Comment by cthalupa
4 days ago
It was explicitly an attempt to influence Pence or congress to not certify the election results, attempting to allow Trump to use his fake electors to change the results in his favor.
It was a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election. What are you not understanding about this?
They tried to seize the certificates ... if some quickwitted and brave staffers hadn't quickly spirited them away, they would have.
In 2016 there was an organized, and partially successful, effort to get 37 electoral voters to change their electoral vote to somebody other than whom they were pledged to vote - Trump. It was intended to change the result of the election by forcing a "contingent election", in which the House of Representatives would determine the President, owing to the esoteric nuances of US electoral law.
Would you consider this an insurrection? In your terms it was "a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
Calling it partially successful when Clinton lost more electoral votes to faithless electors than Trump did and it had zero impact on the outcome of the election is interesting.
But no, because electors deciding how they cast their votes is a matter of state legislation, not federal, and it is a wildly different thing than the candidate himself trying to install fake electors.
The faithless electors were chosen as part of the political process, and the founders expressly stated that the electors having the freedom to cast their vote was part of the safeguard against mob rule by an uninformed electorate. Hamilton, for example, wrote extensively of this in the federalist papers. This is explicitly one of the reasons why we have the electoral college at all, instead of a popular vote. If anything, I wish they had had the foresight to codify it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so that states could not prevent it from happening. They wrote extensively of what they wanted the EC to be but did not do enough to make reality match their expectations in a durable manner.
Meanwhile Trump explicitly worked to install a group of illegally selected electors while riling up a mob to attempt to put a halt to the certification.
Trying to compare electors casting their vote based on how the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as working to a sitting president being involved in a coordinated effort to create and install fake electors, cause the certification of the election to fail by inciting a mob to storm the capitol, and oh, telling Georgia to "find me the votes" is absurd.
It doesn't matter the margin by which Clinton lost. The point of trying to turn the electors is that the US constitution requires a candidate receive a majority of electoral votes. If nobody does, then the House of Representatives gets to determine who becomes President. And they came far closer to overturning the election than some guys rioting around the Capitol did, since there was a viable path towards the goal.
Your perception of the electoral college is somewhat biased. The college itself serves a practical purpose - elections in the US are extremely decentralized by design. States can do pretty much whatever they want, only later constrained by various constitutional amendments. So when a state A gives you a number, that number does not necessarily mean the same thing as when state B does the same. The electoral college normalizes election results by requiring each state to convert their numbers into a common format. And instead of relying on the Federal government trying to deal with millions of votes, it's only 538.
Similarly, the scheme in support of Trump was not only not illegal, but even anticipated by the electoral count act which made it such that if the House/Senate disagreed with votes included or excluded by the Vice President, then they were free to overrule it by a simple majority vote. The VP's role was then later changed to a purely ceremonial one in a new law passed in 2022, largely to prevent this angle in the future.
2 replies →
So if someone emailed Pence and said they would stab him if he certified the election would that be an insurrection? They are attempting to influence him to change the result of the election.
Surely the level of organization and possibility of success need to be taken into consideration? Otherwise every moron with a social media account or a sign could be guilty of insurrection.
A single bot did not email him. They went 1000 strong in person, were armed, and people died.