SLATE: Republican Senator Proposes Bill That Would Make It Illegal to Count Votes

More GOP attempts at voter suppression.

When election security has been discussed on this forum in the past, some have said that federal monetary support would be a mandate that takes away the running of elections from the states. In actuality, the election security bills put forth by the Democrats have only been for monetary support for states to conduct their elections safely and fairly. Bills have passed out of the House and disappeared into Magic Mitch’s black hole of a desk drawer, where bills and Supreme Court nominations go to die.

This proposal by SEN Scott IS a mandate for states not being able to run their elections as they see fit and in accordance with their own laws.

Throw away the ballots or don’t count them; the NEW GOP way of winning elections, because they know they can’t get enough votes without suppressing voting, cheating, lying or stealing.

And those on the right are OK with it because THEIR votes will be counted.

11 thoughts on “SLATE: Republican Senator Proposes Bill That Would Make It Illegal to Count Votes

  1. Conservatives are afraid of elections.

    Before 1965, conservatives in the South, disenfranchised an entire segment of the American citizens to keep power.

    Then portions of The voting acts were summarily dismissed as unnecessary and within hours there were panic rushes to skew voting. NC tried so egregiously to make voting for Blacks difficult that a federal judge said the Republican government passed election laws that restricted or negatively affected minorities “with surgical precision”.

    (Naturally, Republicans were caught ballot harvesting at a later date so that an election had to be redone.)

    Scott’s blatant attempt to steal the election while people are dying in a pandemic is on par with Trump’s sabotaging our process.

    Trump said he would only accept the results if he won. He said that in 2016 too.

    Ha, ha…what a kidder.

    “We’ll want to have — get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”

    Yeah, get rid of ballots, known as voting by most definitions. An then he threatens violence if we can’t get rid of ballots. How so, by saying if we do his bidding, it will be “…very peaceful”.

    Extortion by our own president.

    Trump had a description for people trying to usurp his power from within his own party. Human scum.

    I have a better word for the likes of Scott, Trump Traitors.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. OMG! We’re all gonna die because Sen. Rick Scott wants all states in the union to process mail-in ballots the same way they process in-person ballots! How did we ever count votes before vote-by-mail was invented?


    1. Same way we always have, depending upon the states laws.

      Some states allow the postmark to be a validation of timeliness. All states will have a larger volume to count and verify. So that may take some time.

      The official count for the election does not get submitted until December when the electors meets.

      So we just cool our heels and wait for the counts…like we have always done. The mirage of the results being all done by election night has never happened.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “All states will have a larger volume to count and verify.”

        A larger volume in what sense? Presumably, the number of voters will be the same. The number of ballots cast will be the same, only the ratio of mail-in to in-person ballots is expected to change.

        Scott’s bill would ensure that the use of mail-in voting doesn’t cause the date of election day to become an independent variable affecting the outcome of the election. That seems reasonable to me.


        1. And no matter what logic or argument is used, I am sure it will make no difference with regards to the Trump fans.

          The number ov voter si ezpected to be higher this election. Plus, because of the virus and the elderly population in FL, the volume of actual mailed in ballots will be higher as a percentage.

          Again, the law stipulates that the official results need to be verified before the electors meet in December.

          The official count has never been finished on election night. At least in modern history.

          Trump, unfortunately, is encouraging violence in case he doesn’t win. That right there should be a huge red flag to any patriotic American.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “And no matter what logic or argument is used, I am sure it will make no difference with regards to the Trump fans.”

          What’s the point of your ad hominem attack? I made my logic and argument explicit so you could see it, but instead of addressing them you attack me and Trump supporters on a personal basis.

          RE: “The number ov voter si ezpected to be higher this election.”

          Maybe so, but the maximum number of voters can never be highter than the maximum number of voters that would occur in an all-in-person-vote election. If all-in-person voting can be tied to a single election day, why can’t mail-in voting?


    2. You missed the point. THe states run the elections. They set up their own rules and laws to ensure they are free and fair. Scott’s proposal is a federal attempt to tell states HOW to run their elections. Election security bills passed out of the House and proposed in the Senate have been ignored and called attempts at a federal takeover of state’s elections.

      Scott’s proposal is what you and Don have claimed in the past to be what the Dems bills are. Once again you get it backwards.


      1. RE: “Scott’s proposal is a federal attempt to tell states HOW to run their elections.”

        Yes, it is. Now we can talk about whether or not it is an appropriate attempt.

        Election day for federal office is set by federal law, making the date of election day the same in every state. Does having a standardized election day violate state control of elections?

        I don’t see how, but even if it does, the benefits outweigh any violation of state prerogatives. Besides, the federal government clearly has both a right and a need to control the timetable by which its own offices can be filled.

        Sen. Scott’s proposal is the same as the law standardizing the date for election day. Its practical effect is only to require mail-in ballots to conform to the same timetable as in-person ballots.

        Scott’s bill is neither unconstitutional nor a violation of state’s rights nor, more generally, the principle of federalism.


        1. …federal government clearly has both a right”…

          Interesting that someone like you believes the federal government has any rights. THe rights are granted by the people. Isn’t that the Libertarian mantra? Now you want the federal government, like corporations, have the same rights as states or people.

          You clearly attempt to show that only YOUR viewpoint is the right one and when challenged, it tends to fall apart, caused by your own words.

          Scott’s proposal is NOT the same as the standardization of federal elections dates. It is an attempt by the federal government to supercede the 10th Amendment…another favorite of Libertarians.


  3. Without reading more left wing trash, this sounds similar to Democrats trying to bypass the constitution by having their states throw their electoral college votes to whomever New York and California decide is the choice instead of the people in their state. Don’t play like you are the innocent lamb when you squarely reside with the wolves. Liberals make me laugh too much…


    1. Mr. Smith, your attempt to discuss is noted with revulsion of your language. And I had stayed away from replying to your comments recently because of your incendiary language. However, this time I believe a reply is appropriate.

      The idea of the national voting compact was to take away the archaic power of the electoral college. I didn’t agree it it then. I don’t really agree with it now, but understand they why of it. The EC has taken the voice away from the voters, IMO. But it will be impossible to remove it without a Constitutional Amendment, which will never happen, especially in the current toxic political culture we find ourselves in.

      With that being said, I stand by my contention that Scott’s proposal is an attempt to override the individual states in HOW they conduct their elections. Hands off by the feds USED to be a conservative stance. Not any more.

      And you think the Dems are bad? At least they aren’t as blatantly hypocritical as the GOP.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s