022)
   Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022
   
   This bill revises the process of casting and counting electoral votes for presidential elections. The bill also revises provisions related to the presidential transition process.
   
   The bill specifies that the choice of electors must occur in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day.
   
   Additionally, the bill identifies each state's governor (unless otherwise identified in the laws or constitution of a state in effect on election day) as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying the state's electors. Further, the bill provides for expedited judicial review for any action brought by an aggrieved presidential or vice-presidential candidate arising under the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws with respect to the issuance or transmission of such a certificate.
   
   The bill revises the framework for the joint session of Congress to count electoral votes and make a formal declaration of which candidates have been elected President and Vice President. Among other changes, the bill (1) specifies that the role of the Vice President during the joint session shall be ministerial in nature, and (2) raises the objection threshold in Congress to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
   
   The bill also revises the presidential transition process, including to (1) allow more than one candidate to receive federal transition resources under certain circumstances, and (2) require additional reporting by the General Services Administration."
   
   With the noted exception of Cruz from Texas, everyone gets on board.
   
   I need to see:
   
   1. clarification that the VP role in the counting of electors is ceremonial only, he does not have the power to nullify votes.
   
   2. One or a handful of senators cannot "gum up the works". Substantial numbers of legislators have to take issue before any action regarding their complaint is taken.
   
   3. And most importantly, that electors have to be established and certified by the appropriate state officials prior to the election, which means no fake electors are allowed. So, that the legislatures from either political party cannot change the slate of electors contrary from the will of the majority of voters of any particular state. That is a win for democracy. And a total defeat of the machinations from legislatures of certain "red states".

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Whups!  Are you stating that federal efforts can change what a state chooses for electors?  Because that very effectively nullifies states rights - a very important right of the state.
      
      If not, I'm unaware of any federal effort that can change a state's roster of electors.  That is set by the state and Congress, whether any or all congressional legislators, cannot change it.  And it should remain that way.
      
      Whereupon I'm baffled by what you call the machinations from certain states.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         No, while the state can select its electors according to its protocols, it cannot change that after the election if it does not like the result of the popular vote. Why should I allow that? Electors MUST reflect the actually vote tally numbers for a state. I won't have a state legislature nullify my vote as the majority simply because they did not like the outcom of the election.
         
         My right as the voter whose majority vote is represented by the EC is more important than the State's rights, and as I have said before, I am the State. There should be no difference between the choice of the majority of the electorate and the slate of Electors sent to Washington by the legislature. Would there be?
         
         The state that I am pointing to most directly is Arizona.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Shocking.  The bill meant something much different than a far-right user claimed it meant.  Such a tiresome tactic.  Why I don't even bother responding to those posts any longer.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               States' rights do not include disenfranchising its residents.
               
               I did not believe that anyone could even present a case to  debate this basic premise.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice to see Republicans can do something you don't want to drag them through the mud over.  I am glad you have reason to believe that some of them may perhaps be decent people after all, the good ones just prioritize other concerns over the ones that top your list. ... that doesn't mean they are out to get you, just that they have different priorities.
                  
                  And if they are being representative of the people in the State they come from, I am sure that the people in Montana have different concerns than the people in California.  Not everyone is going to want the same things.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, thank you, Ken, it is always nice when I have the opportunity to "be nice".
                     
                     This is huge, the GOP has not abandoned the foundations of our democratic system and when this was put to the test, they disavowed all the activities associated with January 6th of last year.
                     
                     They, too, do not want to beat down the referee that moderate our competing activities.
                     
                     Yes, we have different issues and objectives, but they are willing to use the democratic process to determine which ones shall prevail.
                     
                     We are always going to have controversy between city mouse and country mouse, but the desires of 50 millions have to take precedence over the desires of 1 million.

                     replyreport
         2. 90

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ah.  Then it is the STATE legislator that you fear might change the makeup of the electors. 
            
            I suppose the legislator could change their law to allow them to do that, yes.  But then it is a state law allowing the practice, and the feds cannot interfere.  Your right as an individual does not trump the right of your state.  Particularly when it is the "majority" of the state that made the decision to allow it.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               You can change the makeup up of the electors, but the electors vote must be representative of the popular vote in the state or it becomes the state legislatures electing the president and not the electorate. Is that really ok with you?
               
               
               It has been established by the courts that electors are representative of the will of the state electorate, they cannot simply vote the way they want. No Unfaithful Electors....
               
               
               The majority cannot vote to deny any demographic they choose the right to vote, that is contrary to democracy in principle.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Right - recent years has produced the No Unfaithful Electors.
                  
                  So it doesn't matter what or who the state legislator might put in as an elector, that elector must cast their vote representing the will of the people.
                  
                  That's exactly what I mean; given that, what is your beef and how does this new law change anything at all?

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, this whole matter regards the fake electors scandal brought forth by Trump and the Republicans. This new legislation explicitly prohibits this practice in the future. There can be no compromise regarding electors functioning as the proportional representives of the popular vote.
                     
                     So, that is and has been "my beef"

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        This really does sound like you demand the right to determine how states set the rules for their own elections.  This is against everything the Constitution stands for in a republic of states.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Wilderness, the only rule I insist upon is that electors sent to Washington  are official and represent the majority of popular vote in their respective states, otherwise we are no longer under a democratic process.

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              That's what I said - you demand that you make the rules for every state's voting process.  As I understand it, that is not in the purview of the federal government.  (I do believe the feds can insist that the electors be "official", meaning the state certifies that they are there according to state law.  No state resident, or other, can simply show up and cast an electoral vote without that state's permission.)

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Where do you get the idea that I am making rules for the state's voting process? But the fact that here in Florida, I won't have the state have its electors show that the Republican candidate won, while the popular vote is in the majority for the Democrat. What is the point of a popular vote at all if that were possible?
                                 
                                 What do you think was the intent of providing fake electors for key states in the tallying of the Electoral Votes in Washington on Jan 6, 2021?
                                 
                                 That is my beef, and I don't consider that basic premise as undue federal interference in this state's voting protocols

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 90

                                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    "Where do you get the idea that I am making rules for the state's voting process?"
                                    
                                    "Wilderness, the only rule I insist upon is that electors sent to Washington  are official and represent the majority of popular vote in their respective states"
                                    
                                    If, for instance, a state decided to use the electoral college concept with their counties rather than statewide popular vote it is none of your business.  Maine and Nebraska, for instance, do not require electors to vote the way the majority did; instead they split the electoral vote according to the number of votes.  Again, that is not your call to make.
                                    
                                    But I absolutely agree that only electors approved by the respective state law be allowed to cast an electoral vote.  That's a far different thing than your claim that you demand electors fit your idea of fairness.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 81

                                       Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are not getting it, the states of Maine and Nebraska still have proportional representation based upon population and not geographical location. And no 99 counties with one vote per county can over rule 1 with a million population, that is not representation based upon population.
                                       
                                       That is what the Electoral College is and if the rightwinger continues to abuse this basic premise maybe it would be best that we dispense with it all together and go to a popular vote system.
                                       
                                       I can't believe that hidden in all your narrative there lies a basis distrust of democracy. If 75 percent of the population of a state voted for one candidate how can the electoral college not reflect the will of the majority of the state's residents? That is giving a minority population political desires preeminence and that is something I will always take issue with.
                                       
                                       What do you want, some sort of Senate system where all counties are given a vote and Hayseed county Ill. is given the same weight as Cook County (Chicago) Illinois? That is what it sounds like and that is "no soap" from the beginning. 
                                       
                                       
                                       That is my call to make. That is illegal, can't do it.

                                       report
2. 75

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   I don't remember a ballot initiative any state's voters voted on being one that allows a state Congress dominated by one party to throw out the popular vote of their state and send electors that only the majority of their state Congress approves of. 
   
   If that were deemed Constitutional, that would disenfranchise the votes of the entire state and the result would be pre-determined.

   replyreport
3. 75

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   I don't understand how it's not understood that this law prohibits a partisan state Congress from throwing out the popular vote, after the fact, to install their own slate of electors.
   
   Or that most states now have laws making the faithless elector illegal that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand how it's not understood that whoever the electoral slate is made up of they must vote the will of the people, just as you say.  And that this makes installing a new raft of electors a fruitless endeavor, for the new ones must vote the same way the old ones did.
      
      Of course, those states that allow faithless electors are a different matter, and this law could do some good here.  Assuming, of course, that the citizens of those states do not want to have electors that do not reflect their will, but if that were the case one would think they would not allow faithless electors by using state law to banish them.

      replyreport
4. 75

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   I guess when Republicans in swing states are proposing legislation to allow their partisan Congress to throw out the popular vote, having an understanding to see that outlawing it is necessary exists to only some.
   
   https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … n-results/

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      While recognize that Democrats find automatic acceptance of election results, without security measures, to be useful, others do not.  But to imply that approving results based on the result desired is the intent of this law is foolish.  It is designed to improve voting security, the very thing Democrats will never accept as necessary.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         'While recognize that Democrats find automatic acceptance of election results, without security measures, to be useful...'
         
         Ah, yes, there are no random audits.  No automatic audits if the outcome is close.  No option for the losing candidate to pay for audits of certain counties or full states.  No signature verifications.  No cases of fraud brought after the fact.  Or that when the courts look at 'evidence' of fraud claims and rules that it's just supposition and a failure to understand election processes, that that is not part of the 'security measures' to ensure a free and fair election.  Or even that when a fully partisan investigation takes place in a swing state, they determine that the result was still valid.
         
         The opening statement is just the latest example of outlandishly misunderstanding those that do not share a person's own views.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Then you should not be concerned with increasing the security of an election.  Yet you seem to be - why is that?

            replyreport
      2. 81

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         No automatic acceptance, just be damn sure that if you contest the election results that you have proof to back it up, and it is just not another Qanon conspiracy theory.....

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Then you must be willing to look seriously and severely at that "proof".  Whether you think it worthless or good, you must take a hard look at it, and allow it to see the light of day in a courtroom.
            
            This was not done, and was a major cause of the growing feeling by some Republicans (notably the far right) that our elections are NOT fair.  Had those complaints been examined, investigated and set before the people it much of that angst would never have happened.  IMO, of course.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               The case has not been made by conservatives that there is reason for all of this controversy. It is only said that the elections are not fair only when Republicans lose. I did not see all these complaints by Trump in other states where covid provisions were made and yet, he won.
               
               It all sounds disengenous to me and I don't buy it.
               
               Of course, IMO, as well.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Selectively challenging only the states they lost, despite 30 states making some sort of change to their processes to protect voters definitely undermined their arguments.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Would you expect the losers to investigate and/or challenge the states they won?  I wouldn't - there isn't enough honesty and integrity in the entire congress to produce even one person that would take such a step.

                     replyreport
               2. 90

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  When was the last time a Democrat, any Democrat, exclaimed that an election they won was unfair?  You cannot possibly believe or expect that a winner would challenge the election they won!

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     i believe that if you make a claim of election fraud, you need to show consistency in your argument to have it taken seriously. Why only 5 states instead of the other 25?
                     
                     Democrats are reasonable people, the same question as to the legitimacy of the outcome could be made in 2016 and particularly in 2000.
                     
                     But instead of fussing over the issue, Bush vs. Gore for example, where the entire election was given to Bush over 500 votes, we accepted the process and the outcome and got on with it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I repeat: it is silly to expect, or ask, that a winner question election results.  It isn't going to happen.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           I repeat as well, Wilderness, if you gripe and can't prove that your claim has any merit, I am going to ignore it.
                           
                           It is more like a whiner questioning election results.

                           replyreport
5. 75

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   The claim that the evidence was not evaluated in the courts is complete fabrication as multiple courts looked at the evidence and concluded that it was speculative and often times based on a misunderstanding of the election processes.
   
   Great examples are the 'suitcases' in Georgia that were shown to be normal ballot bins or the two election workers the right claimed were passing USB memory sticks that turned out to be candy.  Maybe if the right was not completely fabricating things like these, their 'evidence' might have actually been credible.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      How was that shown?  By someone saying it was a normal bin or by photos/videos with an examination by a court?  What investigation was carried out, by whom and what jury looked at those results?
      
      How many cases were thrown out for not being on time, for not having standing, for other technicalities?
      
      I'm not defending that the complaints were valid: I'm saying that if it had actually seen a jury the public would not be where it is, with a large percentage of people thinking the election was stolen or, at best, illegal though the end result would not have changed.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It was shown by rulings and by investigations by the Department of Homeland Security.  But both of those were simply dismissed by the Trump base because of media ecosystem they live within and the failure of Trump to accept the reality that he lost.
         
         As for the poorly timed cases (filed after the vote trying to change the process after the fact), the ones without standing (such as Texas trying to determine how other states run their own elections), and the others with 'technicalities' as you call them, that is just another example of the Trump base lacking the understanding or belief in their own government.
         
         That you think a trial must have a jury, especially in these cases is your own misunderstanding of the law on full display.
         
         When so many of Trump's own people were telling the base that the election was free and fair, but Trump was undermining that message, the only blame falls on him and the base for choosing to ignore the reality that existed.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "As for the poorly timed cases (filed after the vote trying to change the process after the fact)"
            
            LOL  You would have the suits filed before the claimed illegalities took place?  I understand the reasoning of the law here, and agree with it, but the fact remains that too many times that same reason was used, even as it was literally impossible to file sooner.  This was a case of where the law was simply wrong and not connected to reality.
            
            If you think it is only Trump's "own people" that think the election was ripe with fraud you are badly mistaken.  I see figures ranging from around 30% to over 60% think that fraud and cheating was widespread; that number is neither "Trump's own people" or his base of die hard followers.
            
            Had those claims been taken, debunked and made public one by one we wouldn't be seeing those kinds of numbers.  Instead we simply ignored some, came up with technicalities not to look at some and claimed the rest were false without ever really going public with the information.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, some were filed before.  Shows how much you actually know about your own arguments.  And 'claimed illegalities,' that have been accepted practice and often written law in many states is, again, the failure of education on the right.  Most states allow changes to election processes during state emergencies, like a pandemic. 
               
               That Texas had the gall to let Abbott unilaterally change the early voting period by adding 10 days, without consulting his legislature, then sue others for doing similar things was why his AG's suit was tossed.  Not only a lack of standing, but such a hypocritical stance to take when they did the same thing they were accusing others of being illegal.
               
               It's the latest example of the right being fooled into thinking normal processes were not already debunked.  If they took the time to educate themselves, they wouldn't look for foolish for following the claims of a buffoon.

               replyreport