volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ArtSmart It just doesn't matter because the person can't be president.

Even if whatever laws are in place at the time don't prevent the final EC count, the person would be exactly as president as I am.

Like, I can't be president just by declaring it to be true. And same thing with that person, they can't be president because they don't qualify.

And so the laws dealing with vacancy of the office come into play.

It's actually not a hard question. We have laws about what to do in that circumstance.

So if I and that person both show up to the gates of the White House and try to walk inside, same thing, that's not going to work.

@RM_Transit The problem is they run up against basic physics, you can't change things like the resistivity of metal just by throwing more money at the cables.

@realTuckFrumper Well that's a lie

@elfunrokr except that Comer did invite Biden for public testimony.

@stopthatgirl7 seems like the creator of Godwin's law should know better than making such a comparison.

@ArtSmart If Republicans want to vote for a guy who cannot legally take office, let them!

In fact, there's the position that between Trump and Biden, both are so unpopular that the first party to dump their main candidate would probably win.

I'm happy to let Republicans vote for Trump all they want and then say no when he actually shows up to take office. That sounds like a pretty good way of getting rid of the guy to me.

If Republicans are so damn stupid as to vote for a guy who can't take office, great, let them have their temper tantrum.

But don't save them from themselves. If they want to vote for somebody ineligible, well those votes are wasted, and I can't think of a better reason to promote wasted votes.

@ArtSmart no not at all because the requirement that a president be 35 years old says absolutely nothing about the voting process.

So long as I can vote for my dog the election process has not been interfered with.

I mean my dog can't actually take office, but if I want to vote for my dog, I can, so the election process is not interfered with.

That's the critical distinction between the process of voting and the process of taking office.

One is a democratic process while the other is a legal process.

@ArtSmart I agree!

And that's why I go all the way up to point out that these rules amount to undemocratic election interference EVEN IF YOU OR I THINK THAT'S FOR THE BEST.

So the point is to own it. The point is to proudly say that we are standing against the rights of voters to speak their minds, the democratic process, the neutral conduct of an election, putting fingers on the scale because we think that voters are too damn stupid to vote for the candidates that we think are acceptable.

So yep! Absolutely! States have laws that run counter to the abilities of voters to express themselves honestly and accurately.

If you think that is wise, great! It's a little authoritarian for me, but I appreciate the reasoning behind it.

The key is to own it as those rules are implemented.

It's about admitting that that is what the states are doing.

@timo21 but if you read the ruling from SCOTUS, that's not what happened.

That is a factually wrong recounting of events.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart The answer to why put such people in the ballot is simple: because voters want to vote for the person.

You say the stupidity of the electorate was proved in 2016, well, I guess that's why.

The problem with democracy is that people are stupid. But so long as we are doing this democracy thing, well, that's part of it.

If we're going to indulge a system where the people get to express their voice like that, then we have to accept that a lot of stupid people are going to say a lot of stupid things, including voting for a lot of stupid people that they probably shouldn't vote for.

But that's democracy for you.

We could decide against that, put me in charge of everything. It would be fun I promise 🙂 but no, we're going to stick with democracy and part of democracy is dealing with the voices of stupid people.

Oh stupid democracy. It is the worst system except for all the others.

@jaystephens Oh I would emphatically say that no behavior at all should keep a person off the ballot! Because I support the democratic process. I think it's really important for voters to have that voice.

And again, we do have legal safeguards to prevent bad people from actually taking office, but I think it is so important that voters be able to vote for whoever they want to. That is a really important thing for society.

That element of formal expression of public ideas is critical to a modern society.

Have you heard the old phrase involving soapbox, ballot box, cartridge box? Well that's why the ballot box is so critical to preventing the process from getting to number three.

Let voters vote for whoever they want to, and let the legal institution react to their choice.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@jaystephens I have no idea how you get there from here, as I am emphatically saying that we should reject the authoritarian leaders trying to put their fingers on the scales of voting.

The whole point is that I am trying to resist that slippery slope that you bring up.

We have to recognize the facts before us and not let authoritarians rewrite them in order to pressure us in the way we vote.

@liquor_american @chrisgeidner

@ArtSmart anarchy? I was emphatically citing the controlling law that would apply.

It's the opposite of anarchy.

We have legal institutions in place to react to the results of the democratic process. It's emphatically the opposite of anarchy that we apply the laws as they are.

@timo21 no it's a huge difference because it's the difference between the Supreme Court acting within or without jurisdiction, and controlling an election versus controlling a different court.

It's a huge difference in part because of the separation of powers, the fundamental idea in the US that different branches of government are different, with checks between them.

So yeah, huge difference.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart we already have the legal procedures to handle vacancies, so we would simply abide by those laws.

It's not an unforeseen situation that a vacancy would occur, so we just do whatever the particular vacancy has prescribed by law to handle it.

@mediabiasfactcheck If you read the actual decision by the court, this fact check is wrong.

The actual decision debunks the version of events presented by this article. The fact check doesn't have its facts straight.

@timo21 If you read Bush v Gore they weren't applying oversight overstate elections.

They were applying oversight over a state court that was misapplying federal law.

@Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963

@ArtSmart frankly when I look at the people that we elect in this country It all seems quite absurd to me.

So that's how the democratic process works.

Yes, often enough voters vote for absurd candidates. It's their choice, and that's just part of the downside of this notion of letting people have such a voice.

@ArtSmart well if nothing else the court cited an election that hadn't yet happened in the timeline it laid out.

@nytimes it just goes to show how out of touch #Biden is with the general public that he'd declare as self-evidence something that a large proportion of the public considers unfounded.