Count every (electoral) vote!
Today is the day established by law on which the electoral votes, cast by the electors in all fifty states on December 13, 2004 (pursuant to 3 U.S.C. Sec. 7), are counted by the Congress. There are detailed instructions provided by statute for receiving and certifying the votes of the electors.
House Democrats have prepared a report (pdf format, and no, I have not read it -- I don't have the time to waste right now) challenging the validity of the Ohio votes, and apparently have persuaded at least one senator to go along with and sign the planned objection to the Ohio electoral votes. According to the law, as soon as the objection is properly made*, the two houses of Congress, meeting in joint session to count the votes, retire to their separate chambers to debate the objections and vote on them. As both houses are controlled by Republicans, it is unlikely that either house will sustain the baseless objections. Many rational Democrats are apparently opposed to the objection, and even one senator, the defeated presidential candidate John Kerry, has issued a statement that he does not intend to join the protest.
What, then, is the point of the objection? As a political tactic, it seems likely only to further alienate Congressional Democrats, as they make a pointless challenge that even the defeated candidate does not support, from the overwhelming majority of Americans who are ready to put the election behind and proceed with the nation's business. The only (limited) utility that I can see is as a civics lesson. For the first time in more than 125 years**, there will be an official challenge to the electoral votes, and Americans will watch the constitutional process work. Our system provides for an orderly transfer (or retention, in this case) of power, and even provides the machinery to challenge suspect votes.
No rational person -- possibly even Senator Boxer -- believes that the Ohio electoral votes were fraudulently cast. (Note her quote in the news article, stating that, "I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election." Not that the Ohio electors didn't properly cast the votes, or that they were not properly certified; she just wants a debate about the facts of Ohio's election.) For this the Congress, thanks to some intransigent Democrats, will waste taxpayer money for two hours debating the Ohio votes. It's a shameless, playground mentality from the nation's oldest political party, which appears to be on the brink of senility.
* There was a hilarious occasion in 2001, when Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) attempted to object to the Florida electors. Al Gore, then-vice-president and president of the Senate, was presiding over the count. The following exchange occurred between Gore and Mad Max (emphasis mine):
"The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS) rise?
"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electorial votes.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?
"Ms. WATERS. The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a Member of the Senate.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator is required. The Chair will again put that part of the question: Is the objection signed by a Senator?
"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, there are gross violations of the Voting Rights Act from Florida, and I object; and it is not signed by a Senator.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received."
**CORRECTION: This marks the second time in 125 years that the chambers were forced to separately deliberate an electoral vote question. In 1969, a "faithless" elector dedicated to Richard Nixon actually cast his vote for George Wallace. The bodies deliberated separately and agreed to allow the vote to count for Wallace (scroll down to "Disposing of objections"). Mea culpa.
House Democrats have prepared a report (pdf format, and no, I have not read it -- I don't have the time to waste right now) challenging the validity of the Ohio votes, and apparently have persuaded at least one senator to go along with and sign the planned objection to the Ohio electoral votes. According to the law, as soon as the objection is properly made*, the two houses of Congress, meeting in joint session to count the votes, retire to their separate chambers to debate the objections and vote on them. As both houses are controlled by Republicans, it is unlikely that either house will sustain the baseless objections. Many rational Democrats are apparently opposed to the objection, and even one senator, the defeated presidential candidate John Kerry, has issued a statement that he does not intend to join the protest.
What, then, is the point of the objection? As a political tactic, it seems likely only to further alienate Congressional Democrats, as they make a pointless challenge that even the defeated candidate does not support, from the overwhelming majority of Americans who are ready to put the election behind and proceed with the nation's business. The only (limited) utility that I can see is as a civics lesson. For the first time in more than 125 years**, there will be an official challenge to the electoral votes, and Americans will watch the constitutional process work. Our system provides for an orderly transfer (or retention, in this case) of power, and even provides the machinery to challenge suspect votes.
No rational person -- possibly even Senator Boxer -- believes that the Ohio electoral votes were fraudulently cast. (Note her quote in the news article, stating that, "I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election." Not that the Ohio electors didn't properly cast the votes, or that they were not properly certified; she just wants a debate about the facts of Ohio's election.) For this the Congress, thanks to some intransigent Democrats, will waste taxpayer money for two hours debating the Ohio votes. It's a shameless, playground mentality from the nation's oldest political party, which appears to be on the brink of senility.
* There was a hilarious occasion in 2001, when Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) attempted to object to the Florida electors. Al Gore, then-vice-president and president of the Senate, was presiding over the count. The following exchange occurred between Gore and Mad Max (emphasis mine):
"The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS) rise?
"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electorial votes.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?
"Ms. WATERS. The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a Member of the Senate.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator is required. The Chair will again put that part of the question: Is the objection signed by a Senator?
"Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, there are gross violations of the Voting Rights Act from Florida, and I object; and it is not signed by a Senator.
"The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received."
**CORRECTION: This marks the second time in 125 years that the chambers were forced to separately deliberate an electoral vote question. In 1969, a "faithless" elector dedicated to Richard Nixon actually cast his vote for George Wallace. The bodies deliberated separately and agreed to allow the vote to count for Wallace (scroll down to "Disposing of objections"). Mea culpa.
posted by Hal | 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home