Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The sad upside for democracy in the Electoral College objection charade

Sen. Josh Hawley

Thanks to Sen. Josh Hawley and other Republicans, lawmakers will be forced to cast "yes or no" votes on a controversial issue — something they try to avoid, writes Burgat.

Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images
Burgat is director of the legislative affairs program and an assistant professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.

The House and Senate are about to convene in a joint session to count the electoral votes. With only a few exceptions, this responsibility has been a mere formality, the last box checked in the process of picking a president specified in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The meeting usually passes without fanfare or attention.

Not this time. There's going to be ample political drama Wednesday, the last step to formalizing Joe Biden's presidential victory. Following President Trump's incessant and unsubstantiated claims the election was rigged against him, his loyalists plan to formally object to counting the electoral votes of some states Biden won in November.

This not-going-to-succeed, Hail Mary effort is an attempt to deny Biden sufficient electoral votes to be sworn in, and instead set in motion a chain of events that would give Trump four more years in the White House.

An objection from only one member of the House and one senator forces everyone in Congress to vote. For weeks, several Trump loyalists in the House had volunteered but no senator had joined them. Many senators, including several Republicans, predicted not a single senator would be willing, concluding it was time to move on because the votes of all 50 states and D.C. have been legally certified and the president's lawyers have struck out in court.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

That all changed last week, when Josh Hawley of Missouri announced he would make at least one objection. Eleven more Republican senators led by Ted Cruz of Texas then announced their own plan for objecting.

This is perhaps the most egregious example yet of how far our politics has fallen: Now even our free and fair elections, a pillar of democratic governance, can't escape the partisan toxicity of our current political climate. Even worse, it's our elected members of Congress who are taking the steps to undermine our electoral processes.

But saying only that ignores a crucial reality: The election had already been severely undermined before it was Congress' turn to act. It has been undermined by a litany of actors in state legislatures, in courtrooms, in the media — and especially from the Oval Office. It was undermined even before Election Day. And it has been undermined with alarming success every day since, so that now more than 65 percent of Republican voters view the election as being rigged and a majority in the GOP believe Trump was the rightful winner.

But precisely because much of the illiberal damage has already been done before the senators announced their ill-fated plans, there is an enormous upside for our democracy in going through with this charade.

The senators will produce an action that members of Congress nearly always work like hell to avoid: a straightforward "yes" or "no" vote, with every member's position on a controversial issue recorded in the Congressional Record for posterity. All lawmakers, House and Senate, will have to publicly declare, once and for all, whether they accept the certified results of the presidential election.

This will provide the clearest-cut answer we are likely to get from many members as to whether or not they agree with Trump, or at least say they do, that the election was rigged.

So the coming votes can serve as an illuminating positive — one that will tell us which lawmakers are willing to attach their name to the position that the election was a fraud and Biden is an illegitimate president.

Without the vote triggered by the objection, Republican lawmakers could have — and likely would have — continued to dodge questions as to their thoughts on Trump's conspiratorial claims. This is exactly why so many Republican lawmakers are upset at the senators who have decided to object, and why GOP Leader Mitch McConnell privately pressured his Senate caucus not to engage with their House counterparts on the issue.

Now they will all have to go on record with a vote that's sure to alienate a large share of their independent and Republican constituents, not to mention fire up their Democratic constituents for elections to come. For most, it's a political no-win.

But voters deserve to know, for better or worse, if the people they sent to Congress are willing to oppose valid electoral votes. At this stage, getting a recorded vote on the issue is vital. In fact, if the GOP senators back away at the last minute from their protest promises, congressional Democrats should think about objecting simply to force Republicans on the record.

Now, as many correctly point out, even a vote to throw out electoral votes will be more about politics than about their true views on the results.

Those who vote against the real Electoral College tally — 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump — see their action as the best way to endear themselves to Trump's incredibly stable populist base, knowing full well that there won't be enough Senate or House votes to actually upend the election.

Because they know their effort ultimately won't succeed, they can see their votes as a low-cost way to shore up their MAGA bonafides — to stave off a primary challenge from the right when they next run for the Senate, or, for Hawley and Cruz, to take up Trump's populist mantle ahead of likely 2024 presidential runs.

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska exposed this calculus when he posted this on Facebook last week: "When we talk in private, I haven't heard a single congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent. Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will 'look' to President Trump's ardent supporters."

No matter the reason — they believe in the unfounded allegations of fraud or solely in their own political benefit — the depressing levels of distrust in the 2020 election mean every member of Congress should have to go on record for or against the outcome. The alternative is far too easy.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less