Will the House refuse to certify the Election?

[cthulu2016]

First off, don't worry — this scenario would not prevent Obama from being President.

After this election the RW will believe, as a matter of scientific fact, that Obama won by fraud.

And it is distinctly possible, to my mind, that any House Republican who votes to uphold the electoral college results will be facing a primary challenge threat.

Here is how it could go down...

In early January Joe Biden opens the certificates (certified electoral vote from each state) containing the votes before a joint session of the just sworn in House and Senate, with appointed tellers to count the certificates.

Objections to the count must be filed in writing and signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. The House and Senate then retire to special sessions to decide whether to accept or reject the questioned certificates.

Both chambers have to reject the challenged certificate for it to be disqualified.

So, like everything else the House does, this is a free shot. They can do any crazy thing, safe in the knowledge that the Senate will prevent them having to deal with the consequences.

Any crackpot on in the House can join with Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, or whoever the craziest member of the incoming Senate happens to be, to object to certifying the electoral college result on any grounds. (I prefer "the font was too small" but who knows what they could come up with.)

Then the two bodies retire to consider the objection. And the House can, if it choses, vote along party lines to not certify Obama's election while knowing full well that the Senate will approve it, making Obama President.

I am not predicting this as likely— merely considering the thing. But if the RW gins up enough outrage in November/December over the "theft" of the election, with Romney getting 100 fewer EV than they 'know' he really got, who can say?

I would have considered this sort of stunt to be beyond possibility if it were not for the fact that these people routinely vote to end medicare and have the USA stop honoring its bonds.

[dchill]

1. I actually hope they DO refuse!

It would signal the death knell of the Republican party as we (and they) know it.

[leveymg]

2. Did the House certify the 2000 Election? That seems to be the precedent. Anyone?

[cthulu2016]

3. Remember in Fahrenheit 9-11? When no Senator joined the House black caucus members

It takes at least one senator, and no senator joined the objection from some House members. There was a clip of Maxine Waters, I think, saying "Will not one single Senator" etc..

Even Gore could have, as President of the Senate. (A weird wrinkle due to the fact the President and VP take over a few weeks after the incoming Congress does. Gore was still Senate President as VP even though the Senate was the new Senate.)

[Scuba]

4. There is nothing beneath the Republicans.

[brettdale]

5. Their talking heads at Faux News

Having been using the words impeachment a lot lately, and have also been talking about the popular vote, and holding
up the electoral in the courts, because of voter fraud.

[cthulu2016]

6. They made the monster. Now they can try to reason with it.

[leveymg]

8. They're not going to win either the EC or popular votes. They have nothing but obstruction.

A lot of hate and denial of reality (they aren't a majority, and they aren't in charge anymore). In other words, nothing.

[dchill]

10. +1

[NYC Liberal]

7. It will never happen.

They would have to throw out the electoral votes of multiple -- large -- state. We're not talking about Wyoming with 500,000 people in the whole state. We're talking about millions of people, millions of votes.

It's one thing to deny a recount. It's another to throw out literally millions of legitimate votes.

[cthulu2016]

9. I generally agree, though none would actually be thrown out..

It would be a purely symbolic vote in practice, since the Senate would not go along.

[NYC Liberal]

11. I think even the Republicans won't do that.

If you think about it, they have the power to refuse to seat Representatives. Seems like a power they'd love to abuse, but they've never done that:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

Instead what they'll do is simply obstruct legislation for the next four years. Trying to throw out electoral votes to change the election would be a very visible, singular event that everyone would be watching. It's much better for them to just hold up legislation. It's much easier to confuse people that way and blame Obama/Dems for not fixing things.

[cthulu2016]

12. However...

If I was in the House of Representatives and I truly believed that the President Elect had, in fact, committed absolutely unprecedented election fraud on an unimaginable scale, and believed that the challenger had been denied over 100 electoral votes I would not, under any circumstances allow that person to become President if it was within my proper powers to thwart it.

I hope/assume that goes for everyone. Right?

So, if what I expect to become RW dogma develops, no RWer could justify voting to certify. The certificates being certified would, in fact, be the result of fraud.

It's no technicality. It will be their duty.

Now, one can say that they will not really believe it and I agree that many or most Republicans will know they lost straight up.

But how do you explain that vote to your electorate?

You cannot play along with the tea-party while defending that vote. No moral actor who believed what these people will have to pretend to believe could have cast that vote. Birtherism and evolution are easy to finesse. Certifying "the greatest political crime in human history" with foreknowledge wouldn't be so easy.

So for them, it's a political loser either way. (If I was a tea partier I would start my campaign the next day with, "Rep. X voted for Obama.&quot

I do think that that institutionally they would have to fall in line, unless Limbaugh was pushing it, but I didn't expect them to try to default on debt service payments either.