So it's January 7th and the election has been officially contested by

[mzmolly]

X in the Senate.

What next? To my understanding the matter goes to the Republican Controlled House for a decision?

What do we hope to accomplish (other than making an important statement) which I'm fine with ... but what exactly do we expect to see happen ?

Best case scenario? House chooses Bush to be our President, Democrats are called sore losers and X is marginalized in the Senate.

Worse case scenario? House chooses Bush to be our President, Democrats are called sore losers and X is marginalized in the Senate.

Isn't the outcome the same either way? I'd love the drama, the fight, the statement. But is it really anything more?

[bemis12]

1. It would have been decided

on the 6th, contest or not.

[Wilms]

65. Pardon me, all, but I'd like to sneak in this thought.

What will happen on the 6th, 7th, the 20th, and on??, will depend on...

1. all that happens before those days,

2. and all that happens on those days.

Not to go all Rumsfeldian, but these are known unknowables.

Could our task be to...?

1. Keep the pressure on Pols

2. Keep the pressure on MSM

3. Support researchers

4. Attend rallys

5. Till the soil with fellow citizens


I saw a great cartoon where someone pops their head out of the sand and asks, "Is it the future, yet?"

And a sage sitting there with eyes open, calmly replies, "No, it's still the present."

Have a Happy Year of New Moments, all. ;-)

[Kansas Wyatt]

2. It removes Shrub's alleged mandate.

[mzmolly]

6. I don't know about that? He still can tout the 3.5 million extra votes

because without the media calling what happened "fraud" were just sore losers again.

[SicTransit]

8. I've seen this mentioned a few times -

can you explain the reasoning behind that statement, 'cuz I don't quite understand it?

Let's reverse it - just hypothetically. Let's say Kerry won the elections but during the electoral vote count in Congress one Republican senator stands up and contests a state. Would you say that would remove Kerry's mandate?

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. You are assuming that a Senator will actually contest the results

Considering what happened four years ago, I'm not sure why people think that things will go differently. There is far less controversy this time than there was last time.

[mzmolly]

4. I am assuming they won't for the reasons I stated actually.

Byrd or another close to retiring feisty person is our only hope to contest the election IMHO.

[FogerRox]

31. Didnt Gore ask that no senator step forward?-- 2000

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. That didn't stop some members of the House

[FogerRox]

33. right--but my point is that there must have been at lest 1 Senator in 2000

for Gore to have said dont do it---right?

[mzmolly]

52. Not necessarilly.

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. It may have just been an excuse,

rather than an actual reason.

[Snivi Yllom]

5. correct

Either way the outcome is the same. Of course the media will be all over it and you end upcasting further doubt on *. OTOH, you provide a shit load of ammunition for the GOP.

And you are correct, all a Congressional contesting of the vote serves is to force a vote on accepting or not accepting the electors which creates a permanent record of the vote.

In the end there will be a vote and it wont even be close.

[Amaryllis]

7. Hopefully it will get enough attention that awareness will be raised about

the need for election reform, at the least.

[mzmolly]

11. I think we can accomplish that without a formal contest?

:shrug:

Many Democrats Kerry included have stated they will be fighting for reform, of course we need a few R's too.

[Snivi Yllom]

16. reform is a separate issue

And there is no reason real election reform cannot be pushed exclusively of the Ohio conspiracies.

[Amaryllis]

17. It will also call attention to fraud, and challenge Bush's mandate. We

need as much attention as we can get on the fraud issue. Lots more people will be watching the proceedings on C-span this time because of F-911.

[mzmolly]

53. It just depends on the *type* of coverage we get. Will we be marginalized

or will the media suddenly take an interest? I don't think the media is on our side.

Ok wait: Lightbulb moment for Mzmolly. I think if this forces a two hour debate where evidence can be presented, that is a total win for our side regardless. I guess I just changed my mind on this thing as I'm now a bit more interested in the Jan 6th issue.

Hmmmmm, though I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

[mirrera]

9. I have faith

in some miracle happening, like the lawyers having more evidence then they are releasing to us. I have this insane hope that the election will be contested, they will immediately separate to debate among themselves, and behind closed doors the crimes will be outlined and SO incriminating that Bush resigns in disgrace. I also fantasize about Bush Cheney and Rove getting the flu... then I pray for forgivness...get something to eat while DU is refreshing...

[mzmolly]

10. If that's the case, we don't need the January 6th deadline. Bush can

be marginalized or even impeached depending, if fraud is proven after the investigation regardless?

[Amaryllis]

18. Can't be impeached unless they can prove he knew about fraud.

[ConstitutionGuy]

26. You faith is displaced

Title 3 of the United States Code specifies in excrutiating detail the procedures and limits for debating and voting on objections filed in the joint session where the electoral votes are received and counted. Once each house is dismissed to its respective chamber they have no more than 2 hours to debate the objection, after which the president of the Senate is compelled to call them back into joint session to render their decision on the objection, without further debate. While in their separate sessions, each Senator or Representative can speak only once and for no more than 5 minutes. As I read the law, other parties, including lawyers and staff, are not allowed to speak. Assuming the presiding officer of each house divides the time equally, each party would be allocated one-half of the total time. While theoretically you could squeeze twelve speakers into each hour (5 minutes each), you've also got to allow time for procedural matters such as recognition of speakers, calls to order, etc. So as a practical matter, you'll probably get no more than 10 speakers from each party to the floor, each limited to 5 minutes a piece, and probably with recognition of each speaker alternating between members of the two parties. Unless the evidence is already so manifestly obvious (perhaps from the press or advance research done by the congressional staff), there's no way in hell the Congress that is seated next week is going to throw the results out.

[Razorback_Democrat]

12. As I understand it, there is a 2 hour debate, followed by a vote

and the vote decides whether to accept the electors or not.

If they aren't accepted, then the battle goes to the House who will elect B*

My guesses are that if there is one Senator that contests it, there will be debate, then a vote and the electors will be accepted unless there is uncontestable election fraud shown in the debate.

Either way, B* will be inaugerated. The questions will be for me: has his "man date" been weakened? is confidence in his election been undermined sufficiently to make him an effective "lame duck" from the beginning. and if there is fraud, will it continue to be investigated until it comes to a boiling point where he will either resign or be impeached.

My level of hope for anything of consequence happening grows weaker each day that nothing of substance happens to push the idea of fraud into the mainstream.

[nitetalker]

54. Yep, that's right -- either way * will be inaugurated

The process is explained pretty well in this dKos diary:

Process Stories IV: If Conyers gets a Senator--then what?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/29/131656/85

[mdb]

13. David Lytel has a great article on this.

http://miamedia.com/news/2004-12-27.the.end.david.lytel.html

The End is Near: The Coming Constitutional Insurrection

Source: http://www.redefeatbush.com/downloads/insurrection.pdf

[mzmolly]

15. He essentially draws the same conclusion.

"The historic decision on the continuation or termination of the Bush presidency will then rest with the most lonely and abused faction in the House – moderate Republicans.

...

"With a dozen or so Republicans joining House Democrats the Bush presidency would be over and democracy restored. A similar dynamic will play out in the Senate if we have five or so co-sponsors before the session begins."

I just don't see this happening? 12 Republicans and 80 co-sponsors in the house?

He mentiones a different alternative as well:

Article 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment sets out penalties for massive vote suppression, since that is one of the problems the union faced after the Civil War. Northerners feared precisely what ended up happening – that the white elites in the South would take advantage of the increased number of citizens they now had once slavery was over but that they would not permit the freed slaves access to the ballot so they could successfully secure representatives they could trust. It says that if the right to vote in an election for president is "in any way abridged" then the representatives of that state will be reduced in proportion to the scale of the vote suppression. While this applies to representation in Congress, it also applies to the office of Elector, even though people only hold that office for a single day to do just one thing – vote for president. A Federal lawsuit backed by 550,000 affidavits from a state would be sufficient to reduce the number of electors from that state and as a consequence the number of electoral votes it has to cast on January 6th. Happily, the Internet makes it possible to put up a form necessary to produce a legal affidavit on Monday and have well over 550,000 of them from multiple states on the next day. Bold and messy, but plausible.

I guess I need this explained in plain english.

[mdb]

19. I was just going to post this alternative.

I'd need to understand how this would work as well. From reading this paragraph it looks simple but things are usually not so. 550,000 affidavits may be easy enough, but what then?

[SicTransit]

20. mdb - "550,000 affidavits may be easy enough" -

you MUST be joking.

[mdb]

24. Not from David Lytel.

I'm just going on what he said.

Happily, the Internet makes it possible to put up a form necessary to produce a legal affidavit on Monday and have well over 550,000 of them from multiple states on the next day.

[Doctor O]

48. A petition and an affadavit are two different things.

An affadavit must be signed and witnessed by a notary public or otherwise authorized official, judge, etc. The signature can not be witnessed over the interent.

[demwing]

14. Well, Best Case scenario is that the fraud is so obvious by then

that the Republicans can't pretend it hasn't happened, and the nasty little bugshits eat each other alive in an attempt at salvaging their political careers.

Worst Case scenario is that despite overwhelming evidence, the Rpukes won't budge and the country is thrown into a civil war.

See?

It's always better and worse than you think!

[melissinha]

22. Please create a separate thread on Lytel's story

I think that the people need to really get behind this. By any means necessary... we just can't be bully by the fact that they (conveniently) have more strategic people in the the branches that will determine the outcome.... I don't care if you all think that this is a waste of time cause you know what??? Since Shrubie got his phony mandate he has reached new heights of hypocrisy and greed and thats in less than two months!!!! We have to fight for the little guys even those who voted for him and for the trees and the animals in California and Alaska that have been and will be affected by the BushCo onslaught on all we hold dear.

If there is such movement to get affidavits from citizens' to address the consitutional implications of voterfraud... please post it so we can all participate as citizens and protest the dissolution of our democracy.

[demwing]

25. I think you responded to the wrong person

Sorry if I was snooty the first edit of this post, I completely misread you.

But, as you can see, I responded directly to MzMolly, and not regarding the Lytel article

[mzmolly]

37. LOL.

I got a chuckle out of this reply. Probably not a good thing huh?

"Bugshits will eat each other" Wouldn't that be grand! ;)

[Doctor O]

49. Obvious? In order for any Republicans and most members of the

Houses to put their careers and credibility on the line their must be concrete, hard evidence. And based on what many lawyers on DU and the OSSC there had been no hard evidence given only suspicions, or indications that will not hold up in a state of law. After reading posts by Truman01, Read The Law First, DavidGMills, there is not evidence out there for people to rely on the fact that fraud occurred.

[demwing]

56. I assume you didn't really read the post

It was a best case vs worst case scenario.

Best possible vs worst possible.

Dream vs nightmare.

Everything was 100% made up. Imaginary. No Republicans were harmed in the writing of that post.

Am I making any sense? :shrug:

[Doctor O]

58. Yup you are right, I did not read the whole post.

:headbang:

[demwing]

62. You know what? You rock.

simple honesty is so rare.

:yourock:

[oneold1-4u]

21. One week!

Has anyone come to the conclusion, of seclusion, until 01-06-05 of our president, even with a mass of humanity in great jeopardy today! When we cannot see or hear our highest elected officials for days on end, something is very wrong in this country!

[Qutzupalotl]

23. It will help immensely.

It likely won't change the outcome, but it will send a message that a) we're watching and b) this behavior will not be tolerated.

They'll think twice about stealing the next one so blatantly. Which means we'll have to watch even closer, and be ready with a response to every tactic they have used in the past.

In 2006, we get a paper trail.

[bunny planet]

34. It's got to be the kind of paper trail called True Vote systems (I think

that's the name) You get a receipt stating who you voted for, then you make a final approval and the machine prints out a copy which goes to a lock box. You get to check that the machine copy matches your copy that you get to keep and take home. Verified voting, it's a beautiful thing. Congressman Wexler tried to get it in Florida for two years prior to this election and he was shot down for the final time just two weeks prior to 2004 election.

[gdub]

27. Here's what happens

A challenge would be to Ohio's electors nothing more. A majority of the House and a separate majority of the Senate will vote to decide whether to accept Ohio's electors. EVEN IF, a majority of both houses rejects Ohios electors, Bush wins.

Basically, a challenge is merely symbolic. However, if a challenge is successfully mounted, it will be than occured in 2000. As a result, I suspect the symbolism to be material in the media as air cover for whatever grass roots legal efforts are still underway in Ohio.

The objective in all this, I believe, is to prove fraud and then assess the consequence of that.

[mzmolly]

38. Excellent point about the media. Though I fear they will cover the issue

from a "sore loser" perspective rather than a "oh my look at the fraud" perspective?

I guess we'll all have to wait and see. :hi:

[IndyPriest]

50. No, I think if both houses eject OH's electors

then we're in unchartered waters. Bush may NOT win automatically. A fair reading of the rules at least allows for the interpretation that 270 is needed by either Bush or Kerry.

[PaganPreacher]

57. Not uncharted waters.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is clear (paragraph 3 excerpted):

"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"

Read this:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/36762.pdf

Pay special attention to page 10; it containes the language "a majority of electoral votes", as well as describing the procedure for contesting, debating, and voting on contested electoral votes.

It is quite clear.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[gdub]

63. I am working on a detailed piece on this for my blog

If no candidate has at least 270 electoral votes (an "absolute" majority), then the president is selected by the House with each state having one vote.

So if the House and Senate reject Ohio's electors then the decision gets thrown into the House.

[Generator]

28. Speaking truth to power is not nothing!

Unless you are saying Howard Dean achieved nothing.

No, Georgie porgie ratface Bush will be ingaurated.

Like going to the death chamber, falsely accused and you do not fight?

Sometimes you have to go to your death fighting.

Maybe if the Dems learn to fight, learn to speak the truth, learn to have some courage to power, next you know we might even win.

Anything can happen.

[s-cubed]

29. The 2 houses don't have to decide anything immediately:

In 1876, there were disputes about which electoral votes to accept, due to allegations of voter intimidation by the Democrats. Rutherford B. Hayes was the Republican from Ohio, He was generally considered a decent, honest person, and his opponent a pompous ass. (Sound familiar?) The 2 houses could not agree, so they appointed a committee of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicsns, 5 Supreme Court Justices. Both houses were represented on the committee, with 5 from each house. Eventually, the committee did decide to accept the electors for Hayes, who was inaugurated in early March.

In other words, the Congress and the Senate CAN decide to investigate further: there is precedent to do so.

[delphine]

40. Except that in your historical example, the two houses

were unable to agree.

In this case we're talking about a repuke congress and repuke senate deciding whether to accept electors for their repuke overlord.

Not likely to be any sort of disagreement or any reason to appoint committees. They'll just vote to accept the electors.

We could trot out Jesus himself to vouch that he saw Karl Rove manipulating the voting machines and they'd still accept the electors.

[Doctor O]

47. If you read the post, in this thread that outlines the stepsm then

BOTH houses have to accept the challenge, otherwise the EVs are accepted.

[Doctor O]

45. Incorrect. See link

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/provisions.html#15

[Doctor O]

51. Also I believe the law was changed in 1887, n/t

[mzmolly]

39. Never said it was "nothing" I just caution those who seem to think it's

"everything" in this case.

[EFerrari]

30. Yes. Democracy, not fast food. Every time we get someone

to stand up, to make a gesture, to get our word out, we've won.

Paciencia.

[FogerRox]

35. Power to the People -- right on

[KoKo]

36. Reposting what I said to Will Pitt.....

This GESTURE....has "Great Emport" ....yes it does...yes it does...we
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 07:49 PM by KoKo01


should look at this for what it is...(I Googled to find out what happens if a Senator will support a House Member)...and it amounts to a two hour session break where (unless there's PROOF..which Ohio Supremes says there isn't) the vote continues. So all of us hoping and tuning into C-Span hoping for Kerry to WIN that day will be very disappointed.

The main thing is: That Conyers has hopes of getting ONE SENATOR on board...and making a STATEMENT..that move's things beyond what we here saw that went on with "Bush vs. Gore" and that scene in Moore's Docu...

So, what we are seeing is "baby steps...baby steps."

But for SO MANY OF US...it won't be enough...therefore Walt Starr's predictions have "some merit." (Even though I've been pumping air into "Cynic by the Side of the Road Walt" on your original post) I DO understand that Walt is closer to the truth than us jumping up and down declaring a Kerry Victory.

Still...The "Process" and the "Hope" of getting these fraudulent voting machines and elections looked at by the "average American" is worth the "Exercise in Futility," by Conyers and that "Lone Senator" ...my gut tells me it will only be one..and it will be Byrd...(I'll send you that bottle of Champagne on Me...Pitt) but...it's always going to be about these "Baby Steps."

And, it's sickening to me that after all this corruption, lies, deceit and cronyism ...that it comes down to our Dem Party wants to walk these little steps to the "gallows" every time.

Whatever...it will be that "Smile" you talk about Will..Not a "BIG BANG." Serendipity.......

[mzmolly]

41. Good post, though looking at the machines should happen regardless.

I do think Byrd is out best bet for a Senator.

I think what it amounts to is what people expect from the election being contested? I fully support Conyers and hope like heck we get a taker on the Senate, but I don't for a moment think it will put JK in the OO. :(

[Straight Shooter]

42. One possible benefit is it gives more ammunition to Arnebeck's case.

If the Ohio electors are challenged, it then becomes part and parcel within that decision that there is plausible reason to suspect Ohio's votes were illegitimately tallied, either through fraud or incompetence. From that position of strength, Arnebeck uses the official challenge of the Ohio electors to bolster his case to inspect the machines.

Tally ho!!

[Doctor O]

43. Arnebeck's case is

MOOT after Jan 6th. The relief he seeks is to overturn the results of the Ohio election. After Jan 6th it will make no difference since even if there is a challenge, the electoral votes from Ohio will have been accepted.

[Straight Shooter]

59. Sunshine came softly through my window today ...

:P

[msongs]

60. thank you, Donovan hehe eom

[k8conant]

44. It would draw it out more if more than one state is contested...

3 USC 15
...
No votes or
papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections
previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been
finally disposed of.

[Doctor O]

46. Yes, but realistically no other state is going to be contested.

And even then there are strict guidelines so it is not a drawn out process. i.e. more than two hours a state. It even goes farther to state that after two days, they can only break for meals and must stat in session until completed.

[Fescue4u]

55. It'll be decided on Jan 6th

Someone will contest.

They'll adjurn for 2 hours.

When they return they'll select Bush.


No way in hell will this go beyond one day.

[LittleClarkie]

64. A couple of things

1. Publicity for the problems of the election if our side is allowed to present them

and

2. My wildest, fondest dream: The election is contested by every damn Dem Senator in the Senate. The it goes to the Republican House, and just when the Republicans think they see victory, the moderates and the true conservatives in their own party stand up with the Dems in the House. Bye, Bye Bush baby.

Hey, I can dream, eh?

[Quakerfriend]

66. Love your way of thinking, LittleClarkie!

:hippie: