How does Democracy deal with this i guess 'loophole"? If one Party happens to hold majority in both Houses of Congress and the President of thier party does not win, have we now established a Precident that the Majority can just invent a reason and reject the electorial votes and have the rejections stand because they hold the majorities? What if in this situation, the Republicans happened to have a majority in both Houses when this occured, then what?
Because the Democrats don’t play that way.
What prevents them from doing so is fundamentally what eventually prevented the GOP from doing so – doing so requires disregarding the Constitution, and the will of the voters, which is a leap that most sane people recognize would tear the country apart.
In a word? No.
This is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.
No precedent has been set here other than trying to reject electoral votes in this way. If an objection to electoral votes were upheld by majority vote, no doubt it would end up in the Supreme Court.
Well, yes, this is exactly what Democrats (and the remaining sane Republicans) have been saying for a while now.
Technically, nothing. There are, and always have been, a couple of loopholes in the Constitution that allow for total unbridled tyranny. It’s always just been a matter of whether either party was willing to push one of those red buttons or not.
The only thing that could inhibit the Democrats is that there would probably be enough moderate D’s who would refuse to go along; ditto for moderate Republicans on the right in the opposite scenario.
Even the most liberal of Ds would he against this.
Except there is no such thing as a moderate Republican, they are immediatly identified as RINOS and full primary efforts ensue.
They are certainly an endangered species, but I’m not sure that they are entirely extinct yet.
What I’ve learned this year is that our constitution sucks. It’s full of holes, has all sorts of things that make no sense, and of course it was built on slavery. I mean, I knew the last part, but I wasn’t so aware of the rest of it.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 876000 hours unless flagged)
Yes, The fight between the moderates and tea party style Republicans has been lost and the species formerly known as moderate Republicans is all but extinct. However there are still sub divisions, and moderation is a relative term. So now the division is between far right Republicans and batshit crazy republicans. Or as I suggested in another thread between those who enable Trump and those who would die for him. What velocity was referring to as “moderates” is the former group.
As for the OP, the main thing that is preventing Democrats from doing what you suggest is that most Democratic law makers would prefer to live under duly elected Republican rule than live through a civil war. If either party actually succeeded in a complete reversal of a fair election, it would demonstrate that democracy was no longer a viable option to bring about change, and that use of force is necessary.
If a party did this, then the rule of law would already be dead, and no one would care what the Supreme Court said about it. The Supreme Court relies on the Executive Branch to enforce its judgments.
The biggest difference between the parties here is that authoritarians have overwhelmingly sorted themselves into the Republican party. Democrats would overwhelmingly not be OK with it. The percentage of Republicans who are is increasing as further sorting occurs.
In addition to everything said above, there’s the practical matter. If the Democrats still hold the House after the 2022 midterms, that means the political climate has swung far to the left. Winning in 2024 should be easy in comparison. It would be the sports equlvalent of facing the #1 seed in a playoff and emerging victorious and then facing a #8 seed in the second round.
No constitution or law stands up to a sufficient number of people with the right powers wishing to ignore it. Andrew Jackson ignored the supreme court. What they wanted to do was more important to him and others than having a nation of law and order, there is no wording of the laws and the constitution that would prevent that.
The Electoral Count Act doesn’t give Congress the power to invent a reason for rejecting a state’s electoral votes. If a state certifies its votes and submits that list six days before the count, then the law says Congress “shall” count those votes. The only cases where Congress has the authority to decide on issues is when a state submits two sets of electoral votes or fails to submit any votes.
My understanding of what Trump’s supporters tried to do in this election was submit a separate set of electoral votes for some states, which said that Trump won. They wanted these sets of votes to be accepted as valid submissions, which would mean these states had two competing sets of electoral votes. In such a situation, Congress has the authority to vote on which set of votes is the real one that gets counted.
The problem with this strategy is the law clearly says that a set of electoral votes must be certified and submitted by the Governor of the state in order to be valid. None of these Trump votes qualified. So Congress ignored these bogus Trump votes and accepted the certified results for Biden and Trump.
It is possible that in some future election, a majority of Congress might choose to ignore the law and decided to illegally choose who’s the President. But I feel this illegally chosen President would have a hard time getting the federal government to obey his orders.
It’s also possible that some future Congress (or future state legislatures) might enact laws which give elected officials the power to reject election results and submit their own electoral votes. If so, such actions might be technically legal but I feel the President whose election was secured by such means would again be rejected by the country.
Far to the center anyway.