7 ms·

For those downvoting OP, Democrats have voted against certifying 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republican-electoral-

For those downvoting OP, Democrats have voted against certifying 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republican-electoral-votes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic...

Milkman128 6y ago
well 00 makes sense with florida's fuckery and its well known russia helped trump but we weren't sure how deep it went in 2016. so those 2 have real evidence and make complete sense. Dont pretend inciting sedition on completely fabricated claims is remotely similar
greggturkington 6y ago
HUGE leap to compare those to Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public, and filing over 50 lawsuits across states > Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them > Senator Barbara Boxer [...] joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones [...] lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate Two hours in debate! You're really comparing that? (There was no vote in 2000 or 2016, so that isn't true)
- whiddershins 6y ago
  Al Gore and George Bush had lawsuits going for many weeks that ultimately went to the Supreme Court.
  - greggturkington 6y ago
    And Trump's team had tens of lawsuits across Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan. Many of them dismissed without merit. You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!
    - insickness 6y ago
      What's wrong with lawsuits? You should want the election contested legally. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
      - greggturkington 6y ago
        I agree you should want the election contested legally. Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public statements you should not want.
      - Simulacra 6y ago
        Absolutely agree. We should want elections contested legally, in the courts, no matter what the whacked out crazy or inherently false claims there might be. That's what the courts are there for and it's really IMO why they are a third branch, not a subsidiary, of the government. Let the lawsuits go forward. Let the courts decide on their merits, so we have finality and case law for the future. IMHO it was a mistake for the Supreme Court not to hear the Texas lawsuit. It almost certainly was not going to prevail, but by summarily declining to even hear the case, it undermines the judiciaries independence.
        debaserab2 6y ago
        The courts DID decide on the Texas case, though. When a case is presented to the SC that "is almost certainly not going to prevail", this often (and undoubtedly so in the texas case) means that there is a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of law that is so egregious there is no opinion to be had. This is exactly what the SC justices said in this case: > The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. [1] The courts essentially decided the cases have no merit to rule on. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - frankfrankfrank 6y ago
    The difference you are seemingly missing or ignoring is that the courts were actually evaluating the evidence. NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time, not even the thousands, not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed. If it's all fake and "unverified", how can any rational person justify that none of the evidence has been even looked at. I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. And there are several instances like that, not even just one that I found. For example, just one example of several extremely suspicious situations, how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time. Again, any rational and good faith person would be extremely alarmed by even just a few of the mountain of suspicious events that are being totally blacked out, just like the Hunter Biden laptop was totally blacked out. Maybe you are not a good faith actor and really don't want to or care about realty and the truth, but any decent person could not ignore these matters, no matter how much they intentionally avert their eyes and mind.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      If what you say is true, then didn't Trump appointed judges and Republican judges not evaluate the evidence and sworn affidavits? Why didn't Barr, a heavily partisan and biased Trump sycophant who meddled with prior investigations, not investigate all that being the head of the DoJ? If he somehow turned rogue, why didn't Trump fire him and replace him with someone who would investigate? Do you have any reasonable explanation for the above? Mine is that all the evidence was hearsay and even Trump and Republicans knew it wasn't credible, he just did that to get this campaign to make even more money by fooling people, and for political gain. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-reaps-207-5-million-after-loss-as-donors-answer-his-fury https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-rea...
    - 6y ago
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    The left seems to have this mindset, and this is only my opinion, that do as they say, not as they do. I remember the outrage and the "resistance" against the electoral college and certifying the vote in 2000. History repeats itself. What was good then, is suddenly not good now. It's almost like $600 is a significant sum.
  - TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
    Florida counties ran an automated recount, as required by law. Under Florida law, candidates could request a manual recount as well. Bush sued to stop the recount, and won. Gore conceded on December 13. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Contrast this to 2020, where there were 86 lawsuits after the election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
- refurb 6y ago
  I see an awful lot of hand waving in your response. “But this situation is different” The crux of the issue isn’t how much time they wasted it’s the fact that they objected to a legitimate election. Google needs to grow a pair and take a stand. But they won’t because it was never about that in the first place.
  - mathstuf 6y ago
    The situation is different. Objections in 2000 (in particular) were not about the overall result of the election, but complaints about long lines and voting access not being good enough and shining a light on changing things in order to get more voting accessibility. 2020 was about tossing out legitimate votes results in states that people didn't like the overall results of. Note that none of the re-elected candidates in the states in 2020 were saying their election was in any way invalid despite how much shade they were throwing on the entire system.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      And this situation is about complaints about poll observers not having a proper access to observe the voting process. And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election.
      - tzs 6y ago
        > And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election How so?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election. There weren’t any objections even technically filed. There were attempts to offer objections that didn’t meet the legal standard, which were ruled out of order. If you mean the recount and associated lawsuits, then, no, that didn’t either. Bush won both before and after that. Now, if you slice apart some subset of the recount/lawsuit process apart from others, you can say that, but that’s a rather artificial definition, and, anyway, there is a difference between lawsuits over who should be certified in a state and throwing out a state’s electoral votes in Congress.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  The individual members of Congress aren’t the President. You can form whatever opinion you like on the merits of the objections, but the end result is the same. In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record.
  - greggturkington 6y ago
    The individual members of Congress voted based on the president's actions. > there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results Right, and one of them was a two hour debate. You'd be gullible enough compare that to not supporting a campaign of bad-faith lawsuits across states that were clearly not based in voter fraud (and usually dismissed as a result). The most specific thing they have in common is "members of Congress voted."
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. No, there weren’t. The only votes on objections to an electoral tally prior to 2020 in this century (counting 2000 as “in this century”, to avoid ambiguity) were in 2004. In 2000 and 2016 there were no votes, because votes only occur after the count is stopped for debate on an objection, which only occurs when a legal objection is filed, which (1) must be in writing, and (2) must be signed by both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives. In 2000 and 2016 some members of the House engaged in floor stunts proposing objections which were not signed by a member of a Senate, which resulted in no debate or vote as they were ruled out of order because, well, they were out of order. > You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record. Yeah, the voting record is against you here, so you probably want to stop waving your hands in its general direction.
- Darmody 6y ago
  Hillary is asking for a 2016 election investigation. She also said this summer Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstance. There's dirt everywhere if you look for it.
bonzini 6y ago
The title is "Google won't donate to members of Congress who voted against election results". There was no vote in either 2000 or 2016.
Dem_Boys 6y ago
I feel like every presidential election the loser/loser's party tries to de-legitimize the results in some way. This is not good and we've seen what it can lead to with the capital riot.
px43 6y ago
Reading that link.. and no they didn't, they filed objections. It only went to a vote once in 2004, and Barbra Boxer was the only one in the Senate that voted to reject Ohio's electoral vote count, and she's retired now.
newacct583 6y ago
Yes, they did, and it was universally understood by everyone involved, including both candidates for the presidency, that these were protest votes. No one was promised that an election would be overturned (or winked at that the Storm was happening or whatever). The Trumpist attempt to overturn the election was doomed electorally and legally, but it was presented to the voting base as a very real effort. Congressional republicans were going to go to congress and fix this fraudulent election. And it was all a lie. Everyone involved knew it was a lie. And eventually a mob stormed congress because of that lie.
carapace 6y ago
I downvoted OP because "Well they did it too." is a BS defense. I would hope that some more substantive comments would appear above that here. Let's "raise the bar" of debate.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Well, that's just how it is. Every election cycle one side will use the tactics of the other side and everyone will call each other hypocrites for it. As a result no one's mind is changed and nothing gets done besides normalizing the worst behaviors and tactics, like violence and censorship.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I don't think that is a very charitable reading of this conversation. The topic of the post is career / financial implication of voting against the certification of elections. I think fleshing out exactly what that means is an important part of the "debate", as you say. I don't think pointing out that Democrats voted against certification in 2004 is a defense of what Trump and the Republicans did in any way. I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. > We should defund all politicians who vote against certification > Voting against certification is a normal thing that people from both parties have done, maybe we should come up with better criteria? > How dare you bring up $PartyA, I only want to talk about $PartyB
  - carapace 6y ago
    FWIW I think the overall conversation is well worth having, I was tone-policing a specific comment. > I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. > Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. Two things: #1) I pretty much agree with you. #2) Aren't you avoiding nuance when you employ rhetorical devices like "everyone cries". (FWIW, I'm not decrying "whataboutism" above, I'm tone-policing. It's also an odious practice, and I feel a little low and preachy doing it, but WTF, let's go ahead and try to have the nuanced and informed conversion if we can, eh, yo?) I feel like it's on all of us to take a deep breath and step back from the drama. We have shared values and common ground. Instead of shouting on Twitter and in the streets, let's talk. FWIW I know of a few formal methods for communication that seem to hold promise, I'll mention NVC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication ) and E-Prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ).
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
There were no votes in 2000 and 2016. The only certification vote taken before 2020 was in 2004, since both a house member and a senator needs to object for a vote to be taken at all.
tzs 6y ago
I'd guess down votes are because the comment is ignoring the scope of the objections, the magnitude of the objections, the basis for the objections, the outcome sought by the objectors, and the response of the candidate for whom the objections were intended to benefit. For 2000 in particular, the objections differed massively from the 2020 objections on every one of those points.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Democrats have voted against certifying 2000, 2004, and 2016 This is false. There were no votes against certifying in 2000 or 2016. (For there to be a vote, there must first be an objection signed by at least one member of each house.) An objection so raised triggers a debate in each house, after which there is a vote in each house. In 2000 and 2016, no objection meeting the requirement was filed, so there was never anything for anyone to vote on. In 2004 one objection was raised to Ohio’s votes with the required signatures (and that case was a very different thing than the 2020 one; the group of objectors — Senator Barbara Boxer and a number of members of the House — explicitly stated at the time that the purpose of their objection was to have the debate and draw attention to the issue of electoral reform, not to overturn the results; and they weren’t part of a broader movement headed by the defeated candidate painting the outcome as illegitimate.)

Milkman128 6y ago

well 00 makes sense with florida's fuckery and its well known russia helped trump but we weren't sure how deep it went in 2016. so those 2 have real evidence and make complete sense. Dont pretend inciting sedition on completely fabricated claims is remotely similar

greggturkington 6y ago

HUGE leap to compare those to Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public, and filing over 50 lawsuits across states > Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them > Senator Barbara Boxer [...] joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones [...] lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate Two hours in debate! You're really comparing that? (There was no vote in 2000 or 2016, so that isn't true)

whiddershins 6y ago
Al Gore and George Bush had lawsuits going for many weeks that ultimately went to the Supreme Court.
- greggturkington 6y ago
  And Trump's team had tens of lawsuits across Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan. Many of them dismissed without merit. You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!
  - insickness 6y ago
    What's wrong with lawsuits? You should want the election contested legally. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
    - greggturkington 6y ago
      I agree you should want the election contested legally. Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public statements you should not want.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      Absolutely agree. We should want elections contested legally, in the courts, no matter what the whacked out crazy or inherently false claims there might be. That's what the courts are there for and it's really IMO why they are a third branch, not a subsidiary, of the government. Let the lawsuits go forward. Let the courts decide on their merits, so we have finality and case law for the future. IMHO it was a mistake for the Supreme Court not to hear the Texas lawsuit. It almost certainly was not going to prevail, but by summarily declining to even hear the case, it undermines the judiciaries independence.
      - debaserab2 6y ago
        The courts DID decide on the Texas case, though. When a case is presented to the SC that "is almost certainly not going to prevail", this often (and undoubtedly so in the texas case) means that there is a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of law that is so egregious there is no opinion to be had. This is exactly what the SC justices said in this case: > The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. [1] The courts essentially decided the cases have no merit to rule on. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- frankfrankfrank 6y ago
  The difference you are seemingly missing or ignoring is that the courts were actually evaluating the evidence. NONE of the courts have even looked at the evidence this time, not even the thousands, not just dozens, of sworn affidavits that certify that fraudulent activities were witnessed. If it's all fake and "unverified", how can any rational person justify that none of the evidence has been even looked at. I have looked at even just some of the evidence and just alone the statistical data indicates extremely strongly that at least something was clearly wrong that would cause any good faith and rational person to at least want to look further at the data. And there are several instances like that, not even just one that I found. For example, just one example of several extremely suspicious situations, how is it that of the bellwether districts that have all, for the last 10 presidential elections essentially all gone to the winning candidate … both Democrat and Republican … all but two went to Trump this time. Again, any rational and good faith person would be extremely alarmed by even just a few of the mountain of suspicious events that are being totally blacked out, just like the Hunter Biden laptop was totally blacked out. Maybe you are not a good faith actor and really don't want to or care about realty and the truth, but any decent person could not ignore these matters, no matter how much they intentionally avert their eyes and mind.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    If what you say is true, then didn't Trump appointed judges and Republican judges not evaluate the evidence and sworn affidavits? Why didn't Barr, a heavily partisan and biased Trump sycophant who meddled with prior investigations, not investigate all that being the head of the DoJ? If he somehow turned rogue, why didn't Trump fire him and replace him with someone who would investigate? Do you have any reasonable explanation for the above? Mine is that all the evidence was hearsay and even Trump and Republicans knew it wasn't credible, he just did that to get this campaign to make even more money by fooling people, and for political gain. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-reaps-207-5-million-after-loss-as-donors-answer-his-fury https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/trump-rea...
  - 6y ago
- Simulacra 6y ago
  The left seems to have this mindset, and this is only my opinion, that do as they say, not as they do. I remember the outrage and the "resistance" against the electoral college and certifying the vote in 2000. History repeats itself. What was good then, is suddenly not good now. It's almost like $600 is a significant sum.
- TYPE_FASTER 6y ago
  Florida counties ran an automated recount, as required by law. Under Florida law, candidates could request a manual recount as well. Bush sued to stop the recount, and won. Gore conceded on December 13. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Contrast this to 2020, where there were 86 lawsuits after the election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
refurb 6y ago
I see an awful lot of hand waving in your response. “But this situation is different” The crux of the issue isn’t how much time they wasted it’s the fact that they objected to a legitimate election. Google needs to grow a pair and take a stand. But they won’t because it was never about that in the first place.
- mathstuf 6y ago
  The situation is different. Objections in 2000 (in particular) were not about the overall result of the election, but complaints about long lines and voting access not being good enough and shining a light on changing things in order to get more voting accessibility. 2020 was about tossing out legitimate votes results in states that people didn't like the overall results of. Note that none of the re-elected candidates in the states in 2020 were saying their election was in any way invalid despite how much shade they were throwing on the entire system.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    And this situation is about complaints about poll observers not having a proper access to observe the voting process. And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election.
    - tzs 6y ago
      > And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election How so?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election. There weren’t any objections even technically filed. There were attempts to offer objections that didn’t meet the legal standard, which were ruled out of order. If you mean the recount and associated lawsuits, then, no, that didn’t either. Bush won both before and after that. Now, if you slice apart some subset of the recount/lawsuit process apart from others, you can say that, but that’s a rather artificial definition, and, anyway, there is a difference between lawsuits over who should be certified in a state and throwing out a state’s electoral votes in Congress.
cwhiz 6y ago
The individual members of Congress aren’t the President. You can form whatever opinion you like on the merits of the objections, but the end result is the same. In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record.
- greggturkington 6y ago
  The individual members of Congress voted based on the president's actions. > there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results Right, and one of them was a two hour debate. You'd be gullible enough compare that to not supporting a campaign of bad-faith lawsuits across states that were clearly not based in voter fraud (and usually dismissed as a result). The most specific thing they have in common is "members of Congress voted."
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. No, there weren’t. The only votes on objections to an electoral tally prior to 2020 in this century (counting 2000 as “in this century”, to avoid ambiguity) were in 2004. In 2000 and 2016 there were no votes, because votes only occur after the count is stopped for debate on an objection, which only occurs when a legal objection is filed, which (1) must be in writing, and (2) must be signed by both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives. In 2000 and 2016 some members of the House engaged in floor stunts proposing objections which were not signed by a member of a Senate, which resulted in no debate or vote as they were ruled out of order because, well, they were out of order. > You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record. Yeah, the voting record is against you here, so you probably want to stop waving your hands in its general direction.
Darmody 6y ago
Hillary is asking for a 2016 election investigation. She also said this summer Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstance. There's dirt everywhere if you look for it.

bonzini 6y ago

The title is "Google won't donate to members of Congress who voted against election results". There was no vote in either 2000 or 2016.

Dem_Boys 6y ago

I feel like every presidential election the loser/loser's party tries to de-legitimize the results in some way. This is not good and we've seen what it can lead to with the capital riot.

px43 6y ago

Reading that link.. and no they didn't, they filed objections. It only went to a vote once in 2004, and Barbra Boxer was the only one in the Senate that voted to reject Ohio's electoral vote count, and she's retired now.

newacct583 6y ago

Yes, they did, and it was universally understood by everyone involved, including both candidates for the presidency, that these were protest votes. No one was promised that an election would be overturned (or winked at that the Storm was happening or whatever). The Trumpist attempt to overturn the election was doomed electorally and legally, but it was presented to the voting base as a very real effort. Congressional republicans were going to go to congress and fix this fraudulent election. And it was all a lie. Everyone involved knew it was a lie. And eventually a mob stormed congress because of that lie.

carapace 6y ago

I downvoted OP because "Well they did it too." is a BS defense. I would hope that some more substantive comments would appear above that here. Let's "raise the bar" of debate.

ttt0 6y ago
Well, that's just how it is. Every election cycle one side will use the tactics of the other side and everyone will call each other hypocrites for it. As a result no one's mind is changed and nothing gets done besides normalizing the worst behaviors and tactics, like violence and censorship.
dahfizz 6y ago
I don't think that is a very charitable reading of this conversation. The topic of the post is career / financial implication of voting against the certification of elections. I think fleshing out exactly what that means is an important part of the "debate", as you say. I don't think pointing out that Democrats voted against certification in 2004 is a defense of what Trump and the Republicans did in any way. I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. > We should defund all politicians who vote against certification > Voting against certification is a normal thing that people from both parties have done, maybe we should come up with better criteria? > How dare you bring up $PartyA, I only want to talk about $PartyB
- carapace 6y ago
  FWIW I think the overall conversation is well worth having, I was tone-policing a specific comment. > I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. > Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. Two things: #1) I pretty much agree with you. #2) Aren't you avoiding nuance when you employ rhetorical devices like "everyone cries". (FWIW, I'm not decrying "whataboutism" above, I'm tone-policing. It's also an odious practice, and I feel a little low and preachy doing it, but WTF, let's go ahead and try to have the nuanced and informed conversion if we can, eh, yo?) I feel like it's on all of us to take a deep breath and step back from the drama. We have shared values and common ground. Instead of shouting on Twitter and in the streets, let's talk. FWIW I know of a few formal methods for communication that seem to hold promise, I'll mention NVC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication ) and E-Prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ).

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

There were no votes in 2000 and 2016. The only certification vote taken before 2020 was in 2004, since both a house member and a senator needs to object for a vote to be taken at all.

tzs 6y ago

I'd guess down votes are because the comment is ignoring the scope of the objections, the magnitude of the objections, the basis for the objections, the outcome sought by the objectors, and the response of the candidate for whom the objections were intended to benefit. For 2000 in particular, the objections differed massively from the 2020 objections on every one of those points.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Democrats have voted against certifying 2000, 2004, and 2016 This is false. There were no votes against certifying in 2000 or 2016. (For there to be a vote, there must first be an objection signed by at least one member of each house.) An objection so raised triggers a debate in each house, after which there is a vote in each house. In 2000 and 2016, no objection meeting the requirement was filed, so there was never anything for anyone to vote on. In 2004 one objection was raised to Ohio’s votes with the required signatures (and that case was a very different thing than the 2020 one; the group of objectors — Senator Barbara Boxer and a number of members of the House — explicitly stated at the time that the purpose of their objection was to have the debate and draw attention to the issue of electoral reform, not to overturn the results; and they weren’t part of a broader movement headed by the defeated candidate painting the outcome as illegitimate.)