Republican senators state they will vote against challenging electors

Question, I know they don’t have the majority, but if as of now the House was majority Republican, could this election be overturned just by them having a majority? Assuming the Republican senate followed suit. Pretty scary if they could, especially considering they probably would.

 

Yes. A simple majority vote is all that is needed to throw out the electors votes. Then it goes back to the house and they vote by state, not by representative.

 

Wow, that’s incredible! Our democracy really is in large part an illusion. I guess it took someone as evil as Trump to show us just how fragile our Country really is.

 

Democracy has always been an illusion, it's why we've been unable to elect a good head of State since 1961. To our allies, america's political decline was long in the making.

 

We are not now nor have we ever been a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

 

I know , but still making it that easy to overturn a presidential election is scary no matter what you call it.

 

uh dude, Romney was our governor here in the Marxist People's Republic of Massachusetts. Do you really think a real Republican could be elected here? Massachusetts makes California look downright conservative in comparison. All of the looney toons stuff that pops up in California is born here in places like Harvard, Brandeis, Wellesley, Wheaton, Emerson, Amherst, Smith and Williams colleges. They faithfully crank out communists who dutifully spread out across the land and share uncle Karl's message like Jehovah Witnesses. Romney may have an R after his name but he's a Democrat through and through, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

EASY??? Trump's legitimate fight has been anything but easy. If in fact the election is overturned it will be the result of a long bitter battle against enormous odds but a victory not only for Trump, America and most importantly the Constitution.

 

The House votes by state when there is an electoral college tie, and they are left to decide who is president (also known as a Contingent election). However they do not vote by state when certifying the electoral college.

 

You're confusing certifying the electoral college with a contingent election.

First thing is first, the Senate must count the electoral college votes. This is a process where a states' electoral college votes can be challenged by members of congress and rejected from being included in the count. In order for a state's votes to be rejected, first they need at least one senator, and one member of the house to sign off on the challenge. If both members sign off on challenging a state's votes, then both the Senate and the House vote on the challenge individually. If the challenge is approved by a majority in both the House and Senate, then the rejection is passed and those particular electoral college points are excluded from the count

If the final outcome of the electoral college certification ends with the neither candidate reaching 270 electoral college points, THEN the process advances to a contingent election, and THEN the House of Representatives votes on the President based on their state delegation. The Senate then votes on who is Vice President

 

All of you are jumping in different parts of the conversation.
Congress meets on January 7th. It is a long involved procedure. If states are thrown out so that neither candidate gets 270 votes, the house votes by state. That has been my one and only point.

 

No. What you DON'T understand (amazing) is that the House will not be electing a president. He House will be voting on whether or not objections to Electoral College slate of voters are accepted. That's a majority vote. Gee! Get informed! Again, IF both the House and the Senate accepted the objections and Biden dropped below 270 then it would be a delegation vote in the House, but it won't get to that!!! The necessary step of accepting the objections won't be accomplished. So, the 306-232 will stand.

 

I'm done with you. Get informed. THAT IS IF BIDEN DROPS BELOW 270 IF THE CHALLENGE IS ACCEPTED BUT THE CHALLENGE WON'T BE ACCEPTED!!! WHAT PART OF THIS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND???????????????????????????????????????????

 

PRAY TELL, HOW WILL THEY THROW OUT ENOUGH STATE ELECTORAL VOTES????? THIS NEEDS BOTH CHAMBERS BY SIMPLE MAJORITY! DO NOTICE THAT THE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED BY DEMS AND SEVERAL REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ALREADY DECLARED THAT THEY WON'T SUPPORT THIS. THERE WILL BE NO ELECTORAL VOTES THROWN OUT! NONE! THE SCORE WILL REMAIN 306-232.

You are incredibly misinformed, and you insist although several people here have taught you the truth.

 

Look, this has been explained to this guy to death but he doesn't get it. Let's not waste our time. Let him dream of his impossible scenario. He will have a bitter awakening on January 7th.

 

Congress meets on January 6th. THERE. WILL. BE. NO. VOTES. THROWN. OUT. BECAUSE. THE. HOUSE. NEEDS. TO. AGREE. BY. SIMPLE. MAJORITY. (repeat this three times, slowly, and see if you get it) (And the Senate won't, either).
YOUR ONE AND ONLY POINT IS INCREDIBLY WRONG AND INCREDIBLY MISINFORMED.

 

The procedures allow state votes to be thrown out. It is not likely, but there are procedures for doing so. If enough states are thrown out, it comes down to a vote by the house by state.

Are you denying that state votes can be thrown out? Not whether they will or not, but whether they can be.

Are you denying that if enough are thrown out so that neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, that there will be a vote by the house?

Are you denying that vote by the house will be by state?

Please answer each question so I can figure out where you are on all of this.

 

Yes, they can be thrown out, but they WON'T because it's a 2-hour debate by each chamber and at the end of the debate both chambers need to approve the challenge by simple majority, and one of the chambers is controlled by the Dems (and the narrow GOP majority in the other chamber won't hold either, since several Republican senators have already said they will vote against any challenge).
If I'm denying it? I already spilled out the entire process.
Where I am? I am with the constitutional truth.
I do not mix up challenge to electoral college votes (which is by simple majority) and contingency election (which is by delegation) like you are mixing up.
It's only in case of a contingency election that the House votes by delegation. IT WON'T GET TO THAT because Biden's count will NOT drop below 270.
Do you actually think that the DEM controlled House will vote for throwing out Biden's win? LOL, dream on.
There is a necessary step before the House would be called in to vote by delegation in a contingency election. This necessary step is the acceptance of the challenge. IT WON'T BE ACCEPTED!!!

Now, I'm done. Over and out. I won't read your misguided opinion any longer. Have a nice and long life and don't get too disappointed on January 7th when you realize that Biden has been confirmed as the 46th president of the United States.

 

Yes, if the Republicans had a majority in both houses, they would be able to throw out the EC votes if they so desired. It would be the end of American democracy because they'd be throwing out the EC votes with not an ounce of evidence that these votes were not valid and were not obtained through free and fair, fraud-free elections. They'd be throwing out the will of the American people simply based on Trump's evidence-free far-fetched claim of widespread fraud that never happened.
Fortunately there are still some decent Senate Republicans who won't do that, and fortunately the House is Democrat-controlled.

 

You might be right, but, still, it is based on the principles of democracy.

What these repubs will show to their American citizens, and to the whole World, is that they are trying to use a stratagem to overturn the decision of the people.

From now on, everyone will be aware that electing a repub, to the House, to the Senate, or even as Governor will become an act that is potentially dangerous for the normal democratic process leading to the election of the next POTUS.

 

However, that does not dispute what I was saying. I was not predicting what was going to happen. I was only addressing what would happen if enough states are thrown out. I am not saying that will happen. The procedure allows for that possibility.

I fully expect that Biden will be president on January 20th. I have said that repeatedly.

 

The institution and the election law of 1877 in thing does not give the Congress that right not to the VEEP..

 

Yes - easy. All it would take is a simple majority in both houses and the political will to do it.

 

It does give Congress the right to throw out the EC votes through challenges. Then if neither candidate gets to 270 the election goes to the House, one vote per state delegation.

 

You're not wrong about a contingent election, but there are several steps to getting there: and several unresolved questions:

• Does the 12th amendment rule or legislation passed after the 1876 election?
  • The Constitution is not amended by legislation, only by constitutional amendment.
  • Does the Vice President count the votes or the majority of both legislatures.
    • Pence is not going to anything but stay in the middle of mainstream use of authority.
• Does it take a majority of both Houses to reject a slate, or does one House voting to object toss out that State's Electors?
  • If a State's Electors are tossed, is the winner the one who reaches 270 or a majority of the remaining votes?
    • If the latter, this will never go to a contingent election.

Who Will Be Inaugurated? What is unlikely is not impossible—an admonitory caution, not an appeal to false hope.

11 Republican Senators—including Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.)—joined Josh Hawley of Missouri in declaring they will give Democrats a taste of their own medicine and vote against the electors on offer in several disputed states at the joint session of Congress on January 6. At least 140 GOP representatives plan to vote against the slate of Democratic electors in those states as well.

This is as it should be.

Give it to them good and hard.

We stand in sustained applause of those stalwart Republicans with the courage to vote against the slate of Biden electors in the disputed states. It's a matter of principle. Statement

• Was the presidential election in those disputed states conducted in accordance with “the Constitution and with federal and state law”?
• Did “the voters fairly decide” the election?

These are serious questions deserving high debate.

Legislators, both State and Federal are constitutionally charged with ordering elections, and wisely, the Supreme Court has refused to take the task off their hands, though, the task still remains. Jan Six is the time to take up the debate and settle these issues.

In a sober essay at Power Line, John Hinderaker asks the key question: “How much voter fraud was there?” Answer: A lot, probably. The qualifier is necessary because, as Hinderaker notes, most of the evidence is “circumstantial.”

Those that likely committed the fraud also made it impossible to prove, and, there are cases where they control the evidence and refuse to produce it.

These senators are asking for an emergency audit of election returns in the disputed states. Such an audit would force the full production of all evidence by all parties involved.

• In the Event Congress cannot determine a winner, does Nancy Pelosi serve as per the legislated presidential succession act, or
• Our the Current Secretary of State, in keeping with the Constitution.

​

I expect Joe Biden to be inaugurated, and it to be become progressively more clear as his term progresses that the election was stolen, every revelation further undercutting his authority and legitimacy.