Again, the issue with "count" is that it's a purely ministerial term and action. Like a cashier "counting" the money in a till after the day's business. But the cashier isn't marking every bill to ensure all are real cash, or confirming with banks that checks are legitimate, and said connected accounts have funds available. At least when they run a credit card, the machine will decline it if the system detects lack of funds. In this analogy, VP/Congress is and always have been a cashier. Investigative and judgement powers lie with the Judiciary. When it comes to federal elections that impact the entire nation, the people must not suffer at the hands of negligent or nefarious Congresses, state legislatures or officials. There must be a check. That check is SCOTUS.
It's harder to prove brainwashing and argue that a vote cast under the influence of manipulation and propaganda is "illegitimate." However, a literal fake ballot, manipulated computer tally, and election law violations (ballot harvesting, ignoring lack of required signatures, ballot theft, issuing all mail in ballots as absentee even though the people don't mean requirements fot absentee, accepting ballots after deadlines, setting up "voter centers" instead of required drop boxes within precincts etc) are all far more easier to identify and objectively prove illegal actions, which constitute fraud.
Ah, but the situation you're describing isn't one of dispute. Not having a candidate with enough votes doesn't necessarily mean there's a dispute. It just means there were too many candidates and the votes too distributed. So the House votes, after the candidates are narrowed down to the top 3 vote getters. But again, the House's role here, still isn't at defined as holding investigatory power, nor judgement power in ruling on claims of violating the Constitution. They are simply the tiebreaker, so to speak, in cases of big candidate fields.
The question is quite simple: where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that Congress (either house) has the power to nullify Electoral votes, or on what grounds? Imagine a House with 80% Democrats. 300 Electoral vote for a Republican candidate. House Dems reject enough of the Electoral votes without any grounds. One party can reject the will of the Electors, representing the will of the people, and choose POTUS on their own. Nope. This is exactly why Congress wasn't given any such power. Doesn't exist. Congress isn't a judicial body. Congress invented for themselves, a power not actually given them by the Constitution. The ECA is a usurpation of the separation of powers, creating a massive potential for the exploitation of the election process.
As to brainwashing, you cannot disprove the lies that the election was legitimate without the evidence. The evidence of fraud is far more powerful at neutralizing the power of the brainwashing.
Again, the issue with "count" is that it's a purely ministerial term and action. Like a cashier "counting" the money in a till after the day's business. But the cashier isn't marking every bill to ensure all are real cash, or confirming with banks that checks are legitimate, and said connected accounts have funds available. At least when they run a credit card, the machine will decline it if the system detects lack of funds. In this analogy, VP/Congress is and always have been a cashier. Investigative and judgement powers lie with the Judiciary. When it comes to federal elections that impact the entire nation, the people must not suffer at the hands of negligent or nefarious Congresses, state legislatures or officials. There must be a check. That check is SCOTUS.
It's harder to prove brainwashing and argue that a vote cast under the influence of manipulation and propaganda is "illegitimate." However, a literal fake ballot, manipulated computer tally, and election law violations (ballot harvesting, ignoring lack of required signatures, ballot theft, issuing all mail in ballots as absentee even though the people don't mean requirements fot absentee, accepting ballots after deadlines, setting up "voter centers" instead of required drop boxes within precincts etc) are all far more easier to identify and objectively prove illegal actions, which constitute fraud.
Ah, but the situation you're describing isn't one of dispute. Not having a candidate with enough votes doesn't necessarily mean there's a dispute. It just means there were too many candidates and the votes too distributed. So the House votes, after the candidates are narrowed down to the top 3 vote getters. But again, the House's role here, still isn't at defined as holding investigatory power, nor judgement power in ruling on claims of violating the Constitution. They are simply the tiebreaker, so to speak, in cases of big candidate fields.
The question is quite simple: where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that Congress (either house) has the power to nullify Electoral votes, or on what grounds? Imagine a House with 80% Democrats. 300 Electoral vote for a Republican candidate. House Dems reject enough of the Electoral votes without any grounds. One party can reject the will of the Electors, representing the will of the people, and choose POTUS on their own. Nope. This is exactly why Congress wasn't given any such power. Doesn't exist. Congress isn't a judicial body. Congress invented for themselves, a power not actually given them by the Constitution. The ECA is a usurpation of the separation of powers, creating a massive potential for the exploitation of the election process.
As to brainwashing, you cannot disprove the lies that the election was legitimate without the evidence. The evidence of fraud is far more powerful at neutralizing the power of the brainwashing.