Perhaps something we can agree on

Repeal the Electoral Count Act

The law President Trump’s campaign sought to use to overturn the results of the election was also used by Democrats in 2000 to try to deny George Bush the election and again in 2016 to try to overturn Trump’s victory over Clinton.

It is a bipartisan bad idea. It should go.

The Constitution left the selection of Electors to the Electoral College to the states and so should Congress.

My apologies, if the link above is paywalled, this one should be open

Free link

36 thoughts on “Perhaps something we can agree on

  1. I would be inclined to agree if it were not for the fact that various GOP legislatures are setting themselves up to overturn the choice of Electors by the voters in their states. With that new crisis looming I am not so sure.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not require a state to hold an election at all. If they do, there are requirements to follow, but a state is allowed to select its electors in accordance with its own law.

      They could select the electors in their legislature, they could flip a coin, or allow champions to decide the matter by combat.


      1. “…allow champions to decide the matter by combat.”

        This, I could get behind. The ruling class really should bring back jousting.

        Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell could meet at dawn with flintlock pistols.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. How do you feel about the current laws that say it is OK to disregard the votes of the citizens of certain states and appoint electors because they didn’t like the outcome? You know, like the way the GOP waited to see if they would win in a state BEFORE filing lawsuits? Are you OK with a law that says the legislatures or some political hack appointed by the legislatures can overturn YOUR vote?

        That is how the laws are being written in several states, including Georgia and Texas. It isn’t so much about suppression any more; it is about nullification.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Applying for a ballot in someone else’s name and ballot harvesting are invitations to fraud and coercion.

          I know that for a fact as it happened in my own family.

          Most states do not allow it for that reason. I see no warrant in the Constitution or federal law that would allow the Federal government to compel it.


  2. RE” It [Electoral Count Act] is a bipartisan bad idea. It should go.”

    I’m OK with repeal, if only because the Act is poorly written and subject to abuse for that reason.

    However, somebody at the Federal level must certify the election because that is the action that signals the end of the process. Whoever has the certification authority also and inherently will have the authority to refuse to certify. Even repealing the Act would leave the Vice President in that position under the 12th Amendment.

    A possible resolution might be to use the Supreme Court as the final certification agent.


    1. “… which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;…”. 12th Amendment

      There is nothing that says the President of the Senate has the certification authority. The ballots have already been certified and his job is to open the sealed envelopes and count the ballots. Period.

      Pence knew this. “Team Autogolpe” also knew this, but tried to strongarm the VP through violence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “There is nothing that says the President of the Senate has the certification authority.”

        The election can’t end if the President doesn’t open all the certificates, making them official. I would call that “certification authority” with a small “c”.


        1. The election ended when the states certified
          their electoral votes. By what law can the VP not open the envelopes?

          “… The President of the Senate shall…”. Not “if he feels like it” but shall.

          The whole effort was to get Pence to break the law of the land and do the bidding of “team autogolpe”. Begging, legal wrangling and name calling wasn’t working, so in come the climbers and gangs to force the VP to break the law.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “The election ended when the states certified
            their electoral votes.”

            In that case you are saying the election is over before the results are officially known. I get that, except the 12th Amendment requires the state results to be compiled and published under the stewardship of the President of the Senate. Thus:

            a) The election can’t be over until the President of the Senate acts; and

            b) Even if we want to call the President’s stewardship merely “ceremonial” the office has positional authority in practice to cancel the ceremony.

            I can’t imagine how a law could tie the hands of the President of the Senate such that he couldn’t legally act on conscience if he chose to do so. That’s why I recommend considering the Supreme Court to function as the certification agent.


          2. The Constitution authorizes the President of the Senate to count the votes and publish the results, nothing else.

            Under that limited authority, it doesn’t matter who it is, The Constitution could have specified the Soil and Water Commissioner of DC, it would make no difference.

            Count and announce the results. The rest is up to the States.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “I concur. The VP’s role is essentially ceremonial.”

            Of course, you are absolutely correct. The Constitution could not be more clear on that point.

            Which raises the question – why did you politicize the second impeachment which was based on the President’s grossly illegal and unconstitutional behavior vis a vis the election certification? The impeachment was richly deserved and he should have been convicted. But, oh no, people including you attributed it to the spite, Trump-hatred and corruption of the Democrats.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. If being wrong about the Constitution were a crime, you’d be writing from a prison cell.

            There is no evidence that Trump encouraged the violence on Jan 6, on the contrary, there is testimony that his insiders knew the violence would work against them. Trump wanted a loud and passionate protest in hopes of delaying the count until he prevailed in court(which he didn’t in the end) but he did not want a riot that would galvanize the public against him.

            Don’t forget that Democrats had twice used the same maneuver, with a less intense protest. I don’t recall you accusing them if criminal behavior.

            So, Trump was wrong, but that doesn’t equal an impeachable offense.


          5. “Don’t forget that Democrats had twice used the same maneuver,”…

            Results in 21000 were challenged all the way to the Supremes. And it concerned the COUNTING of votes in Florida, not the certification of the results by Congress.

            In 2016, there was no legal challenge and ZERO protests concerning the outcome. Your memory is so clouded by hatred for Democrats, your judgement in this matter is questionable.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “Don’t forget that Democrats had twice used the same maneuver?”

            What are you referring to? I do not know of any Democratic Vice President being pressured to simply not certify the results of a Presidential election.

            As for your gratuitous insults, I will match my knowledge of the Constitution with yours any day of the week.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Trump called “fraud” at every turn. And at every turn he was rebuffed by election officials, courts, and FACTS.

            His cronies attempted to push bogus lawsuits that were tossed out of the courts because there was ZERO evidence to back the claims.

            Your continuing attempts to conflate 2000 and 2016 with 2020 is shot full of holes. Truth does that to delusional realities.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. No, what I said was that Democrats have tried to use the Electoral Count Act to block GOP winners too.

            That is reason to either clarify or eliminate the opportunity for both sides.


          9. More Bull

            We are STILL talking about the President pressuring the Vice President to violate the Constitution. We are NOT talking about a handful of Congressmen who were TOTALLY IGNORED by the sitting Vice-President, Joe Biden.

            Your claim was that the Democrats tried the same maneuver as Trump. They did not.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Funny how history repeats itself but is a bad thing only if Republicans exercise the exact same argument and legal strategy as Democrats did in prior years. It certainly ties a knot in their pink panties and becomes yet another lame reason for an “investigation” of some sort.


          1. This is rich.. Such a pitiful attempt to accept the truth, something very foreign to you. One precinct of a few angry people does not equal a shut down of an illegal statewide recount. Ignorance is your bedmate. Sleep well with it…


          2. “Such a pitiful attempt to accept the truth”…

            Something you are quite familiar with.

            And exactly what was “illegal” about the recount? Or are you just bloviating?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I have tried to educate you a little bit based on the belief that it is better to know what has happened in the past than to be ignorant of it. It was obviously a wasted effort. You can resist the truth for the rest of your life, but your unwillingness to accept it does not change it. In this case, Republican operatives fearing the result of the LEGAL recount in a critical district stopped it by violence. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. …”if Republicans exercise the exact same argument and legal strategy as Democrats did in prior years”

      But that is not the case. There was zero attempt to overturn the CERTIFIED votes of ANY state. Florida had some issues that year (MY grandmother worked the local polls and would have killed me if we were face-to-face when I asked her “What the hell is going on down there”.)

      Get your facts straight before making ludicrous proclamations about what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Liked by 1 person

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 )

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