What's to stop the GOP from refusing to accept the electoral college results in 2016?

[NewsCenter28]

So, we all know from poll taxes to voter suppression to splitting up a state's electoral college votes to go by district to benefit them how desperate the GOP is to gain and hold on to power at all costs. Therefore, what's to stop the GOP in 2017 if they retain the house and senate majorities from refusing to seat a Democratic President-Elect, which is the likely result of the 2016 election given the present GOP clown car. That'd be 12 impossibly long years (for them) out of power.

Roberts will be their lapdog if it goes to the SCOTUS and having our only hope riding on Kennedy is a discomforting thought indeed. The Vice-President Elect, by constitutional law becomes the President if the house can't agree on a President but if the electoral votes of just 1 state are challenged, the House goes into special session to elect the president and the senate goes into special session to elect the VP. What's to stop McConnell/Boehner from electing Bush/Rubio as President, a possible 2016 GOP ticket? I presume that they would declare some electoral votes invalid first so that they are enabled to go further to elect the President/VP.

The public stood by in 2000 and let the GOP steal the election. I hardly doubt they'd rise up if 2016 is stolen. They're too apathetic and lazy.

How the GOP would manufacture this is to create a "scandal" during the campaign that they could use to say that the President-Elect was unfit to serve.

P.S.: They were prepared to go this route in 2000.

[PoliticAverse]

1. This is as silly as the right-wing claims that Obama isn't leaving office in 2016. n/t

[NewsCenter28]

2. No it's not

I read last night that Boehner/Gowdy are going to get together to "sanction" HRC for deleting her personal E-mails from her server. What's to stop this sanction from being refusing to seat her?

Boehner: "We can't possibly accept the electoral votes for someone who the House of Representatives has deemed to be in contempt."

They can just vote to hold her in contempt like they did A.G. Holder and then use that as pretext.

Also, they already plan on hauling her up to Capitol Hill to their Starr Chamber to testify at least twice, according to Politico. If they're going to force the presumptive democratic nominee to testify all during the campaign, which would be unprecedented, what's to stop them from taking even further unprecedented action?

Also, if I had told you January 20, 2009 that the GOP would nearly bring the world's economy down by creating a debt default crisis, would you have believed me then?

Also, if I had told you on January 20, 1997 that the House GOP would impeach President Clinton over receiving oral sex in the oval office despite overwhelming public opposition and losing seats in the 1998 midterm over it, would you have believed me?

[PoliticAverse]

3. Oh no, a 'sanction', the horror. I wonder how that would backfire on them.

Do you think there's some secret that the Republicans are going to find that's going to sink Clinton's campaign?

I was around for the budget crisis in 1979 when the Treasury actually did (briefly) default so 2009
wasn't a surprise.

I was also around for the Nixon Impeachment so those don't surprise me either. I didn't even watch the Clinton
one.

[elehhhhna]

4. a pisswd off heavily armed populace?

[Thor_MN]

5. Bush-Rubio is unlikely, unless one of them moves.

They would not be able to get Florida's electoral votes.

[brooklynite]

6. UNREC

You have no evidence that the republicans would have done this in 2000, or that they would do it in 2016 (btw: what about those elections in 2008 and 2012?). And it's not as simple as voting for the republican; the House only has the authority to choose a President if the Electoral College is tied.

[Chan790]

9. Actually...it's slightly less precise than that. Only slightly.

It doesn't have to be tied...the requirement is specifically that someone pass 270.

He's arguing that all it would take is the House to refuse to accept the results of one state...or, say DC (DC has 3 EC votes.)...claiming that there was some misconduct and vote to not certify the electors of that state. So, the House refuses to certify the EC results from DC. As a result...the Democrat has 269 EC votes and the Republican has 266. Because nobody passed 270...the election goes to the House for President and the Senate for VP.

You're absolutely right though...it's nonsense. It will never ever ever happen.

[littlewolf]

7. oh crap this happens every 4 years ..

first Clinton was gonna declare martial law because of Y2K ...

Then Bush was going to declare the elections null and void (I forget why .. he just was)

and now this ... good gravy ...

[Lurks Often]

8. I didn't realize it was conspiricy theory Saturday

[Journeyman]

10. Here's some advice for you from Mark Twain. . .

"I am an old man," Twain wrote in the twilight of his career. "I am an old man and have known many troubles, most of which never happened."

Or as the King James version of Matthew 6:34 phrases it:

"Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

[virgogal]

11. What's to stop ANYTHING from happening in Washington?

It's not our grandfather's D.C. anymore.

[villager]

12. ^^ This, I think is the key. As the country heads toward probable dissolution around mid-century

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 02:07 AM - Edit history (2)

...or so, due to the mounting civil, economic, and environmental pressures all unraveling empire (and psyches), it's hard say, or know, what new unprecedented action our "leaders" in Washington will take.

Eventually, of course, we will need to stop listening to them altogether.

[virgogal]

13. I hate to say it but I agree with everything you stated in your post.

I fear for my grandkids' future.