Somebody. Anybody? Everybody! SCREAM!

[eccieuser9500]

Republican elections lawyer calls for reform to the Electoral Count Act


https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/10621...oral-count-act

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with election lawyer Ben Ginsberg on his National Review article calling to reform the Electoral Count Act, which spells out how Congress calculates the electoral college vote.

Republicans in Congress Should Update the Electoral Count Act Before It’s Too Late

Amending such an essential democratic safeguard is in the country’s best interest.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-its-too-late/

For starters, a Democratic vice president will be presiding over the Senate when the Electoral College votes are opened. Suppose [D]ump runs again, and wins. Now, suppose Vice President Harris believes that [D]ump’s reelection represents an existential threat to the county and does what [D]ump couldn’t persuade Mike Pence to do.


We were fortunate as a country that the 2000 participants recognized that after the recounts, contests, and certification by the states that the winner was the one with more votes and spared the country prolonged attacks on the electoral system. And we were fortunate that the 2020 election was not so close. An extended fight over the imprecise — and therefore highly maneuverable — words of a late-1800s could be disastrous for our democracy.

As an essential democratic safeguard, the ECA will likely frustrate that fundamental purpose if ever put to an electoral stress test. It’s in both parties’ interests to fix its flaws. A bill updating and clarifying the ECA could be election-related legislation on which the parties agree.

How, then, should we go about fixing the ECA’s flaws? I propose that the law should be amended to define clearly:

• The vice president’s role;
  
• the congressional process for deciding between competing slates of electors from the same state and who each state’s “executive” is — i.e., the party that will maintain the power to certify the slate of electors (a governor and secretary of state from different parties could each claim they are the “executive”);
  
• whether a “majority” of the Electoral College is all 538 electors or only those present and voting;
  
• if choosing the president fell to the House, with a single vote for each state, could a majority of members prevent the swearing-in of minority of members (who nonetheless represented more states, as was the case in 2020) so that the majority’s presidential candidate would win;
  
• whether a state can hold an election after Election Day if it claims that Electoral College results were tainted;
  
• the “safe harbor” provision so that a state certifying its electors before that date cannot later have its decision usurped by Congress;
  
• whether the threshold for objecting to electors should be increased to more than one member from each chamber;
  
• grounds for congressional objections to electors so that only questions of fraud or bribery meet the threshold and disagreement with the popular-vote results does not; and
  
• rules for resolving disputes between the chambers so that split control of Congress does not cripple the nation.

Thoughts?

I'll check back in the morning.

[Jackie S]

Joseph Stalin’s quote……”.who votes, or even how many vote is of no consequence. What is important is WHO COUNTS THE VOTES”.

The Democrats are very good at counting.

[eccieuser9500]

Wouldn't it be awesome if the dumpsterfire's lawyer's arguments worked against him?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Joseph Stalin’s quote……”.who votes, or even how many vote is of no consequence. What is important is WHO COUNTS THE VOTES”.

The Democrats are very good at counting.

They only had to do it once! The Trumpists have counted the same votes a half dozen times in a number of states and found that they were correct to begin with.

All courts agreed.

All that’s remained has been grumbling and raving from Trump and his faithful.

Your point?

[Salty Again]

... We'll See.

#### Salty

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Harris won't be Vice President in 2024.
The margin of victory in 2020 was 46,000 votes across the country. We do 50 individual elections and not one popular election.

Why make this so hard;
Every state has its own rules but since it affects the country, Congress has to have some form of veto power. We can't have one state decided that the choice of the governor is the winner of the election. We could go back to the tried and true 18th century version. Let Congress pick the President and the Senator select the VP based on each state legislature. The democrats would not like that one bit. Missouri's 4.5 million voters would have the same power as California's 50 million voters...which is why we have the electoral college. A hybrid that respects each state but allows for the masses to have a say. Why change that?

[dilbert firestorm]

I agree with barley on that point. 50 states have to be treated equally, not on the basis of population size.

however, i'd make one change in the way electoral college is set up, make it on the basis of 435 house districts and 3 D.C. 100 senate seats would used to award candidates who had the most votes in the state.

only 2 states have this system; Oklahoma and Maine.

this is roughly similar to proportional voting, some states give ECV on the basis voting percentages.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Harris won't be Vice President in 2024.

Do I need to report you to somebody who just might give a fuck? Hmmm?



She will be Vice President . . .

until Monday, January 20, 2025 (Washington DC, District of Columbia time)

Time Left in Joe Biden's Term as President


https://www.timeanddate.com/countdow...2&font=cursive




All the Republican lawyers are making the argument for the possibility that she could have the "balls" to say "Fuck that, decertify the count."

Was it possible then? If so, why not now if the law has not changed?

Eastman memorandum.















If he wins, she will curtail it.

She'll win anyway. No Civil War fears.

[dilbert firestorm]

forgot about the issue with the vice president who was "elected" president in overseeing the ECV count.

that is a big conflict of interest. so, there should be a law that a vice president who was the president of the senate who was also presidential candidate should not oversee the ECV. President Pro Temprore should do that instead.

there have been former vice presidents who were presidential candidates did not do the right thing and step aside. those were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George H. Bush, and Al Gore. did I leave anyone else out?