Congress Moves Forward on Electoral Count Act Reform

The new legislation would fix many of the problems that helped lead to the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Then-Vice President Mike Pence oversees electoral vote count in Congress, January 6, 2021.Jim LoScalzo—Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News. (Jim LoScalzo - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom)

 

Congress is moving forward on reforming the Electoral Count Act of 1887, by including the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act in a massive spending bill that must be approved within the next few days to keep the federal government funded:

A bipartisan bill that would change how members of Congress could object to electoral votes has been included in a sweeping spending bill lawmakers unveiled early Tuesday that must be approved in the coming days to fund all government agencies and departments.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), would amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and reaffirm that the vice president has only a ministerial role at the joint session of Congress where electoral college votes are counted. The measure also would raise the threshold necessary for members of Congress to object to a state's electors.

The bill was driven by the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden's win. Lawmakers have warned a similar effort could disrupt future electoral counts without changes to the process.

The version that ultimately  gets enacted will probably be close to that developed by a bipartisan group of senators, rather than the possibly slightly better version that passed the House of Representatives in September. But either version will be a significant improvement over the status quo.

In a July post, building on the work of Andy Craig, then of the Cato Institute (a leading expert on ECA reform), I summarized the three main goals a reform bill achieve:

1. Preventing state governments from, in effect, changing the rules after election day, in order to reverse election results they don't like.

2. Preventing Congress from throwing out electoral votes for bogus reasons (as some GOP members of Congress sought to do after the 2020 election).

3. Making it more clear that the Vice-President does not have the power to invalidate electoral votes (a step then-VP Mike Pence rightly refused to take in January 2021, despite the urging of Donald Trump).

Both the Senate and House bills make major improvements on all three points, and have, for that reason, been praised by election law experts across the political spectrum. Craig has a helpful breakdown of the similarities and differences between the two bills here.

ECA reform will not fix all the ills that ail American democracy. But it will close some important loopholes revealed by the traumatic aftermath of the 2020 election. This reform act is not only good enough for government work, but one of the rare acts of Congress that is just plain good, period!

Comments

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If Somin and the Uniparty Federal Class are for it, then we know the bill does nothing but cement the power of the elites and further insulates them from the wishes of the people.

[santamonica811]

Man, you bitch and moan about the most non-controversial things, don’t you? Is there anything that improves our country where your first instinct is not to whine about it?

#pathetic
#putinwhore
#russianbot

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Of this was uncontroversial why did they stuff it into the Omnibus?

[Joe_dallas]

I would agree –

I have no comments on the merits of the bill either pro or con.

Just noting that most bills should be voted on separately and solely on the merits without the partianship.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just noting that most bills should be voted on separately and solely on the merits without the partianship.

Have you encouraged elected representatives — especially those who count you as a constituent, who share your party preference, or with whom you possess a relationship (however slight) — to promote the type of procedure you describe?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

US politicians have a USSR/Saddam like incumbency rate.

They are generally unmoored from any electoral accountability by voters (not immune from the cheaters, just the voters) as such they generally dgaf what the voters want or what would help them.

[Krychek_2]

And you can thank anti-democratic institutions and gerrymandering for it.

I know all the arguments in favor of anti-democratic institutions — they don’t allow urban areas to run roughshod over the rural areas, they prevent hot-headed majorities from doing things they later regret — but the truth of the matter is that what we really get from it is the system that we have. Face facts; without the electoral college there never would have been a January 6. Without gerrymandering politicians would actually have to face competitive elections in which they would actually have to defend their records. We would not have both parties — and the country — governed from the extremist fringes. And we wouldn’t have to resort to attaching stuff to must-pass omnibus bills.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Anti-Democratic institutions are every Federal Agency with lawmaking power and zero accountability. Weird how you missed that completely obvious one.

The system we have is one that has evolved after two hundred years of the ruling classes modifying the system to their advantage. That’s also why we have rampant misery, inequality, poverty, social malaise and poor health.

The Federals are to blame for virtually everything wrong with our society and our government.

[Krychek_2]

I didn’t miss them; I was talking about something else. But since you brought them up, there probably would be popular support for shutting down some of the agencies, but that’s another thing that can’t happen so long as we have institutionalized gridlock thanks to Wyoming cancelling California in the Senate. If you really want government to reflect the will of the people, the electoral college and two senators per state have got to go. Otherwise, the will of the people has about as much chance of prevailing in Washington as the King of England does in setting policy in London.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh I see where you’re going. You want the will of the LA, the Bay Area, Chicago, Seattle, and New York to dominate the wills of the people who live everywhere else.

No thanks. The electoral college isn’t the reason the Federal government is so corrupt and evil.

[Krychek_2]

I haven’t seen any evidence that urban voters are any worse at governance than rural voters, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume they’re terrible at it, and we would go to hell in a handbasket without the rural areas holding the line. (And the fact that urban voters make policy decisions you disagree with is not evidence they’re worse at governance than rural voters).

The question then is which set of problems is worse. The ones we’ve got, in which it takes an omnibus bill to get anything done and Congress has trouble doing something as basic as passing a budget. Or the problem of you getting policies you don’t like. Personally, I think the former is worse, but you’re entitled to your contrary opinion.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This guy here thinks San Francisco is a model of good governance.

What’s weird is how you blame the voters and not the politicians themselves for the failures of the politicians.

[Krychek_2]

Where did I say that San Francisco is the model of good governance? What I said is that the urban areas show no signs of being worse governed than the rural areas, which is true. Rural Appalachia is the meth capital of the world. People are leaving rural areas because there are no jobs and no real opportunity. Sure, you can point to the problems of big cities, but the rural areas are no better. So why should one assume that rural voters are better at making policy than urban ones?

And the very fact that lots of people want to live in San Francisco is evidence that it’s a desirable place to live.

[Brett Bellmore]

If by “anti-democratic institutions”, you mean campaign reform, sure.

Incumbent reelection rates were actually declining fast between ’64 and ’80; They went from a high of 88% in ’66 to a low of 55% in 1980. Then in ’82 they shot up to 93%, and have never gone below 75% since.

So, what happened in the late 70’s to reverse the trend? Campaign reform. The foxes wrote the rules for getting into the henhouse.

[bernard11]

Wat specific reforms do you have in mind?

[Krychek_2]

Those were not the anti-democratic institutions that I had in mind, but like Bernard, I’m curious as to which specific reforms you have in mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

Primarily financial limits and leveling: Incumbents have massive non-financial advantages in terms of name recognition and the ability to get the media to cover them. It’s possible for a good challenger to overcome those advantages by spending enough on paid media, but the financial limits were set to keep the challengers below that threshold.

[Krychek_2]

The idea that financial limits were set to keep the challengers below the limit is patent bullshit, but leaving that aside, abolishing gerrymandering so that districts were actually competitive would do far more to fix the problem. The real problem is that most members of Congress have no real accountability because the lines have been drawn to give them safe seats.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s rule by the rich, Brett. Welcome to the aristocracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How much of the ’66-’80 was age related? WWII vets retiring, dying…. And some was Watergate…

[Brett Bellmore]

Couldn’t agree more. Doing something about “must pass omnibus bills” is probably the most urgently needed reform of Congress.

[windycityattorney]

My state has a constitutional clause requiring each bill to be confined to a single subject (which has been construed rather broadly when everything in it is tangentially related to said bill). But they wouldn’t be able to pass say… something related to agriculture practices on hog farms in a bill that was related to highway maintenance or something.

It creates more work for the legislators – however – what often happens as a result is that all these individual bills pile up towards the end of a session and then they have a marathon session of voting. So to take advantage of this chaos; some bills are not introduced until the end of the session so they could be ‘snuck’ through without much time to consider it. Which is similar to putting an unrelated bill into a ‘must pass’ spending bill on the federal level.

[Bob from Ohio]

“constitutional clause requiring each bill to be confined to a single subject”

Ohio too but its largely ignored. Once in a blue moon the courts will invalidate a law but plenty of bills get passed that probably violate it.

[David Nieporent]

My state has a constitutional clause requiring each bill to be confined to a single subject

Provisions like those are judge-empowering. They allow the courts to use their own judgment as to whether two provisions of a law are “close enough” to each other in topic to pass muster.

[Sarcastr0]

You do know why and when the omnibus replaced regular order, Brett? And who still makes sure that will continue?

GOP loves to pour sand in the gears and complain the system isn’t working as intended.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Haha yeah it’s the GOP’s fault the Democrats having been passing CR’s and Omnibus bills for a decade!

[Sarcastr0]

That is what the GOP let’s them pass. You don’t tie funding the DoD to funding the NSF and DoJ and the GOP goes in for some really damaging grudges brinksmanship..

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“They stole my nice new rattle!”

[Michael P]

She really shouldn’t have worn that dress in that neighborhood, huh, S_0?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, by trying to use regular order Democrats are raping the GOP.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Our brinksmanship is necessary to defeat their brinksmanhip.”

And we wonder why so many poll respondents say there should be a third party, and why (just in case those respondents are serious) the cartel parties limits third-party access to the ballot.

[Sarcastr0]

We aren’t defeating anything. Dems are not big omnibus fans.

We are keeping the government running.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

80% of the government runs whether or not any spending bills get passed.

Even if the inverse were true, I’d imagine we’d all be better off.

[ReaderY]

Why is this non-controversial? Election-stealers need representation too.

It’s like saying murder laws are non-controversial. You’re taking bread out of the mouths of the hungry children of the contract killers! Surely they’re going to complain.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There was no reasonable “loophole”. I hope this becomes law but even if it had been in effect in 2020 the Trump people would have concocted some other outlandish argument to stay in power.

[John F. Carr]

As I see it, the Constitution gives Congress the power to count electoral votes and the decision of Congress is final even if the counting is inaccurate. An unprincipled majority on January 6 can select anybody.

The bill may be beneficial by setting expectations, like the Flag Code was meant to do.

[Jacob Grimes]

I’d have to agree. The people who stormed the capitol were not concerned with the legal interpretations of a vice-president’s role in election proceedings or any other legal argument. They believed in conspiracies and fraud, and I don’t see how a new law is going to change that.
Without researching this bill too much, it seems the only real change is increasing the number of votes required to object to a state’s electors. Otherwise, it just codifies existing understandings of the law.

[Bob from Ohio]

“increasing the number of votes required to object to a state’s electors”

The new requirement was easily cleared in the House in 2020. Pre-riot, at least 12 senators were going to object. Not too far from 20.

[Sarcastr0]

They were riled up on that particular day by Trump apparatchiks like Eastman who thought he had a legal interpretation to make it work.

[not guilty]

Eastman had a legal theory that he acknowledged would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. Hardly “a legal interpretation to make it work.”

[Sarcastr0]

That depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ If you mean ‘gives a fig leaf of legitimacy to an insurrection so people can still feel like patriots’ then…

Just the worst guy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Indeed, the whole point about the election riots is they were lawless. It’s not as if the rioters held back and say, “wait a minute, subsection A clause 2 doesn’t allow what we’re doing, we better disperse!”

If lawless elements are determined to pull off a coup, no amount of fiddling with the statute book will help.

If this were a law to make illegal stuff even *more* illegal, I wouldn’t see the point.

Maybe this is a “look, we did something” law which will have no practical effect.

Or maybe this bill is taking advantage of public revulsion against revolutionary violence in order to pull off something shady. The Palmer Raids, for example, were in response to very real terror attacks, that doesn’t mean the raids were appropriate.

[Gandydancer]

Somin is such a moron that he probably didn’t laugh at the face diapers.

No, I didn’t bother reading this, but =I= noticed what’s in the picture.

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s not generally awful, but I think they over-reach their legitimate power in one or two places. Particularly in dictating to states who certifies the vote. I’m pretty sure that falls under the states legislatures’ power to decide how electors will be chosen.

[John F. Carr]

The version I read, which may not be the final version, allowed states to select a different official to sign and submit the paperwork.

[Longtobefree]

Still not a good enough reason to vote for this inflation feeding disaster.

[Frank Drackman]

“Preventing Congress from throwing out electoral votes for “Bogus” reasons”???????
Who wrote this bill? Jeff Spicoli?? One Dude’s “Bogosity” is another Dudes “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Dice”
And I’m certain if the 0-24 erection comes down to 1 state, Common-Law Harris will find all sorts of reasons to throw out a Disanto/Tim Scott (He’s like a Herschell Walker without the TBI) slate of electors (ask a Japanese to say that “Srate of Erectors”)

Frank

[M L]

$1.7 trillion.

That’s $13,821.14 per American household! At a time of 40-year high inflation!!

Also includes another $45 billion for Ukraine.

The thievery knows no bounds.

Retiring Jim Inhofe slips in $511 million in earmarks. Shelby $656 million.

Amid border crisis, inflation, and everything else, McConnell says more money for Ukraine is the “number one priority” for Americans.

Rep. Bishop: “On a more sinister note, here’s at least $575 million for “family planning” in areas where population growth “threatens biodiversity.”

Malthusianism is a disturbing, anti-human ideology that should have ZERO place in any federal program.”

https://twitter.com/RepDanBishop/status/1605267946330267673

Good thread, also includes:

“It expressly prohibits CBP funding from being used to improve border security.”

LOL!!!

[M L]

Is it true the US has spent more funding the war in Ukraine than Russia has?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We all know how much of those billions makes it back into the hands of the Federal Class and their children.

It’s like an orgy free-for-all.

[F.D. Wolf]

1. Preventing state governments from, in effect, changing the rules after election day, in order to reverse election results they don’t like.

Oh, is Somin conceding the states currently have the power to do this? Because when Trump suggested it after the election, he and the league of “democracy defenders” (anti-Trump hysterics masquerading as principle) went into hysterics, suggesting such a thing would not be legal. I believe it was referred to as a “false claim” on this page. Regardless, as the Constitution states rather plainly that, “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” any attempt by Congress purporting to restrict the states’ authority would likely be unconstitutional.

2. Preventing Congress from throwing out electoral votes for bogus reasons (as some GOP members of Congress sought to do after the 2020 election).

The reasons of GOP members of Congress after the 2020 election were “bogus”. The reasons of Democratic members of Congress who did the same thing after the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, however, were totes legitimate. Rep. Elijah Cummings, for example, declared after the 2004 election, that voting machines on Ohio had en masse switched votes from John Kerry to George Bush. Where were Somin & c. hyperventilating about election denial and existential threats to democracy then?

3. Making it more clear that the Vice-President does not have the power to invalidate electoral votes (a step then-VP Mike Pence rightly refused to take in January 2021, despite the urging of Donald Trump).

Perhaps they can place it in boldface in the law. Either the VP has the power or not per the Constitution (and I believe he clearly does not), so any “clarification” will fundamentally change nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Preventing bulls hit arguments to give cover to the overthrow our democracy is also good.

And what the GOP tried in 2020 is way beyond the sour grapes of both parties in years past.

Except for birthers. Those folks were about the same level.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And what the GOP tried in 2020 is way beyond the sour grapes of both parties in years past.

lmao no it wasn’t. They just told you it was and you gobbled it up.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey check out these texts a buncha them sent!

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063955835/rep-liz-cheney-read-text-messages-she-said-mark-meadows-got-during-the-jan-6-sie

Not so many Dem House members asking for Marshall law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One way to distinguish oneself from any “elitism” is to press for Marshall law.

Carry on, clingers.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, is Somin conceding the states currently have the power to do this?

No. He’s saying that it’s good to make that explicit.

Regardless, as the Constitution states rather plainly that, “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” any attempt by Congress purporting to restrict the states’ authority would likely be unconstitutional.

Nope. You missed the part where it said, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

States cannot choose the electors after Election Day.

Where were Somin & c. hyperventilating about election denial and existential threats to democracy then?

Well, it was 18 years ago, and I don’t think Prof. Somin was even blogging back then. But the difference between the things you’re Whatabouting about and the January 6 insurrection is that those were all understood to be unserious, performative efforts.

[F.D. Wolf]

Nope. You missed the part where it said, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

I also omitted other things like electors can’t be congressmen because they are irrelevant to the point. That Congress can pick the time a state has to pick electors and the date they vote says nothing as to whom the states actually pick as electors.

But the difference between the things you’re Whatabouting about and the January 6 insurrection is that those were all understood to be unserious, performative efforts.

“Democrats weren’t serious, but Republicans were” is a bizarre defense. Regardless, as Republicans did not have a majority in the House, I don’t suspect they seriously thought they would succeed in reversing the election.

I realize that “It’s different when we do it” might as well be the unofficial motto of the Democratic party, but just because you can rationalize naked hypocrisy doesn’t mean it’s not naked hypocrisy.

[Josh R]

It wasn’t the objections that distinguished the GOP effort. It was all the crap that led up to the objections: pressuring state officials to declare fraud, pressuring the DOJ to declare fraud, preparing fake slates of electors, and pressuring Pence to unilaterally ignore electors.

[F.D. Wolf]

That’s all very interesting, but the topic of Somin’s post, to which I was responding, is the new proposed electoral count reform, which has nothing to do with any of the things you just listed, except perhaps to the extent of clarifying that the Vice President’s role is purely ministerial, with which, as I noted, I agree.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you didn’t agree – you argue redundancy which means you must reject the clarifying aspect.

And then you try for the equivalence between the GOP and the Dems. (“The reasons of GOP members of Congress after the 2020 election were “bogus”. The reasons of Democratic members of Congress who did the same thing…”)

Which is what Josh R was responding to.

You are now retreating from all of your arguments against the electoral count act, just as they are challenged.

So what’s your latest thesis?

[Josh R]

You asked why Ilya didn’t complain in 2004 or 2016. Assuming he didn’t, the reason is there were far, far more than just objections from Congress in 2020. The attempt to outright steal the election (as I described above) brought the issue to a head.

[Purple Martin]

That’s an interesting illustration of example of part of the problem, which is a mindset that seems inherently unable to consistently differentiate between different things it they happen to share at least some surface similarities.

As many learned from Sesame Street at an early age: One of these things is not like the others…all of these things are not the same. But for some people, that takes longer.

Happens a lot in politics discussions, our current common example being the conflating of…

1) supporting an organized effort, though extra-legal means up to and including violence, to block the routine, peaceful transfer of power our representative democracy depends on,

with…

2) as an attention-seeking protest across decades involving random members of Congress of both parties, entering an objection to a state’s electors while remaining secure in the knowledge that the objection would have no impact.

Will just note Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act will remove the option of that performative #2, while hindering the use of an Eastman-like theory to promote #1.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

The Democrats are evil thugs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did the reply buttons break last night? Reason IS working on the comment system, I suppose.

Sarcastr0: “You do know why and when the omnibus replaced regular order, Brett? And who still makes sure that will continue?”

Responding to this, and other comments in the same vein, this seems to be your standard take on a lot of Democratic abuses: Democrats are entitled to get what they want, every bit of it, and Republicans by opposing them are responsible for every abuse Democrats engage in to make sure that happens.

Pick somebody for a committee the Democrats don’t like? It’s Republicans’ fault Pelosi ‘had to’ break an over 2 century norm that the minority picks its own committee members, period, end of story.

Democrats don’t have the votes to confirm their nominees? It’s Republicans’ fault that Democrats changed the rules, they should have voted for the Democratic nominees even if they didn’t like them.

Democratic priorities wouldn’t pass if voted on separately, or if enough time was permitted for debate? It’s Republicans’ fault that Democrats had to resort to omnibus bills, and only make them available 2 hours before the vote.

I mean, what’s the alternative to these things? Compromising? Not getting everything they want? Democrats are entitled to do anything they want if they have so much as a razor thin majority in one chamber, and a tie in the other! Democracy is broken if tiny and transitory majorities can’t effect their entire programs!

When Democrats get around to packing the Court, you’ll say it’s Republicans’ fault for putting people on the Court Democrats didn’t like. You really ARE the “We wouldn’t have had to rape you if you’d just consented!” guy here. I don’t think there’s anything the Democrats have done that you didn’t find some excuse to blame on Republicans. Who keep perversely insisting on not being Democrats…

[apedad]

(Yes, the Reply function is in-op).

Replying to Brett….

Nice of you to equate the democratic, political process with rape.

[Brett Bellmore]

But I’m not. I’m equating the norm breaking and rule changing to rape. The US isn’t a pure, anything 50%+1 want goes, democracy. It’s a democratic republic with lots of checks on the democracy to keep it from running wild. Every time Republicans thwart Democrats within this system, the Democrats respond by breaking on of those checks, rendering one of the balances inoperative.

Sarcastr0 implicitly admits that what the Democrats are doing is bad, by saying Republicans forced them to do it. You don’t divert responsibility for things you don’t think are blameworthy, after all.

[apedad]

If the Republicans pass a bill, approve a Justice, etc., that Democrats don’t agree with then that can “force” Democrats to respond (and vice versa), i.e., every action has a reaction.

THAT is the ultimate checks and balances of a democracy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metro area saw the third-highest number of residents in the country packing up and moving between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, with a net migration loss of 128,870 people. By comparison, New York-Newark-Jersey City recorded a net migration loss of 385,455, and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim saw 204,776 people leave.

For Krychek.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Census-data-shows-how-many-people-left-SF-in-COVID-17028430.php

[apedad]

For BCD…

Yup…and they’re taking their liberal values to TX, etc.

So guaranteed you’ll forever be on the losing side.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe.
…but. See Babylon Bee series of videos on Californians moving to Texas.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

@apedad

Why would Democrats flee Democrat utopias?

[Brett Bellmore]

“So guaranteed you’ll forever be on the losing side.”

A gangrenous limb will frequently take the rest of the body with it, but at least gangrene doesn’t brag about doing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, the Dems want normal order and the same budget process and general budget we’ve had in the modern era.

The GOP don’t want anything, they’re reactionaries who don’t much care about rules at this point, and whose end goal is to shut down the Dems, subsequent actions to be determined after sufficient libs are owned.

The Omnibus is the compromise between GOP’s playing to their base by threatening radical shutdowns and the Dems trying for a government that works. It’s a compromise that shouldn’t be needed, but here we are.

I mean look at you. You say that because I want something better than the omnibus, I’m admitting Dems are doing something bad. Which is untrue. And bring in off topic grievances, all of which are long debunked around here, but you never seem to recall those conversations.

Bottom line, I think the current policy is suboptimal. You crow that this is an admission of defeat, while offering no alternative to keeping things going.
Because you in the end don’t give a shit about keeping things going. Just owning the Dems.

You weren’t quite at this stage a year ago. You’re getting worse, I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Brett, the Dems want normal order and the same budget process and general budget we’ve had in the modern era.”

How long has this ‘modern era’ of yours existed? Half a decade, maybe? Not even that? Maybe just 3 years?

If you look at federal spending as a percentage of GDP,

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Or on a per capita basis,

https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/federal-spending-per-person-is-skyrocketing/

You can see that current spending levels are off the chart relative to past practice even a few years ago. A continuing resolution that locked in current nominal spending levels, and didn’t account for inflation, would barely be the tiniest start on restoring “the general budget we’ve had in the modern era”.

You’re not trying to preserve business as usual here. You’re trying to preserve emergency spending piled on top of emergency spending, lock it in so that federal spending at 30% of the economy replaces 20% as normal.

Yeah, maybe you want normal budgeting processes. Just not as much as you want insane levels of spending to continue.

[jdgalt1]

“Reform,” my tailbone! A reform of the electoral count system would return us to the system enacted in the 12th Amendment, in which the Vice President and House members can challenge electoral votes that were the result of biased or broken state election processes, including cheating.

If this bill succeeds in removing this recourse from candidates for president, then the next victim of cheating will need to obtain his recourse the way Bolsonaro is about to do, and good luck to him!

[Sarcastr0]

You just switched from a procedural argument to a substantive one.

So much for norms, and the system. This is about you getting your way. And until you do, everything is illegitimate.

No. Not how it works. Sorry you’re unhappy, but you lose. And you know it. Also you are wrong, but that’s not the issue at the moment.
Stop tantrumming about it and either find a way to win, find a way to compromise, GTFO, or shut up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I switched following you, Sarcastr0. You’re trying to make a normative case for a particular procedure. You have to, because it’s a lousy procedure. But what’s your normative case?

That without it you wouldn’t get your way. Nothing more.

The CRs wouldn’t allow you to maintain emergency spending levels, they’d be ever so slightly cut back. And negotiating on a program by program basis probably wouldn’t let you maintain those spending levels, either. Only by making it one behemoth that must pass or the government crashes can you be sure of continuing the emergency spending levels.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re trying to make a normative case for a particular procedure

I argued necessity, hardly a normative case.

It’s too late – you’ve given the game away. In the end, it’s not that Dems break norms, it’s that you don’t get your way that bothers you.

And thus you will forgive every GOP transgression, and indict Democrats for perceived slights to rationalize your inability to deal with being opposed.

CRs are brainless and dumb spending, Brett. Throwing money at problems. It’s inefficient, in the long run more expensive, and it’s the kind policy you pretend government is all the time. So naturally you love it, turning a blind eye to how destructive it is – it reifies your worldview!

And if there is anything conservatives are into, it’s tantrums that screw with government functions so they can complain about government’s functions.

[Brett Bellmore]

“In the end, it’s not that Dems break norms”

You’re going to pretend there aren’t actually any norms being broken?

Like, over 200 years of the minority party getting to pick their committee members?

Filibusters being permitted for judicial nominations?

Having budgets? Letting people read bills before voting on them?

None of those were norms?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not saying no norms have ever been broken by Dems. Though your first example is, as has been explained to you like a dozen times now, bullshit. So is the use of the omnibus.
I’m noting that your furious objections bely their magnitude. And you ignore the more numerous GOP examples of the same.

Which is why your shift from crying Dems keep cheating (rape analogies and all) to complaining about the size of the budget is such a telling one. I’m sure you feel offended Dems breaking the rules, but a moments examination of the asymmetry of your outrage shows the real issue is that your vision for government keeps not winning.

The rules, for all your formalism, are in the end nothing but window dressing to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Though your first example is, as has been explained to you like a dozen times now, bullshit.”

You have a persistent problem confusing “explained” and “asserted”. A norm doesn’t stop having been a norm just because you really, really want to violate it. Identify prior cases where the majority party told the minority party they couldn’t have their chosen committee members, and instead picked the ‘minority’ members for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because that’s what you need to dispute that it was a norm. Not give your reasons for violating the norm, which is all you’ve done to date.