comment: >
  
  I mean it was a nonsense argument before. This feels like it's just giving post-facto legitimacy to it.
context: It raises the threshold to challenge presidential electors from the states to 20% of the House and Senate, rather than the current one lawmaker from each chamber.
  
  This is a welcome change.  Never made sense that one yokel in the House could find one Senator and lodge an objection >
  
  House always has these fringe ppl. When certifying 2016 election, several democratic reps tried to use the opportunity to have a sound bite but they did not have any senate co-sponsors. That is normal. In 2020, you had all these asshat senators willing to go along and hence this change is a rebuke for them. Getting 20 crazy senators is a high mark - hopefully. >
  
  Your comment won’t age well.
  The least stupid Republican president since the 80s is arguably Reagan who had Alzheimer’s in office . >
  
  It should work as an effective guard with the CURRENT sitting senators. It won't work if the poison continues to spread as it has. >
  
  As long as the GOP continues to exist, the poison is actively being spread. >
  
  It's not all of them, I wouldn't say they need to cease to exist as a party, just reign in the crazy. It's healthy to have respectable people with opposing views in power. >
  
  They all fall in line when ordered. The GOP should be exiled from government for the things they’ve done. >
  
  Well, that's never going to happen, and since democracy runs on compromise, we gotta learn to live with and work with people we don't agree with if we want it to work. >
  
  It’s one thing to disagree on taxes and shit like that. That’s usually easy enough to compromise on. It’s a whole other thing to actively work to hurt your constituents and call it compromise. The GOP’s entire focus for the last decade has been the latter.
  You open a bag of carrots and find a bad one, all wilted and rotting. Does it still go into the pot to get cooked with the rest or do you throw it away? >
  
  Sure but like I said, that's not going to happen. We can wish all we want. Gotta operate in reality. >
  
  Lawyers and politicians that attempt to subvert laws for their own political agendas should face prison time and a stripping of their ability to practice law and hold future public office. >
  
  A lot of laws need to be strengthened bc of Trump. >
  
  Ironically this will be the only way Trump "makes America great again."
  By putting all the loopholes and weak points on full display, forcing us to address them or be doomed to repeat them. >
  
  He really was always playing 4D chess 🙌🙌🙌
  ^ >
  
  
  Eighteen Republican senators disagreed with him when they voted with Democrats to approve the bill Thursday. Another nine Republicans voted for the legislation when it passed the House Friday afternoon. >
  
  This is good.  
  Now to keep the GOP in the next two terms from overturning it. >
  
  "We can invalidate an election just by thinking about it, really." >
  
  It's slowly dawned on the GOP that they forcibly argued for months that the office now held by Kamala Harris gets to decide who wins the next election. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  WASHINGTON - The 117th Congress in its final days revised the antiquated 1887 Electoral Count Act that caused chaos when the current slate of lawmakers were sworn in nearly two years ago.
  A deeper look: Electoral Count Act at heart of Trump's effort to overturn election part of spending bill.
  "As our Report describes, Donald J. Trump, John Eastman, and others corruptly attempted to violate the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in an effort to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election," the committee said in its final report, referring to one of Trump's attorneys who spearheaded part of the effort.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Trump^#1 Electoral^#2 Congress^#3 Count^#4 Act^#5 >
  
  Time ro end the Electoral College. >
  
  And replace it with a popular vote? Or have a runoff? >
  
  Popular vote using "ranked choice system". >
  
  Could work >
  
  A small step, but much more needs to be done to prevent fascists from even being considered for elected office. >
  
  I think it's important to remember that for Trump and his lawyers, even if Mike Pence had done exactly what Trump wanted, it would not have made Trump President--it would have punted the issue to the courts. This is what they were after all along because if the matter were to be heard by a court, it would introduce doubt and make the public believe the election might have been illegitimate, and it would give the Trump team time to scheme with state-level Republican legislators and find a way to have them choose the electoral delegates rather than the popular vote.
  There will always be another way they can synthesize a method to wrench the decision away from the voters or the EC and get it into the court system. It's fine to tweak the law like this but it won't cure the problem because the problem lies outside the law. People who believe in a government of laws rather than of men, conceive of government as a mechanism which can be tuned.
  People who only care about the law when it protects them, but not when it binds them, do not think of law as a mechanism. It is more like a river. They might have to row upriver but the water doesn't mean anything, it is not some system of gears and levers which can be perfected until it is insurmountable. It can always be defeated if they row hard enough. >
  
  It still looks like a party that has the majority in both the house and the senate can overturn an election that they lost on the presidential line to me. >
  
  Yeah but now you need more than just Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and the vice president. 
  I disagree with a lot of Mike Pence's policy positions, but he certainly helped to avoid a constitutional crisis that day