Stealing an election in broad daylight

basil said:

PVW said:

IMO, the potentially fatal flaw of the constitution is assuming away political parties and relying on competing power being expressed as competition between branches. Ambition counteracting ambition I think is a good principle in setting up a government, but it was naive to assume "faction" could be done away with via clever constitutional design.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but there seem to be several flaws. They were apparently so obsessed with populists and kings alike that they came up with all these silly constructs (like the EC) that basically accomplished the opposite.

I really don't understand this obsession with the constitution and the founding fathers. A bunch of slave owners 250 years ago? Give me a break.

 No, I suppose we'd be better off with an uncodified collection of Acts of Parliament, precedents, and negotiated compromises between monarch and legislature.

Latest news: Mike Pence will not be available for tomorrow's joint session of Congress on the electoral vote count.

nohero said:

Latest news: Mike Pence will not be available for tomorrow's joint session of Congress on the electoral vote count.

 wait. what?

Well, I am going to Google that

I found ne news saying Pence would not be there

Chuck Grassley made a statement that he would be presiding, as President Pro Tempore.  Maybe Pence's office is pushing back on that now.

I think it will go right to the wire, whether he shows up or not.

Either way, he may be screwed.  You hate to see it ...

As to the discussion of changing the Constitution or the Law just because the Senate contains a dozen plus jerks today doe not mean we have a serious problem. Congress's is role is ceremonial and it has not been any other way in 144 years.

To imagine Congress voting to reject enough Electoral Votes to change the results we first have to imaging the Election of a President of one Party while at the same Election a Majority from the other Party are elected to the House of Representatives. They might even need a super-majority since Representatives from swing Districts that voted for the Presidential Candidate of the other Party might be very reluctant to join the vote to throw out Electoral Votes, especially those of their own State.

Then after Electoral Votes were thrown out so that no candidate had a Majority the House would have to pick the President and the Senate would pick the VP. And they would have to accomplish all of this in the 17 days between the new Congress being sworn in and the inauguration date. In the meantime there would be riots, other violence and States threatening to secede.

No system is perfect. 

nohero said:

Chuck Grassley made a statement that he would be presiding, as President Pro Tempore.  Maybe Pence's office is pushing back on that now.

I think it will go right to the wire, whether he shows up or not.

Either way, he may be screwed.  You hate to see it ...

 Where did you see or hear this?

"Vice President Pence is expected to preside over Congress's counting of the Electoral College vote on Wednesday.

Pence's attendance was thrown into momentary confusion on Tuesday when Roll Call reported that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he would preside because "we don't expect him [Pence] to be there."

And a spokesperson for the 87-year-old GOP senator quickly clarified that Grassley was saying that if Pence needs a break during the hours-long session, he would preside over any Senate debate and votes on challenges to the Electoral College results.

"On a weekly press call with ag reporters, @ChuckGrassley discussed his role as president pro tempore presiding over the Senate tomorrow during expected electoral college certification debate when @VP isn’t present. KEY WORDS: SENATE DEBATE," Grassley's press team tweeted."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/532683-pence-expected-to-preside-over-congresss-electoral-college-count

PVW said:

basil said:

PVW said:

IMO, the potentially fatal flaw of the constitution is assuming away political parties and relying on competing power being expressed as competition between branches. Ambition counteracting ambition I think is a good principle in setting up a government, but it was naive to assume "faction" could be done away with via clever constitutional design.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but there seem to be several flaws. They were apparently so obsessed with populists and kings alike that they came up with all these silly constructs (like the EC) that basically accomplished the opposite.

I really don't understand this obsession with the constitution and the founding fathers. A bunch of slave owners 250 years ago? Give me a break.

 No, I suppose we'd be better off with an uncodified collection of Acts of Parliament, precedents, and negotiated compromises between monarch and legislature.

I don't know of many modern democracies where the popular vote first go through some non-proportional aggregation system (EC), and then other elected officials get to decide on which portion of the aggregates votes make it to the final count or not. You can whatabout all you want, but there is no universe in which that makes any democratic sense.

basil said:

PVW said:

basil said:

PVW said:

IMO, the potentially fatal flaw of the constitution is assuming away political parties and relying on competing power being expressed as competition between branches. Ambition counteracting ambition I think is a good principle in setting up a government, but it was naive to assume "faction" could be done away with via clever constitutional design.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but there seem to be several flaws. They were apparently so obsessed with populists and kings alike that they came up with all these silly constructs (like the EC) that basically accomplished the opposite.

I really don't understand this obsession with the constitution and the founding fathers. A bunch of slave owners 250 years ago? Give me a break.

 No, I suppose we'd be better off with an uncodified collection of Acts of Parliament, precedents, and negotiated compromises between monarch and legislature.

I don't know of many modern democracies where the popular vote first go through some non-proportional aggregation system (EC), and then other elected officials get to decide on which portion of the aggregates votes make it to the final count or not. You can whatabout all you want, but there is no universe in which that makes any democratic sense.

 You won't find any posts of mine defending the EC. Quite the opposite. If I'm going to be accused of "obsessing" over the foundational document of my country's form of government, though, you'll excuse me if I'm tempted to do a bit of brushback.

Bill Crystal ( a political pundit from somewhere) last night on Brian Williams show predicted that Pence  would resign today!  ( perhaps in jest)

basil said:

I don't know of many modern democracies where the popular vote first go through some non-proportional aggregation system (EC), and then other elected officials get to decide on which portion of the aggregates votes make it to the final count or not. You can whatabout all you want, but there is no universe in which that makes any democratic sense.

The Bible contains plenty of things that seem questionable to me, but with all its flaws I have to acknowledge its wisdom, complexity, succor and staying power, and I’d feel rather foolish if I wrote it off as a piece of juvenilia without doing a whole lot more study off social media first.

If that misfires, then what PVW said.

The U.S. Attorney in Atlanta resigned yesterday. Trump called him a "never-Trumper" in his call with Raffensperger.  He was replaced by a Trump appointee. 

STANV said:

As to the discussion of changing the Constitution or the Law just because the Senate contains a dozen plus jerks today doe not mean we have a serious problem. Congress's is role is ceremonial and it has not been any other way in 144 years.

To imagine Congress voting to reject enough Electoral Votes to change the results we first have to imaging the Election of a President of one Party while at the same Election a Majority from the other Party are elected to the House of Representatives. They might even need a super-majority since Representatives from swing Districts that voted for the Presidential Candidate of the other Party might be very reluctant to join the vote to throw out Electoral Votes, especially those of their own State.

Then after Electoral Votes were thrown out so that no candidate had a Majority the House would have to pick the President and the Senate would pick the VP. And they would have to accomplish all of this in the 17 days between the new Congress being sworn in and the inauguration date. In the meantime there would be riots, other violence and States threatening to secede.

No system is perfect. 

thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the apportioning of Senate seats, we don't have to use too much imagination to envision a scenario in which this could occur.  Add in the concentration of one party's votes in urban/suburban districts and it's not just possible, but even likely.  There are a lot of things we didn't think possible in the past that we now know are likely.  

and yes I know that people hell-bent on ushering the democratic process out the door will find a way if the citizens let them.  But my point is why should we as a country hand those people what is now obviously an easy-peasy blueprint to undoing an election in a perfectly legal way?  Get rid of the Electoral Count Act.  Make legislators go on record with a new vote on new legislation if they want to put a method in place that gives them the right to undo the will of the voters. 

ml1 said:

and yes I know that people hell-bent on ushering the democratic process out the door will find a way if the citizens let them.  But my point is why should we as a country hand those people what is now obviously an easy-peasy blueprint to undoing an election in a perfectly legal way?  Get rid of the Electoral Count Act.  Make legislators go on record with a new vote on new legislation if they want to put a method in place that gives them the right to undo the will of the voters. 

The problem is not the Electoral Count Act.  The reason for that act was due to the election in 1876, when there were disputed sets of electors from some states.  Congress improvised a system to decide which electors to accept - in reality there was a political compromise which resulted in the end of Reconstruction and the enabling of Jim Crow.

Under the Electoral Count Act, the states have all certified their electors from the 2020 election.  There is, in fact, no basis under that Act for the objections being made.  That isn't keeping the GOP from trying anyway.

The GOP would be trying the same thing, whether or not there was an Electoral Count Act.  If anything, without the Act they might have more of an ability to do their sleazy operation. 

What I'd like to see is a revived Voting Rights Act, a DOJ that aggressively pursued voting rights violations, more states taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators, and any other administrative, legislative, and judicial actions focused on increasing electoral participation and getting us closer to the principle of one person, one vote.

There's some voting rights provisions in last congress's HR 1 for instance. On the chance the long odds of Democrats winning the Senate today actually happen, would love to see the House pass that bill again and the Senate take it up.

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:

I don't know of many modern democracies where the popular vote first go through some non-proportional aggregation system (EC), and then other elected officials get to decide on which portion of the aggregates votes make it to the final count or not. You can whatabout all you want, but there is no universe in which that makes any democratic sense.

The Bible contains plenty of things that seem questionable to me, but with all its flaws I have to acknowledge its wisdom, complexity, succor and staying power, and I’d feel rather foolish if I wrote it off as a piece of juvenilia without doing a whole lot more study off social media first.

I do not know where you stand on the religious spectrum, but Christian theology believes that the Bible is inspired by God. The US Constitution on the other hand, states that slaves should count as 3/5 of a white person. Unlike others in this country, I do not hold these two documents in the same regard. That's kind of my point.

basil said:

The US Constitution on the other hand, states that slaves should count as 3/5 of a white person. 

I know. If only a group of high school kids had found the time to guide the framers to a better resolution of their stalemates.

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:

The US Constitution on the other hand, states that slaves should count as 3/5 of a white person. 

I know. If only a group of high school kids had found the time to guide the framers to a better resolution of their stalemates.

Why you so bitter old man?

basil said:

Why you so bitter old man?

I finally got to the end of Revelation, and the page was missing. 

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:

Why you so bitter old man?

I finally got to the end of Revelation, and the page was missing. 

Bitter and disrespectful

ml1 said:

Make legislators go on record with a new vote on new legislation if they want to put a method in place that gives them the right to undo the will of the voters.

Right now, legislators have to go on record if they want to undo the will of the voters. I’m not really seeing the difference in that incentive to leave a new law in place, per Steve’s question, and that incentive to accept state certifications.

And Arizona electors are officially being contested.  This is just weird.

Sen, Bob Casey said earlier today this would go on for 20-24 hours. 

It was oddly reassuring to hear on NPR this morning tape of Biden as VP when somewhat similar happened in 2017, just calmly telling various congresspeople "The motion cannot be entertained," because they really just weren't prepared.  So having objections at this stage isn't totally new, though maybe the scale is.

eta

I hope Cruz and cronies acknowledge that the people they're performing this stunt for are the ones breaking down their doors.

Smedley said:

I expect to pocket $100 from this post-election ridiculousness.

I was g-chatting with my imbecile MAGA friend who lives in Texas last week. I said I think Trump has like a 0.000000000000000000001% chance of flipping the election result, what you do think?  He put the odds at 40%. 

I said okay, 40% implies 3-2 odds -- I'll give you 10-1 odds, which is spectacular value if you think 40%. If Biden is declared president, you give me $100. If Trump is declared president, I'll give you $1000. Deal? 

He took the bet.  

 I received the $100 from my imbecile friend just a little while ago. 

Smedley said:

Smedley said:

I expect to pocket $100 from this post-election ridiculousness.

I was g-chatting with my imbecile MAGA friend who lives in Texas last week. I said I think Trump has like a 0.000000000000000000001% chance of flipping the election result, what you do think?  He put the odds at 40%. 

I said okay, 40% implies 3-2 odds -- I'll give you 10-1 odds, which is spectacular value if you think 40%. If Biden is declared president, you give me $100. If Trump is declared president, I'll give you $1000. Deal? 

He took the bet.  

 I received the $100 from my imbecile friend just a little while ago. 

 easiest C-note you ever earned.

It may have been. And on Christmas Eve, I reached out and offered to settle up if he gave $75 to the non-political charity of his choice. I figured what was a 80-yard Hail Mary pass when we made the bet a couple weeks after the election, was then a 99-yard hail Mary pass, so in the spirit of Christmas, I offered a 25% discount and the opportunity to give to a good cause rather than to me. He declined.

I love the guy, but I suspect he has a collection of tinfoil hats in his closet.