A group of Democratic senators led by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angus King (I-ME), and Dick Durban (D-IL) have their eyes on fixing the Electoral Count Act. Their stated goal is to help ensure that what happened on January 6, 2021 doesn’t reoccur. Yesterday, they released a draft bill that hopes to plug some of the most glaring holes in the ECA, most notably by making it far tougher for Congress to overturn the outcome of the election and clarifying that the Vice President has nothing but a ceremonial role.
Another way that governors could "go rogue" under the proposed act - especially if they feel threatened, either politically or physically - would be to abrogate their responsibility to their legislature.
The electoral college is a process that is no longer needed. Between gerrymandering and the efforts to decrease and/or eliminated voting rights, the electoral college has run its course. The current electoral process is a hinderance. To put into hands individuals that will not respect the people's choice is asking for a repeat (rerun) from the previous administration. It is bad enough that we are essentially a two-party country where the elected are not trying to address the needs of the many unless it is profitable.
The election of 2016 proved that people don't read or study. They vote on what sounds good (funny/mean), who spoke the loudest or who they want to have a beer with. They don't want to look at past experience. They want something different. They want something "popular". They don't necessarily want capable.
The election system is complicated enough without the electoral process. Let the people truly speak. If the most capable person wins, we can hope they will work to reduce the muck. If the people choose a clown, then .....
It seems like a "walk and chew gum" moment. Yes, the ECA needs modernization and clarification. Yes, protection of voting rights on a national, consistent basis are essential. But it's also pretty certain that any attempt to link the two will fail in the current Senate.
Jay's last paragraph asserts that leaving election oversight solely to the states in not a happy result, but - as noted - having Congress as the ultimate arbiter didn't work out very well in 1876. As for the Trumpkins attempting to take over election supervision, shouldn't some of the focus be on maintaining the integrity of election administration and vote counting on the local and state level. Granted, that's a 50-state (+ DC) proposition, but the integrity of local elections matter as well (in addition to making it easier to vote).
It really is a conundrum. What we definitely need is federal standards for how states run national elections. We got close but didn’t pass that this time around.
Honest question. I understand this is not in any way a substitute for any voting rights legislation but isn't it better than nothing? Is there a way to perhaps leave in the part about Congress's ability to question and leave in anything to do with the VP but not include the part about who certifies? Or require certification by the governor and secretary of state and legislature or anyone else, or maybe two out of three?
Another way that governors could "go rogue" under the proposed act - especially if they feel threatened, either politically or physically - would be to abrogate their responsibility to their legislature.
Speaking of antiquated, abolish the electoral college and all this goes away.
That would require a Constitutional Amendment so it's unlikely it would ever happen.
The electoral college is a process that is no longer needed. Between gerrymandering and the efforts to decrease and/or eliminated voting rights, the electoral college has run its course. The current electoral process is a hinderance. To put into hands individuals that will not respect the people's choice is asking for a repeat (rerun) from the previous administration. It is bad enough that we are essentially a two-party country where the elected are not trying to address the needs of the many unless it is profitable.
The election of 2016 proved that people don't read or study. They vote on what sounds good (funny/mean), who spoke the loudest or who they want to have a beer with. They don't want to look at past experience. They want something different. They want something "popular". They don't necessarily want capable.
The election system is complicated enough without the electoral process. Let the people truly speak. If the most capable person wins, we can hope they will work to reduce the muck. If the people choose a clown, then .....
It seems like a "walk and chew gum" moment. Yes, the ECA needs modernization and clarification. Yes, protection of voting rights on a national, consistent basis are essential. But it's also pretty certain that any attempt to link the two will fail in the current Senate.
Jay's last paragraph asserts that leaving election oversight solely to the states in not a happy result, but - as noted - having Congress as the ultimate arbiter didn't work out very well in 1876. As for the Trumpkins attempting to take over election supervision, shouldn't some of the focus be on maintaining the integrity of election administration and vote counting on the local and state level. Granted, that's a 50-state (+ DC) proposition, but the integrity of local elections matter as well (in addition to making it easier to vote).
It really is a conundrum. What we definitely need is federal standards for how states run national elections. We got close but didn’t pass that this time around.
Cheese and crackers got all muddy, this group could mismanage a nocturnal emission.
Honest question. I understand this is not in any way a substitute for any voting rights legislation but isn't it better than nothing? Is there a way to perhaps leave in the part about Congress's ability to question and leave in anything to do with the VP but not include the part about who certifies? Or require certification by the governor and secretary of state and legislature or anyone else, or maybe two out of three?
That certainly is the argument the reformers are making.