When the EC votes are submitted to Congress, it is assumed that the slates from states that Trump lost will be objected to by one Senator and one Representative, forcing the Senate and the House into chambers to debate the issue and vote. If both chambers vote to reject the slate, the slate is rejected, otherwise, the slate is accepted.
As near as I can tell, both the Trumpists and non-Trumpists feel that this will force Republican Senators to go on record as either supporting Trump’s attempt to disregard the will of the people, or not supporting it. That is, both sides feel that this intimidation will help over-state the support for Trump.
Well, what’s to prevent Mitch from just asking for a voice-vote on the issue, before any debate? If it really is 88-12, a voice vote should be obvious. If it’s close, why not just let Mitch call it for the “Nays” and let the House reject the issue? If the House is going to reject it either way, does it matter?
One minor issue is that Mitch is not the presiding officer of the Senate. That would be the Vice President, or if he’s not around, the President Pro Tem (Grassley). The presiding officer would be the one to ask for a voice vote.
Plus this question neglects that the House also votes which will be presided over by the Speaker. Even if the Senate votes to reject the EC votes, I doubt the Democratic-controlled House will reject those EC votes.
The question doesn’t neglect that; it explicitly states it.
Right now, in this election, there is no risk of the election being overturned, because the two houses are controlled by different parties. All that will happen in this election is that some Republicans will be forced to embarrass themselves, in one way or the other. In a hypothetical future election, where both houses are controlled by the Republicans, there is a risk of the election being overturned, and any embarrassment involved will be irrelevant compared to the subsequent death of democracy in America.