Have you not noticed what Republicans have been doing for decades to undermine democracy? All enabled because unprincipled partisan state officials control so much of the electoral process. It is a terrible system.
I’m done with this nitpicking nonsense. I’m not going to place the word “significant” before every noun in every sentence in order to have a conversation with you. If you think there is some historical precedent that resembles the import of what will likely happen now if the SC does not act - Trump off the ballot in ten states, Biden off the ballot in ten others, all on 14A grounds - then please describe it and how it came to a satisfactory resolution.
Where by “normally”, you mean “in the past two elections but never before that”.
So you do favor eliminating state governments, then!
(My emphasis)
You’ve invented a scenario that has not happened and, I believe, will not happen. There is no credible basis to exclude Biden (and I’ve addressed this upthread; if you think I’m naive, then I’d point to the example of all those lawsuits trump brought to establish a stolen election- devoid of credible facts, the system assured they went nowhere).
But what if Trump and Biden are off the ballot in 10 states? I’d suggest that their parties should nominate people who don’t have that impediment.
Oh, and by the way
Then don’t. You were the one who introduced that word to avoid acknowledging your factual error: we don’t have a uniform federal ballot, and dismissing every example that demonstrates this is a classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
How on earth do you get that from what I wrote? I favor taking control of elections away from partisan state officials.
And putting it into the hands of partisan federal officials?
Or is there some nonpartisan official who would take on the role?
Is it really so hard to imagine the existence of a strictly nonpartisan electoral commission to oversee free and fair elections? Most democracies have them. The US already has the FEC, but with much narrower powers.
Note that in that article describing the different types of electoral commission in dozens of democracies the US has its own separate sentence, because the US approach is unique - uniquely terrible.
It’s a little bizarre that you are returning to this strange assertion. This entire thread is discussing the problems that the lack of a uniform federal system is creating. Do you imagine that I am participating here blissfully unaware that a number of states have recently come to opposite conclusions about whether Trump should be removed from the ballot?
The problem, as I have said, is that you have great difficulty distinguishing “is” from “ought” statements with respect to the Constitution, and you assume that if I say “this is a bad way to do things” that I cannot possibly know that the current Constitution says we must do things this way.
Is it really so hard to imagine that a federal group of unelected bureaucrats deciding what is “free” and “fair” invites corruption.
As I understand it, trump wanted to seize voting machines so he could count the votes. You don’t think that a wannabe dictator would have use of a centralized board to sanction his victory?
So the US has diffused the operation of elections to the local level, but has federal oversight and review. I think that is a good system.
(And one of the strengths of the US system is that rogue states - Russia, for example - can’t “hack” our voting system, precisely because it’s not centralized. Similarly, if there is rampant corruption, it’s isolated and easier to identify and call out, precisely because it’s not centralized).
Moderating:
@Riemann and @Moriarty, you’re going in circles, your discussion has become repetitive, off topic and is getting personal. Take further discussion to another thread or to PMs. You’re far afield of the questions posed in the OP. Thanks.
By what measure? Because in practice, it looks terrible right now.
It’s isolated to what, just a couple of dozen states or so. And people have been “calling it out” for decades. It’s not like ridiculously gerrymandered maps and voter suppression are a secret. But there is still rampant corruption because even though we can all see it happening the Constitution strictly limits what federal oversight can do to prevent the corruption.
Even likely. Take railroads. Railroad regulation is in the Federal baliwick and IIRC there was SCOTUS case that ruled if the Federal government failed to implement a regulation (I think it had to do with blocking traffic) that was their choice and the states could not then fill the vacuum with their regulation. So SCOTUS could rule that because Congress has chosen not to pass a law enforcing the insurrection clause then that’s the last word on it and the states cannot substitute their own.
ETA: I started typing before Aspenglow gave their mod note (squirrel!). If you feel it falls under your note then feel free to delete it.
I actually think that this is a factually correct answer. The southern states didn’t secede until after Lincoln won.
So was he on every state ballot in 1860?
According to Wikipedia (I’ll prepare to be corrected if I am wrong), Lincoln was not on the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
The reason he was nevertheless elected was because the remaining electoral votes were split between 3 other men, while Lincoln swept the northern states.
I’m not sure if it’s happened before or since, but that is one historical example where it happened to a major political party, insofar as they fielded the winning candidate.
So, to ensure that I’m addressing the OP, the answer to how many states can disqualify trump before he can’t win depends on how many states he can prevail in. It’s a race to 270 electoral votes: if he can secure that without being on all ballots, he’s still elected president.
The Colorado court has determined that as far as I can tell. And the attempted insurrection goes far, far beyond the events of Jan 6 at the Capitol. That was just part of a very large plan, coordinated and spread across many states, with many co-conspirators.
Definite. There was a five day evidentiary hearing at which Trump’s lawyers called their own January 6 witnesses.
Then, about a week later, Trump’s attorneys made closing arguments.
There thus was a completed, fair, and, as far as I can see, thorough trial on the question of whether DJT is an insurrectionist, and he lost on that question (even though Judge Wallace ruled for Trump on grounds, subsequently rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court, of the president not being a Section 3 officer).
As far as I am concerned, the restrictions in the Constitution on presidential qualifications are undemocratic and should all be amended away. If the people want a 34 year old immigrant who invaded the Capitol on January 6, fine with me (especially if they subsequently changed their political views and party). But I don’t see how you can reconcile the rule of law with ignoring Section 3.
There is no process at all. When a person comes in to register to vote, he registers and that is it. Poll workers have no authority over the registration database. All a poll worker can do is check ID (driver’s license is sufficient) to see if it matches the voter roll when the person comes to vote; poll worker has no authority to demand proof of citizenship.
There is indeed a process to verify citizenship before adding someone to the voter rolls. The assertion that non-citizens can just add themselves and that those registering them are helpless to check remains “astoundingly wrong”, and the assertion that “millions of aliens” have registered to vote in the US remains firmly in the realm of fantasy.
How do you know? We have @JKellyMap who are a poll worker, who knows how the process is, and you who just assert that there is no process. Do you have a cite?
Aren’t there usually some requirements to acquire the ID in the first place?
This is a fair question. You are correct the the poll worker in most states checks two documents: a proof of ID, and a proof of current residency. A valid driver’s license is the most typical proof of ID, and often works to show current residency, unless the voter recently moved to their current location (more than 30 days ago, but less than a year ago), in which case they must show something like a paycheck or rental agreement.
BUT…in Wisconsin (and 30 other states), you can’t get a driver’s license (or equivalent state ID) unless you are a US citizen.