A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN.
And "vote their conscience" is a weasel phrase. They had a duty to tally the votes, a procedure to follow. Some of them didn't want to follow the procedure. Changing the procedure requires a constitutional amendment, agreement from a supermajority of states. Regardless of their individual thoughts on the matter, the laws of the land do not allow them to vote to disregard the law.
So are you neglecting the Electoral Count Act of 1887? If the law and procedure requires they must vote when a proper objection is raised, it is not against the law to vote as they see fit, aka vote freely. This is the generally accepted meaning of "voting their conscience", not vague or misleading and thus not a weaselly phrase.
Perhaps you should cite the Constitutional support for the premise that Congress must vote a particular way when a vote is taken in this case. Especially when actual law and rule allows for the particular question to be raised and put to a vote.
>>A republic is a form of democracy. Arguing semantics has no place in HN.
There is a distinction, as described in Federalists no. 10, Madison proposes that representatives are elected to protect us from the failings of democracy. It is my understanding this is the generally accepted distinction of why we don't vote directly or bind our Senators and Representatives to vote a particular way. I feel it is germane because it means the actions taken were consistent with the specific republican form of government in the USA and to imply they were un-democratic or a threat to democracy is to imply the government is a different form.
In other words there is nothing wrong or unlawful with contesting the electors the way they did. Their only risk in Congress is if Nancy Pelosi (or whomever is Speaker) can gin up a ⅔ majority of members present for a quorum and win a vote to expel the objectors. And of course that can be for any reason she pleases, just like the impeachment. Which is why we may interpret the stated reason as partisanship.
I reviewed the act. It contains rules for handling the situation when a state has not properly selected its electors or certified its votes. Pennsylvania did properly select its electors and did certify its results before the deadline.
The act allows congresspeople to submit written objections, with grounds. The objections submitted on 02021-01-06 were the same lies that were rejected by Republican judges in Pennsylvania and the US Supreme Court. You can read them in [1]. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey eloquently explained the situation to the Senate [2].
I see nothing in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that would allow Congress to throw out a state's votes. If you can find it, please reply.
Throwing out a state's votes is unacceptable. And it is unconstitutional, regardless of any acts passed by Congress short of constitutional amendments. Our nation has democracy written into its core. No party can throw it away with a vote.
[0] https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/ST...
[1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06/hou...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06/sen...
Not only does chapter 90, section 4 of the original act you cited provide an explicit procedure for raising objections to submitted electoral votes by state, conducting debate, and a vote, but the congressional record you cite shows the Senators and Representatives following the procedure outlined in the original act as incorporated in 3 U.S. Code § 15.
Hardly an unlawful attack on democracy. Lawful objections were raised, lawful debate was held, and a lawful vote was taken.
You originally asserted >> "The real threat to democracy is allowing leaders to stop following the democratic process. For example, on 02021-01-06, 147 congresspeople voted to throw out the votes from an entire state, even after their party had pursued the appropriate legal remedies [ https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/ST... ]. Next time, they may succeed in throwing out votes. At that point, USA will be an oligarchy. This is the real threat to democracy."
Like it or not, the Senators and Representatives followed the lawful process. It was not exhausted until the objections were defeated. Asserting there was something "undemocratic" about the objections or the potential of throwing the out the electoral votes is irrelevant, it is not unconstitutional or illegal.
The objective of the process is to end up with someone holding the office of President. If it is true, however, that the election was fraudulent, and that fraud involved disenfranchising the democratic vote for the slate of electors, that would be a threat to democracy, especially if Congress refused to acknowledge it. The courts want no part of it because it's the responsibility of the State Legislatures and Congress.
