Reply #133: Things would be COMPLETELY different if Kerry fought for our right to have

[pat_k]

Yes, the states appoint electors and Congress judges them.

You have taken "Congress can do anything it wants" out of context, rendering the assertion meaningless.

I said

As they count and judge the electoral votes, Congress can do ANYTHING it wants to preserve our right to have confidence.

The Electoral Count Act defines the duties given to Congress, which Breyer so clearly summarized in his dissent (included in previous post).

If Kerry had stood up and fought; if Members of Congress had taken their duty seriously, we have no idea whether or not the count of the electoral votes would resulted in a Bush or Kerry win. And it doesn't actually matter.

We do know that the way things played out between November 3rd and January 6th would have been COMPLETELY different.

Standing up for the right of the people to have confidence in our elections reminds "We the People" that WE are the only stakeholders in an election. The act of standing up cuts through the fascist view of the law that has taken hold in this nation. The crimes in Ohio would be FRONT PAGE news, for weeks leading up to January 6th. If Kerry had lead the fight for our rights to have confidence, the demands for Members of Congress to do their duty could not be brushed under the rug. As it became clear that their electors were at risk, the election officials in Ohio (and other states) would be under enormous pressure to take action to respond to charges, instead of stonewalling. The armies that fought for Kerry during the election would have remained 100% engaged throughout.

If, in the end, the count of the electors in Congress gave the White House to Bush, his legitimacy would be sorely undermined. No assertions of "mandate" when the many crimes that corrupted the outcome are burned into the national psyche.