what is the point of having this instead of just putting them on the ballot
-
-
Replying to @Random832 @Nymphomachy
Ballot gatekeeping is a practical thing, they make you prove you have sufficient support in the state by gathering signatures before the deadline so they aren't inundated with hundreds of cranks wanting to be on the ballot every year
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Famously, the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election was a loophole -- the number of signatures required to get on that ballot was much lower than normal -- and they WERE inundated with cranks, the final ballot had 135 candidates and was this little phone book thing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But most states have laws saying the minimum qualification to have your votes counted at all should be somewhat lower than being on the ballot To be a "qualified write-in candidate" you just need to send a letter telling them you're running before the election
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
back to the topic of the electoral college who are the electors if a write-in candidate wins? do you have to nominate them in your qualified write-in letter?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Random832 @Nymphomachy
Because the Electoral College is an ancient institution from before they really thought about these things I don't think they have a solution for this
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There was, I recall, one faithless elector in 2004 for who was only *technically* a faithless elector because they cast their VP vote for "John Ewards" This was, presumably, in error, but officially they had to count it as a vote for "Ewards" and not John Edwards
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They were an elector from Minnesota and MN still had old-fashioned laws about electors being able to cast a secret ballot So they couldn't ask them to go back and change it because no one stepped up and admitted they were the "John Ewards" voter That's why they changed that law
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
If it was *really* a secret ballot, stepping up wouldn't have helped anyway, since they couldn't prove it was them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
[why not just hold a second round of balloting though?]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, because it would be a whole big procedural thing and it didn't actually matter
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.