Dems propose change to electoral college voting rules

[ColonelAngus]

This will make our elections SECURE!!

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

 

[bendog]

This will make our elections SECURE!!

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

Sounds like an improvement to the 1887 law after the Hayes' fiasco

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

According to the senators, their proposal would:

• Ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results.
• Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.
• Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Sounds like an improvement to the 1887 law after the Hayes' fiasco

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

According to the senators, their proposal would:

• Ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results.
• Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.
• Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors.

It doesn't do anything to address securing elections.

 

[lennypartiv]

Tyranny from the Democrats. State legislatures would now be prohibited from changing electors when fraud is found.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Tyranny from the Democrats. State legislatures would now be prohibited from changing electors when fraud is found.

Everything the Dems do is to make it easier for them to win elections.

It has NOTHING to do with election security.

 

[theHawk]

Sounds like an improvement to the 1887 law after the Hayes' fiasco

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

According to the senators, their proposal would:

• Ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results.
• Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.
• Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors.

In other words they want to do away with the legal means to overturn a rigged election.

 

[bendog]

It doesn't do anything to address securing elections.

The law in question has nothing to do with "securing elections." You count the votes, if you don't like it, you can pay for a recount, and sometimes get it free, if you think you were robbed, go to court and prove it. Trump lost, get the fuck over it.

 

[bendog]

In other words they want to do away with the legal means to overturn a rigged election.

see 7, loser

 

[lennypartiv]

In other words they want to do away with the legal means to overturn a rigged election.

Exactly.

 

[TNHarley]

Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.

Sounds like an amendment will be required
Or am i wrong?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The law in question has nothing to do with "securing elections." You count the votes, if you don't like it, you can pay for a recount, and sometimes get it free, if you think you were robbed, go to court and prove it. Trump lost, get the fuck over it.

So we had this glaring blind spot for 130 years, and now the Dems say the laws must change?



Hillary lost....GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

 

[theHawk]

see 7, loser

See #6, loser

 

[ColonelAngus]

Making it more difficult to overturn a fraudulent election is considered "nothing to do with securing elections".

Fucking leftards.

 

[bendog]

Sounds like an amendment will be required
Or am i wrong?

Naw, they want to amend a law passed after the 1887 election when some states sought to have two slates of electors. Should not be a big deal, but the Trump cult will rebel.

Nothing affects a state from changing mail in voting or poll access ... so long as ALL people are treated similarly. Personally, imo AZs law is not fair to native americans on reservations, but it's legal. Not right.

 

[bendog]

See #6, loser

u lost, not me. suk it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sounds like an improvement to the 1887 law after the Hayes' fiasco

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

According to the senators, their proposal would:

• Ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results.
• Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.
• Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors.

"Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors."

Misleading!

The Vice President never has the power to reject electors, only the vote of the Congress can do that.

 

[JLW]

According to the OP's own link the Senators wish to make the following changes:

• Ensure that state legislatures cannot appoint electors after Election Day in an effort to overturn their state’s election results.
• Provide limited judicial review to ensure that the electors, appointed by a state, reflect the popular vote results in the state.
• Clarify that the vice president has no power to reject a state’s electors.
• 
  
• This are changes only Trumperistas can oppose.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This will make our elections SECURE!!

3 Senators Propose Changes to Electoral Count Act

Three senators unveiled a proposal Tuesday to reform the Electoral Count Act. The bill includes a clarification that notes the vice president's role in overseeing the official counting of the Electoral College vote is purely ceremonial.

www.newsmax.com

I agree, it will. But for Pence choosing to do the right thing, the coup might have worked.

 

[TNHarley]

Naw, they want to amend a law passed after the 1887 election when some states sought to have two slates of electors. Should not be a big deal, but the Trump cult will rebel.

Nothing affects a state from changing mail in voting or poll access ... so long as ALL people are treated similarly. Personally, imo AZs law is not fair to native americans on reservations, but it's legal. Not right.

I was referring to forcing states to have their electors go by the popular vote of the state. The fed gov has no authority to tell the states what to do with electoral votes.
And that will piss off a bunch of Democrats because of their National popular vote compact Lolz

 

[bendog]

I was referring to forcing states to have their electors go by the popular vote of the state. The fed gov has no authority to tell the states what to do with electoral votes.
And that will piss off a bunch of Democrats because of their National popular vote compact Lolz

The sup ct has held states may pass laws that force electors to vote to reflect the will of the maj vote, or to disallow any "faithless" elector. I don't see any prohibition on congress passing laws on how a state's electoral votes are counted. I'm pretty sure a state legislature cannot legally name a slate of electors that refuse to vote for a presidential candidate courts have found is the legal winner. Taht was sort of the issue in 1887, as I understand it ... although I was not there first hand at the time.