@ArtSmart I mean, it is election interference.

Even if we think it is warranted interference, even if we think it is entirely appropriate to impose the anti-democratic order, even if we say it is entirely correct to strike a major candidate from the ballot, it is indeed election interference.

We need to own that.

Trump's right that it is election interference even if we want to tell him, yeah, and you deserve it.

@volkris would it be election interference if someone tried to run for president who was only 30 years old? Trump disqualified himself from being on the ballot, just as if he were under 35 or not a natural born US citizen. That's not election interference. That's the Constitution.

@ArtSmart no, it wouldn't be election interference since voters would remain equally free to cast their votes as they wished.

If voters want to vote for someone who can't actually take office, that's their choice.

@volkris so you're saying it's okay if Secretaries of State can put people on the ballot who are totally disqualified under the Constitution, like not being old enough, right? Do you realize how absurd that is?

@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.

@volkris it sounds like you're saying that anyone and everyone should be able to run for any elective office, regardless of whether or not they are barred by the Constitution. So what happens if they elect someone who's disqualified under the Constitution? The winner of the election can't even be sworn in. Should that office remain vacant?

@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.

@volkris Believe as you wish. But to me It's absolutely ludicrous to have names on the ballot of people who aren't even qualified to be sworn in. If anarchy is your goal, that would certainly achieve it

@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.

@volkris precisely, and the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. It specifically disqualifies from office anyone who isn't 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, or otherwise disqualified under the 14th Amendment. So why put such people on the ballot? Just to test the stupidity of the electorate? They already proved it in 2016.

@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.

@volkris Well, your argument, regardless of how misguided, may be completely moot. I'll just bet you each state has a law requiring its Secretary of State only to place names of people on the ballot who are fully qualified to serve in the office for which they are seeking. They knew full well that to do otherwise would be not just futile, but silly

@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.

@volkris so is it election interference to require a president to be at least 35 years old? And more generally, how could ANYTHING required by the US Constitution be considered election interference?

@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.