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

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (38 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 20 months 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".

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 20 months 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.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 20 months 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.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 20 months 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.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 20 months 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.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 20 months 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.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 20 months 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.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 20 months 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.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 20 months 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.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 20 months 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?

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 20 months 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"

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 20 months 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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 20 months 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.

  2. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 20 months 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.

  3. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 20 months 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.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 20 months 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.

  4. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 20 months 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/

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 20 months 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.

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 20 months 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.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 20 months 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?

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 20 months 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.....

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 20 months 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.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 20 months 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.

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 20 months 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.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 20 months 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.

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 20 months 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!

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 20 months 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.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 20 months 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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 20 months 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.

  5. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 20 months 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.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 20 months 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.

      1. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 20 months 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.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 20 months 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.

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 20 months 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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)