Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 06:48 PM Dec 2016

Does anyone remember in 2000..... there were no senators who would object to the electoral vote?

I am referring to the event on Jan. 6 when the Vice President accepts the counted ballots from each state at a joint session of Congress.

Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. An objection supported by at least one senator and one representative will be followed by the suspension of the joint session and by separate debates and votes in each House of Congress; after both Houses deliberate on the objection, the joint session is resumed. A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. In that case, the votes from the State in question are simply ignored. The votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were rejected in the presidential election of 1872.[61]


Is it possible that there could be a senator to object this time? I am clinging to any straw at this point.
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does anyone remember in 2000..... there were no senators who would object to the electoral vote? (Original Post) femmocrat Dec 2016 OP
why would they bother. unblock Dec 2016 #1
Remember 2004? Why bother. TXCritter Dec 2016 #2
Geez why bother doing anything MFM008 Dec 2016 #3
For those that don't know what happened in 2001... PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #4
Thanks, I remember watching it on TV. femmocrat Dec 2016 #8
I can see someone looking for TV time objecting MichMan Dec 2016 #5
Everything means something. pangaia Dec 2016 #7
Michael Moore showed this in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 MrPurple Dec 2016 #6
Oh yeah, Harry to the rescue. JudyM Dec 2016 #13
Harry will already be gone since this is done by the new congress, not the old. n/t 24601 Dec 2016 #15
Don't think so. Gore presided over this in Jan., 2001. MrPurple Dec 2016 #23
He presided because he was Vice President SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #24
Mr. Gore was not a senator at the time but was the sitting vice president whose term 24601 Dec 2016 #25
Thanks. Assumed Presidential & legislative terms ended at same time, so you taught me something. MrPurple Dec 2016 #28
Michael Moore lied about that. duffyduff Dec 2016 #20
No, he didn't MrPurple Dec 2016 #21
McCain? ailsagirl Dec 2016 #9
I hope someone will speak up even if it's McCain or Graham. femmocrat Dec 2016 #10
God, me too ailsagirl Dec 2016 #11
THIS Silver Gaia Dec 2016 #12
The only objections I anticipate SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #14
Boxer joined Tubbs-Jones in '04. Mc Mike Dec 2016 #16
Yes, that was a very happy moment for me Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #18
Boxer's daughter was married to Hillary's brother. femmocrat Dec 2016 #22
her brother? Hmm, haven't heard much about him... Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #29
Yes. We did not have foreign interference in 2000. This year is unprecedented. AgadorSparticus Dec 2016 #17
One might think that 16 years is enough time to grow a spine somewhere in our party. flvegan Dec 2016 #19
"A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept..." Adsos Letter Dec 2016 #26
It will happen SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #27
You're kidding, right? I remember it well and it was a profile in cowardice. Nothing has changed. Vinca Dec 2016 #30
I expect there will be objections to any Hamilton electors kudzu22 Dec 2016 #31

unblock

(54,162 posts)
1. why would they bother.
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 06:51 PM
Dec 2016

best case scenario they throw it into the house, trump is elected anyway.

i suppose it would make a bit of a statement, but to what end?

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)
8. Thanks, I remember watching it on TV.
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 09:02 PM
Dec 2016

Gore was very gracious and tried to be light-hearted. I was so proud of the CBC that day.

MichMan

(13,242 posts)
5. I can see someone looking for TV time objecting
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 07:01 PM
Dec 2016

I can see one member figuring they can get a lot of TV time, but since I doubt anyone from the other chamber would agree, it won't mean anything

MrPurple

(985 posts)
6. Michael Moore showed this in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 07:09 PM
Dec 2016

There's no chance of Trump being bounced this way and I doubt any Senator would get behind this, since the Republican majorities would overrule it anyway. Maybe Harry Reid could be the Senator to step forward, since he'd be on his way out anyway.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,366 posts)
24. He presided because he was Vice President
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 02:07 PM
Dec 2016

and because his term wasn't up yet. The new Senate was in place.

Harry Reid will be gone when the electoral votes are counted in January 2017.

24601

(4,018 posts)
25. Mr. Gore was not a senator at the time but was the sitting vice president whose term
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 02:09 PM
Dec 2016

ran until noon on 20 January 2001.

The 115th Congress takes office on 3 January 2017.

The 115th Congress, in a Joint Session, will open the Electoral Votes on 6 January 2017.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
20. Michael Moore lied about that.
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 11:32 AM
Dec 2016

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

There was a reason why it was not challenged, and it had nothing to do with "spineless" Democrats. Al Gore did not want it because he would have been, as VP, in a position to have voted for himself or Lieberman as VP. Ditto with Lieberman.

There was an obvious conflict of interest in the U.S. Senate. They would have had to recuse themselves, and the outcome would have been Bush anyway.

Moore was full of shit, as usual.

MrPurple

(985 posts)
21. No, he didn't
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 01:43 PM
Dec 2016

The segment in the movie showed Maxine Waters & other congresspeople objecting to the votes, but unable to get a Senator to cosign, with Gore running the proceeding and informing them that they can't proceed without a Senator. It just documented this event, which I don't think any other media has. It didn't try to delve into Gore or the Democratic Senators' motivations, as this was just presented as a backdrop to Bush taking power and the movie's focus was what had happened while he was in power.

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)
10. I hope someone will speak up even if it's McCain or Graham.
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 09:10 PM
Dec 2016

The drama would certainly make a point about condemning the Russian interference. It would have the effect of stalling the proceedings for awhile anyhow. I hope there is at least one senator with some courage.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,366 posts)
14. The only objections I anticipate
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 11:21 PM
Dec 2016

will be against any Trump electors who go faithless...then those votes will be tossed.

If any Dems object to faithful Trump electors, even if they get a Senator to join in, the House and Senate will vote to accept the votes and move on.

Mc Mike

(9,171 posts)
16. Boxer joined Tubbs-Jones in '04.
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 09:34 AM
Dec 2016

The media didn't cover it, Ms. Tubbs-Jones died young.

That's one of the reasons I was backing Boxer early in the primary. That and her great progressive voting and advocacy record.

I stupidly was unaware that Boxer and Clinton were related thru marriage.

flvegan

(64,608 posts)
19. One might think that 16 years is enough time to grow a spine somewhere in our party.
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 10:37 AM
Dec 2016

Personally, not holding my breath. Hopeful, yes. Optimistic, no.

Adsos Letter

(19,459 posts)
26. "A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept..."
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 02:55 PM
Dec 2016
A state's certificate of vote can be rejected only if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection.


Not gonna happen.

Vinca

(51,079 posts)
30. You're kidding, right? I remember it well and it was a profile in cowardice. Nothing has changed.
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 08:23 PM
Dec 2016

Those of us upset about the upcoming disaster are billed as kooks and nuts. I don't see any Democrats in Congress doing anything that will upset the apple cart tomorrow or anytime after. Sometimes they talk a good game, but talk is cheap.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
31. I expect there will be objections to any Hamilton electors
Sun Dec 18, 2016, 09:16 PM
Dec 2016

So even if we manage to swing enough electors, the GOP congress will object and throw those votes out as improperly cast, and Trump wins. As far as objecting to faithful Trump electors, such objection would have to be approved by GOP majority Congress which won't happen.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Does anyone remember in 2...