Once we start letting the Senate vote in our President, how long before we

[seriousstan]

are no longer needed to vote?

The question is, this election is contested. They retire for a 2 hour, I believe, debate. They come back and claim a winner. Four more years go by and repeat. Repeat. Now, except for voting for Senators, we are out of the loop.


Am I reading this scenario correctly?

[Richardo]

1. No. The 'election' would be in the House of Representatives.

[Walt Starr]

6. Only if the challenge is upheld

which it won't be this time.

Next time when a Democrat wins and the Republcians still control the congress, yes it will be upheld and the Democrats will lose in teh Republican controlled House.

[seriousstan]

8. I get it, he was addressing "scene 2".

[Carolab]

13. ONLY if there is reason to believe

that the vote cannot be verified

[Snivi Yllom]

25. Isn't that what the fraudsters are asking the Senate to do?

By pushing for the certification to the election, youa re really asking for the electionr esults to be tossed and for the President to be determined by the Congress, not by voters, thereby disenfranchising 120 million voters.

[shraby]

35. I believe that's exactly what the Supremes

did in 2000. Disenfranchised half the country..and not legally either. They had no business interferring.
This time there is a legal and constitutional challenge to the validity of the vote...and will be settled constitutionally.

[illflem]

24. What makes you think they will still control Congress?

Don't forget to vote in 2006!

[Walt Starr]

30. the effect on Democrats in 2006 terrifies me

I see a filibuster proof Republican majority if many Democrats stand up on this.

[FreepFryer]

33. If you bothered to look, you'd see that coming anyway. Don't ignore them.

[seriousstan]

7. Do you have a link for the entire process?

Thanks. But even then, it is the same scenario, just different players.

[lostnfound]

2. We are already out of the loop.

But I think it's actually a delegation from the House that votes.

[pmbryant]

3. This is one reason why the Electoral College should be tossed

And replaced by a direct popular vote for President. One citizen, one vote.

--Peter

[seriousstan]

10. Be careful what you ask for. Majority rule is a scary thing.

Minority parties and people have no voice.

[pmbryant]

22. Haha! Like we have a voice now

This is just for electing a President. It's winner-take-all, whoever wins. I'd prefer that the winner actually gets the most votes.

--Peter

[seriousstan]

23. I am sticking with the reasons outlined in many historical documents

for the formation of the electoral college, protection of the smaller states and issues against the larger more populous states.

How would you like mandatory prayer and an up/down vote on abortion?

[pmbryant]

28. Those issues have nothing to do with electing a President

Voting should be about people, not arbitrary entities called "states".

Why should the arbitary entity called "Delaware", with 800,000 people, count more than another arbitary entity called "Orange County, California", with 3 million people?

Why should the arbitrary entity called "Kansas" with 2.7 million people, count more than the entity called "Harris County, Texas, with 3.6 million people?

But this is a topic for another thread, so I won't pursue this argument further right now.

--Peter

[bemis12]

4. That could be REALLY bad for 2008

Good point. Or if the Repubs just casually challenge and steal Pennsylvania's electoral votes after Ohio gets challenged.

I could see them doing it, too.

[elperromagico]

9. You can bet if Kerry had won Ohio by 2%,

instead of the other way around, there would be challenges from the Republicans. The GOP made that clear on election night.

And yes, you're right. If another state were that close in 2008, you couldn't spit without hitting a GOP senator and a GOP representative willing to challenge.

The only real way to avoid that is by winning back the Senate and the House. We've got four years and two elections to do it.

[FreepFryer]

17. And, not to cheat in every way imaginable, as the GOP has done.

[tridim]

14. Then we challenge Florida and the other 4 or 5 states

that were stolen via eVoting.

The problem with disbanding the electoral college in 08 is that if they get away with Ohio this year, their plans for theft in 08 will simply be expanded to guarantee a popular vote win. Crime pays in Bushland.

[elperromagico]

5. It does set a precedent, certainly.

[farmbo]

12. No more of a precedent than the 1886 challenge...

...which set up a Bi-partisan commission to study and propose election reform.

That would be the ideal outcome.

Come to think of it...two intense hours of debate on the Ohio fiasco in both houses would not be a bad outcome.

The message would finally get out.

[elperromagico]

16. I think you mean 1876.

[Carolab]

29. Actually it was 1887 n/t

[elperromagico]

31. Apparently we're not talking about the same election.

I'm talking about the Tilden-Hayes contest in 1876. What are you talking about?

[Carolab]

34. The 1887 law n/t

[tridim]

19. The message would get out IF

the corporate media decides to cover it. That's a big honkin' IF.

[Carolab]

11. You are repeating what I heard

from a senator. What about the precedent it sets?

Well, wouldn't that take another fraudulent election? And whom would conduct it? Democrats? If we fix the system, and get rid of these machines, etc. so that we have a verifiable election, then where is the problem? Either they win "fair and square" or we do. Then, there is nothing to contest.

[seriousstan]

18. Do they have to have evidence of fraud or merely a claim of fraud.

There are always going to be some problems with any human endeavor. If a Senator and Congressperson stand and claim, doesn't that start the process regardless of evidence?

[Carolab]

32. Can reject votes not "regularly given" by electors "so certified"

See 3 U.S.C. Section 15. The word "lawfuly" was expressly inserted by the House in the Senate legislation (S. 9, 49th Cong.) before the word "certified". This arguably provides an indication that Congress thought it might, as a grounds for an objection, question and look into the lawfulness of the certification under state law. While the objection of "regularly given" may, in practice, subsume the latter (as a vote may arguably be other than "regularly given" if it were given by one who was not "lawfully certified"), the two objections are not necessarily the same. In the case of the so-called "faithless elector" in 1969, the elector was apparently "lawfully certified" by the state, but the objection raised was that the vote was not "regularly given" by such elector.

[genius]

15. Is this an attempt to discourage us?

Just asking.

[seriousstan]

21. Nope, simply trying to inform myself. Notice all the questions I am asking

I like to know the rules before I try to predict any potential outcome.

You are free to do anything you want. Besides, I am not conceited enough to think I can influence this process at this point. Minds are already made up.

[Carolab]

20. If Republicans felt they could use it against Democrats

wouldn't they be all over this to climb on board?

Besides, even if we don't do this this time, what stops them from doing it in another election ANYWAY?

[femme.democratique]

Exactly, if the tables were turned now the Repukes would do....

...whatever they could to contest. That is one bet I am willing to make.

[gumby]

26. Sorry, but this whole discussion is rhetorical.

The system has been stolen.

There is no rule of law.

We are in uncharted territory now.

As such, I hope the Democratic Senators grow a collective spine and at least let loose a communal fart tomorrow.

[femme.democratique]

27. ROFLMAO.....communal fart...good one! eom