General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Do you think the House should consider a challenge to Iowa's representative who won a squeaker by six votes?

Asked by crazyguy (2716points) 2 weeks ago

The distinction drawn by Democrats compared to the ex-President’s dispute is:

The Miller-Meeks race was actually a squeaker. Trump’s loss was not.

This is from

https://www.vox.com/22352452/iowa-second-congressional-district-mariannette-miller-meeks-rita-hart-controversy-explained

The fact that the Democrat (Hart) could have contested the election results in Iowa state court, but chose not to, seems relevant but is ignored by Pelosi and company. Also, the fact that the count was confirmed by a judge after multiple recounts has been ignored.

Here is the gist of Hart’s complaint: _the recount “was designed to count ballots that had already been tallied, meaning that additional legal ballots may have yet to be counted.” Does that complaint sound familiar to anybody here?

The House has considered election challenges many times; of 107 contested elections the House considered from 1933 to 2009, the overwhelming majority were dismissed, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found. Its 2010 report said the House seated at least three challengers and declared at least one vacancy. This is from

https://www.kcci.com/article/rita-harts-iowa-election-challenge-sparks-awkward-division-among-house-democrats/35935457

So my question is: should the House consider the challenge?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

13 Answers

Tropical_Willie's avatar

They have no grounds for the state of Iowa.

Non issue.

cookieman's avatar

You sir, are a banana.

kritiper's avatar

It’s up to that state, not us.

rebbel's avatar

To be perfectly honest, this one goes over my head.
But I am curious as to what your opinion is.

@crazyguy

elbanditoroso's avatar

I’m confused that there is an issue at all.

A white male Republican was enabled, even encouraged, to fight for every vote.

Why would a female Democrat not have the same opportunity?

ragingloli's avatar

The severity of false equivalence is staggering.
The difference is not “merely” that in drumpf’s case the result was not close.
The differences are also that he:
– tried to throw out millions of votes based on baseless accusations of “fraud”
– tried to stop the counting of millions of votes when he was temporarily ahead
– tried to pressure election officials into manufacturing additional votes for him in secret phone calls.
– tried to invalidate entire states’ election results by claiming that the election changes they made during the pandemic were “unconstitutional” (which he only tried to do in states where he lost, not in states where he won, but which implemented similar changes
– tried to use his insurrectionist allies in congress to object to, and invalidate, certified state electoral college results, based on the afforementioned baseless accusations of fraud
– tried to pressure the VP into inverting already certified state electoral college results by having him throw out the certified electors, and instead counting fake and self-proclaimed pro-drumpf “electors”.
– incited a terrorist mob into storming the Capitol, stop the certification, and assassinate members of congress.

Whereas in this case, the politician in question is merely asking for a review based on procedural technicalities, and whether a handful of uncounted, lawfully cast votes should be considered in a recount.

crazyguy's avatar

@ragingloli Thank you for providing the one meaningful answer I have so far.

You point out some significant differences between what happened in the Presidential race and what happened in the Iowa rep race. The so called lawfully cast votes have been scrutinized by election officials and a judge; all Hart is trying to do is get a more sympathetic venue.

JLeslie's avatar

Democrats didn’t have a problem with automatic recounts or Trump asking for a recount when a result was close.

Democrats had a problem with false accusations of fraud. A problem with 50 (I don’t know the exact number) bullshit attempts to bring a case to court and then implying all the courts were against Trump and wouldn’t listen to evidence. A problem with Trump calling the election stolen when it simply wasn’t.

I completely support a recount when an election is close, the states have provisions for that. It’s up to the state itself and that’s it.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I agree. Except that has all happened already!

SnipSnip's avatar

No. She had won twice.

crazyguy's avatar

@SnipSnip Who had won twice? They are both she’s.

SnipSnip's avatar

@crazyguy But only one of them won in both election and recount.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther