12 senators to object to Electoral College certification. Crickets from Rand Paul

[Sonny Tufts]

Before the count is done, a senator can raise objections because he think there was fraud.

Evidence will be presented.

That is my take from what i have been told.

The Electoral Count Act imposes a two hour time limit on the deliberation of each house regarding objections, which is hardly enough time to make an informed determination about voter fraud, even assuming the House and Senate have the authority to reject electoral votes on that basis. The fact is, they don't. Once votes are certified before the safe-harbor date, and assuming there are no other slates of electors certified or purported to have been certified by a state before the safe-harbor date, the votes of the electors so certified are to be counted. The only exception is if both houses determine that an elector's vote wasn't "regularly given" -- i.e., the elector was bribed or his vote was forged. But this doesn't relate to the validity of the elector's appointment.

3 USC 5
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

3 USC 15
...no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title [3 USC 5] from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified....

3 USC 17
When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.

[unknown]

The presidential election is comprised of votes cast by electors from the states, not votes of individual citizens through some nationwide democratic election as people generally conceive of it. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of senators plus its number of representatives. Each state gets to decide according to its own laws how to determine who gets to be electors, and each state is responsible for enforcing its own laws in how it does that. After each state determines who its electors are through whatever method that is for that state, those electors vote in their states. Their votes are sealed, certified, and sent to be counted pursuant to the 12th Amendment. If a candidate wins the majority of those electoral votes, that candidate is elected president.

So my question for you is, if the majority of the electors, who were chosen through the methods the states set for themselves, and whose votes have all been sealed and certified by their respective states and sent to be opened by Pence and counted before Congress, voted for Biden, how would Biden winning be stealing anything? He would have won exactly according to the rules the Constitution sets.

Because EC votes are technically tied to the states' popular vote via "faithless electors".

So, once the state's popular vote is "won", the majority of electors will vote accordingly.

All that was needed was some fraud in a few key counties (the election night pause for example), giving a slim majority in the state to win the EC.

[TheCount]

Rand thoroughly torpedoed the objection in his speech

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Rand thoroughly torpedoed the objection in his speech

I wonder who threatened him and his family if he objected

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I wonder who threatened him and his family if he objected

Nah. He's not built for this.

[ProBlue33]

I listened to his speech on why he isn't objecting

"The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn the election! Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states’ rights Republicans have always advocated for. This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our founders that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states."

His point from other things he has said, yes there was fraud but it was the job of the state legislative assemblies to fix that before it ever got to Congress, that's not their job to stop. I get it, he sided with state rights over the fraud. It is a bad deal and it should never have happened.
Election integrity should be the number one priority for the GOP moving forward especially at the state level since they control the outcome in the end.
They have been messed around with 2 elections in a row now.

[Invisible Man]

As it turns out, half of that group of 12 didn't follow through with it.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/votes_new.htm

[Invisible Man]

I listened to his speech on why he isn't objecting



His point from other things he has said, yes there was fraud but it was the job of the state legislative assemblies to fix that before it ever got to Congress, that's not their job to stop. I get it, he sided with state rights over the fraud. It is a bad deal and it should never have happened.
Election integrity should be the number one priority for the GOP moving forward especially at the state level since they control the outcome in the end.
They have been messed around with 2 elections in a row now.

Also, he may have acknowledged that fraud occurred. It does every election after all. But I don't think he ever suggested that he believed Trump would have won any of those states that he lost if not for fraud did he?

Granted, that wouldn't have affected his conclusion even if he did. But I'm not sure if he wants to be grouped in with the people claiming that happened.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

We should totally keep trusting the plan guys! WW1GA! Trump's second term will be amazing!