Electoral Count Reform Act, crafted as response to Jan. 6, to get vote this week

[SaysWho?]

Lawmakers put Electoral Count Act, crafted as response to Jan. 6, in omnibus bill - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

Both Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced their support of the legislation in September.

 

Quote

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), would amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and reaffirm that the vice president has only a ministerial role at the joint session of Congress where electoral college votes are counted. The measure also would raise the threshold necessary for members of Congress to object to a state’s electors.

 

Quote

Though the Senate has not yet voted on the bill, both Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came out in support of the legislation in September.

 

“Our bipartisan bill is backed by election law experts and organizations across the ideological spectrum and a broad cross section of Senators from both parties,” Collins and Manchin said in a joint statement at the time. “We will keep working to increase support for our legislation that would correct the flaws in this archaic and ambiguous law.”

 

Quote

The Senate and House bills differ chiefly in how much they would change the threshold necessary for members of both chambers to object to a state’s results. Currently, objecting to a state’s electors requires only one member each from the House and Senate. The House bill would raise that requirement to at least one-third of the members of both the House and Senate, while the Senate version would raise the requirement to at least one-fifth of the members of both the House and Senate.

 

Quote

Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill — which passed in a 229-203 vote — saw little support from GOP lawmakers. Only nine Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it, and none of those nine will be members of Congress next year — either because they lost their primaries or chose to retire.

 

Rand Paul also supports the bill, adding another Republican Senator in support along with all Democrats in at least 10 other Republicans:

 

Rand Paul endorses Electoral Count Act reform

THEHILL.COM

---

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is endorsing the Electoral Count Reform Act as necessary to save the Electoral College, saying on Monday the system needs to be reformed so it will not be abolished.  Pa…

 

[marioandsonic]

This is good, right?

[TUFKAK]

Truly a hallmark of a stable and functional democracy.

[SaysWho?]

18 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Truly a hallmark of a stable and functional democracy.

Honestly… It is. 

 

The government not being able to respond to such a crisis as January 6 would be terrible. This is a promising development.

[Guest]

Lots of great stuff in it. Get it done.

[TUFKAK]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Honestly… It is. 

 

The government not being able to respond to such a crisis as January 6 would be terrible. This is a promising development.

So only need one third of representatives to go “lol no” instead of 2. Great progress Murica.

[Reputator]

1 hour ago, TUFKAK said:

So only need one third of representatives to go “lol no” instead of 2. Great progress Murica.

 

"They didn't go all the way in one step! MURICA SUXXX"

[TUFKAK]

Just now, Reputator said:

 

"They didn't go all the way in one step! MURICA SUXXX"

Yup

[Uaarkson]

There’s no room for half-measures when our democracy is at stake.

[Reputator]

You guys have some fantastical expectations. 

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, TUFKAK said:

So only need one third of representatives to go “lol no” instead of 2. Great progress Murica.

“only” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

[marioandsonic]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

“only” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

 

That does raise a good question, though.  How many of the GOP senators and representatives were/are in favor of overturning the 2020 elections?

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

 

That does raise a good question, though.  How many of the GOP senators and representatives were/are in favor of overturning the 2020 elections?

Not enough in the senate.

 

liberals just crap on their own victories, which is expected.

[marioandsonic]

58 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Not enough in the senate.

 

liberals just crap on their own victories, which is expected.

 

We're all just doomers. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

There was zero chance trump could have gotten 33/34 senators on board with his bullshit, and still remains true to this day. Senators are, for all the faults of the institution, more moderate on average than a given representative because of their electoral base that requires it

[marioandsonic]

So when do they actually vote on this?

[TUFKAK]

Or.

We had a right wing fascist cult of personality attempt a coup by sending his chud army on congress and if not for Mike pence of all people we’d not be having this little chat. And our response has been. Hey, maybe next time they just need 30 people to overrule millions. Can’t make the chuds get all in their feels over their fucking treason after all.

[SaysWho?]

7 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

Or.

We had a right wing fascist cult of personality attempt a coup by sending his chud army on congress and if not for Mike pence of all people we’d not be having this little chat. And our response has been. Hey, maybe next time they just need 30 people to overrule millions. Can’t make the chuds get all in their feels over their fucking treason after all.

 

You don’t even need Pence under this soon to be law.

[TUFKAK]

5 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

You don’t even need Pence under this soon to be law.

Totally not the point but cool

[SaysWho?]

5 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Totally not the point but cool

 

"We had a right wing fascist cult of personality attempt a coup by sending his chud army on congress and if not for Mike pence of all people we’d not be having this little chat."

 

It's definitely part of the point in your own post.

[TUFKAK]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

"We had a right wing fascist cult of personality attempt a coup by sending his chud army on congress and if not for Mike pence of all people we’d not be having this little chat."

 

It's definitely part of the point in your own post.

Are you telling me my own point? 🤔

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Are you telling me my own point? 🤔

 

The issue is you have no point besides vague negativity, and it changes depending on how I correct you.  

 

First it's an insignificant amount of people required to object, yet that would have stopped the circus show on Jan 6.

 

Then it's only because of Mike Pence that we're talking about this, to which this soon-to-be-law wouldn't even require the VP to do his/her job.

 

Then they're both not the point even though fuck you, you totally made them points.
 

I'm sure the grand point will change again depending on who else corrects you, but that'll be all. I urge others not to waste time reversing liberals punching themselves in the face after a victory.   

[Guest]

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

Not anymore. Christmas stuff tonight and I ain't wasting time on something you can waste time on instead.  

 

I'll be 

[TUFKAK]

No.

 

let me make this clear (face obama)

 

 a right wing cult of personality attempted to overthrow our republic (you live a right wing country) And if not for one person we’d not be having this conversation today. (Mike pence wasn’t anywhere attached to my point, maybe you’re not aware he gave the orders that day? He’s the one who activated the dc guard and attached special orders to operators ) There’s no victory when our response to this after two years was, hey maybe 20-33 people can overrule the will of the people based on whatever middle ground our two parties come to here. This is not a victory for democracy, it’s a continuation of our countries original fucking sin to placate these fuckers and their feels.

 

I’d have preferred the Roman response here. Proscription lists for the lot of them.

 

but pat yourself on the back over this “victory” where the bar was raised from 2 to 20-32. Solid democracy there.

[TUFKAK]

Fight that straw man! 😂

 

I just can’t keep up with you my lord.

[Guest]

I feel like people don’t even understand what the one senator/one rep could do in the first place. Challenging certification is just an annoyance at that stage, so saying you now need 20 sens/87 reps makes it significantly less likely to have such challenges raised. We never came close to any of those challenges passing.

 

But clarifying the role of the VP in certifying and a few other bits and bobs are all good updates to the law. I really fail to understand the complaints 

[TyphoidHater]

Baby steps

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said:

Baby steps

What wasn’t changed in the law that you would have liked to see?

[TyphoidHater]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What wasn’t changed in the law that you would have liked to see?

 

I was attempting to mollify TUFKAK

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Ultimately the legislature can do what it wants if it has a majority and there’s nothing that can change that.

 

this just makes procedural hurdles for objections to ec counts have a higher bar which is good because you generally don’t want this bullshit unless there actually is an issue

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Ultimately the legislature can do what it wants if it has a majority and there’s nothing that can change that.

 

this just makes procedural hurdles for objections to ec counts have a higher bar which is good because you generally don’t want this bullshit unless there actually is an issue

 

Indeed, I think the changes are sensible. I also like the change to the GSA's requirement to fund the transition team to make it perfectly clear that there is no option to stall like the Trump GSA did. I am generally in favor of making statutes of things that are otherwise just norms, because we see what happens when things are done just because normal people go along with them  

[TUFKAK]

There

 

updated ignored users now I go enjoy the solstice. Once is an event, twice is a coincidence, three times is a theme.

 

[5timechamp]

“good” I suppose, but like all laws im sure theres a blind spot where they will say  “screw” it and overrule it with whatever nonsense they feel like playing… it is the basis by which the Supreme Court has been re-interpreting the law

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just to make it clear this only raises the bar for objections. They still need a legislative majority to sustain the objections. And nothing can overrule that (through legal means)