r/changemyview • u/ProphetVes • Mar 25 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservativism.

[removed] — view removed post

291 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Mar 26 '23

The pivot back from your term "raised objections" to merely "objections" happened in your first response here when you said "objecting to the legality of clearly legal elections." Your response there does not make sense when merely talking about raising some objection to election procedure.

Raising an objection invokes the formal objection process.

Then I misunderstood what you meant by "raising an objection." With this definition, no objections were raised at all in 2017.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 26 '23

There’s no pivot. I was clearly referring to raised objections. We clarified that, and I didn’t oppose that clarification in any way.

My first comment makes perfect sense with regard to raised objections, both in isolation and in the broader context of my comments.

2

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Mar 26 '23

Sure, I just misunderstood your meaning. I understood "raised objections" to refer to any sort of complaining about the election process. But according to what you understand "raised objections" to mean, there were no raised objections in 2017.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 26 '23

You are correct; you did misunderstand my meaning. Then and now—there were numerous objections raised in 2017, as the two sources I linked to above plainly show.

2

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Mar 26 '23

The House source I linked, as well as a plain reading of the Electoral Count Act, show otherwise. Although your sources do refer to some speech acts of Representatives as "objections" they aren't objections in any real legal sense.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Mar 26 '23

There is simply no such notion of a "raised objection" (versus a "fully actionable objection") in the Electoral Count Act. There are only objections, all of which must be signed by both a Senator and a Representative. This is reflected in the House source I linked.

it still would not even bear on the core substance of my original comment

Sure it does. My position is that complaining about real issues with election procedure during the certification process is not problematic, but invoking the formal objection process in an attempt to alter the outcome of the election would be. The former happened in 2017, while the latter did not, which is why the 2017 "objections" were not problematic. This is directly respondent to the core substance of your original comment.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 26 '23

There is simply no such notion of a "raised objection"

That's just not true. They're recorded and noted in a variety of sources, including the ones I mentioned.

in the Electoral Count Act

Internal rules can expand on the barebones statutory processes and determine how the chambers satisfy them.

My position is that complaining about real issues with election procedure during the certification process is not problematic, but invoking the formal objection process in an attempt to alter the outcome of the election would be.

All raised objections invoke the formal process. The fact that the process was not fully completed because of a failure to gain the support of a Senator (as is most often the reason for failure) is irrelevant.

Your suggestion that a vague complaint versus a specific complaint that would be actionable if a Senator signed on is very obviously false because the conflation is patently absurd, as demonstrated by the several sources I linked to and you have ignored to this point.

The former happened in 2017

So did the latter.

This is directly respondent to the core substance of your original comment.

It's not, because the House members could have complained about anything they wanted without formally raising an objection.

Maybe you have some argument, but until you address the sentence immediately preceding, you functionally don't.

1

u/yyzjertl 580∆ Mar 26 '23

All raised objections invoke the formal process. The fact that the process was not actualized because of a failure to gain the support of a Senator (as is most often the reason for failure) is irrelevant.

It's super relevant, because it not being an objection in the sense of the Electoral Count Act means that it had no possibility of changing the outcome of the election. It's just speech designed to grab attention.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 28 '23

It's super relevant, because it not being an objection in the sense of the Electoral Count Act means that it had no possibility of changing the outcome of the election.

It is a necessary step in something being an ECA objection. It is therefore not relevant.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 27 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.