History/law people: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[wildflower]

as I understand it:

11 senators formally objected to the Ohio electoral vote within the Senate chamber today (during the Senate debate). (I say this because of the word "Objection" at the bottom of the screen when they spoke during the C-SPAN broadcast.)

1 of these submitted a written objection (Boxer).

1 of these voted to contest the Presidential election (Boxer).

Is this formally what occurred? Or am I incorrect? How would this be correctly phrased, technically? (Especially the part about the 11 senators. Were their speeches formal objections?)

-wildflower

ON EDIT: These are the 11 senators who stood and spoke in support of the objection, in the order in which I saw them appear:

Sen. Barbara Boxer D-CA
Sen. Richard Durbin D-IL
Sen. Debbie Stabenow D-MI
Sen. Edward Kennedy D-MA
Sen. Ron Wyden D-OR
Sen. Frank Lautenberg D-NJ
Sen. Hillary Clinton D-NY
Sen. Harry Reid D-NV; Senate Minority Leader
Sen. Tom Harkin D-IA
Sen. Barack Obama D-IL
Sen. Christopher Dodd D-CT

[wildflower]

1. kick...because if this is true, it means...

the other 10 senators did more than just talk today.

[wildflower]

2. my thread is lonely

:)

[FreepFryer]

3. You are correct to my knowledge

'cept 'formally'.

[wildflower]

6. Thanks FreepFryer!

Sorry to be so narcissistic about my thread :)

-wildflower

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. No, not exactly.

The rose in support of election reform and in some instances gave a nod of respect to the objection. Mostly it was an opportunity to share their views about a flawed system. No one "formally objected." That is done with a signature and a vote. Boxer is the only one who did that.

Here's my analysis to save a bit of retyping. The first half is what I think happened today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=257730&mesg_id=257730

[carolinalady]

5. Yes, in fact they all prefaced their comments with a word about

Bush winning the election beyond doubt.

[BernieBear]

7. 1 provided formal written objection

10 stood up to publically support her call to action

[Verve]

9. My understanding is that ONLY ONE senator and ONE congressperson

could FORMALLY object. All other signatures would have been mute. (I think Will Pitt said this in his thread at truthout today. I'll try to find it.

[wildflower]

8. Thank you, Pacifist Patriot. But a question...

Why did it say "Objection" (or was it "Objecting"?) at the bottom of the C-SPAN screen when the dems got up to speak? The president said they were being "recognized" (I assume that means "You have the floor.") What would their action technically be called?

And were their speeches entered into a record?

-wildflower

[carolinalady]

10. I think the proper term would be debating the issue

the law demanded 2 hours of formal debate in each individual chamber with each senator/rep allowed 5 minutes to state their position. Not sure why c-span labeled it as such.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I think the labels on C-SPAN were meant to be informative rather

than technically descriptive. It was misleading.

Yes, I would imagine the speeches would be a matter of record. That's why so many were obviously prepared well in advance. I would think Clinton was up all night memorizing hers.

[Verve]

11. Here is another thread-Boxer said only one senator needed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=256350&mesg_id=256350

[wildflower]

12. Ah, okay. Thanks! n/t

[Seabiscuit]

14. True. Only one formal written objection is needed for debate and vote.

Barbara Boxer provided the written objection.

She also provided the only vote supporting the written objection.

The other ten merely joined the debate. They voted against the objection.

In the House, 31 members voted to support the written objection of Tubbs-Jones.