Will not certify
-
True to form, a majority of Democrats (in a Rasmussen poll) would not support certifying the election of Donald Trump.
I mean, then tried it in 2016. Hell, they even tried in 2004, iirc.
Because it's different when we do it.
-
-
Actions speak louder than words however.
@taiwan_girl said in Will not certify:
Actions speak louder than words however.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/politics/congress-ratifies-bush-victory-after-challenge.html
Congress officially ratified President Bush's election victory on Thursday, but not before Democrats lodged a formal challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio, forcing an extraordinary two-hour debate that began the 109th Congress on a sharp note of partisan acrimony.
It was only the second such challenge to a presidential race since 1877. Even the bitter contest in 2000 between President Bush and Al Gore did not produce a formal challenge to the results from Florida, the site of a 36-day standoff. Although House members objected, no senator joined in, as is required under federal law.
But on Thursday, a single senator -- Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who was sworn in Tuesday for a third term -- joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio, in objecting to Ohio's 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state.
The move turned what would have otherwise been a polite ceremony into a political and historical drama. Mrs. Boxer said she had acted "to cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now."
Instead of holding a courteous joint session to certify the election, lawmakers were forced to retreat to their separate chambers for two hours of debate and a vote on the challenge. Democrats, nearly all of whom conceded that Mr. Bush was the rightful winner, said the move cast a needed spotlight on voting rights. Republicans called it waste of time.
