0.0%

Too few problems spread across too many states with too big a winning margin for Biden to reverse https://twitter.com/moodslayer95/status/1325656033260408832
Can't do that without voter fraud

To make it a viable legal theory, Trump would have to prove the results are irreparably tainted and can't be cured via state processes https://twitter.com/rwaldin/status/1325660847117488129
Yeah I realized after I tweeted it 🤦‍♂️

Key point is it's materially different from 2000. Bush v Gore SCOTUS weighed in on a recount of a close election in 1 state where W was already called as the winner; here they'd be reversing the will of the people in 4+ states on 1st count https://twitter.com/cfredman/status/1325659481280188416
Not sure what that's referring to, I haven't seen it https://twitter.com/blueyedjho/status/1325675600875560960
Doesn't matter. As the saying goes: "the person doesn't leave the office, the office leaves the person" https://twitter.com/simontvesper/status/1325675588342910976
Yep. And raising money to repay debts his campaign incurred, which someone would never know if they didn't read the fine print on the solicitations https://twitter.com/iplaysax_/status/1325675536341983232
Ah. So that just relates to when the $$$ and staff support starts for the transition; it's an administrative determination that doesn't affect the actual outcome

Though I don't think GSA has ever gotten their "call" wrong https://twitter.com/blueyedjho/status/1325680155747119105
No, and no

The campaigns pick their electors ahead of time, so they almost never "go faithless." And most states have laws that prohibit faithless electors.

Trust me: Rs tried it with the "Hamilton Electors" thing in 2016 and it was a total flop https://twitter.com/kdbell32/status/1325679679144144896
Not gonna happen without proof of widespread fraud. The baseline results are going to be certified https://twitter.com/hollahsf/status/1325806625001594882
No, it affirmed the exact opposite: states can force electors to vote as pledged, regardless of their conscience (Colorado v Baca, based off the companion case Chiafolo v Washington) https://twitter.com/josh_davila/status/1325690081038888961
Correct. There would need to be literal dozens of faithless Biden electors, in states without pledge-enforcement laws https://twitter.com/dave_ferguson/status/1325690691897405440
As always https://twitter.com/blueyedjho/status/1325686184836739074
They won't; they like to collect their paychecks, and not being jailed after courts hold them in contempt https://twitter.com/triangular_duck/status/1325680070711599109
0.0%

States don't wait until litigation is done to certify; they certify unless a court bans them from doing so. To do that, they need proof of fraud so serious it could affect the results https://twitter.com/wolfoftheair/status/1325748096660287488
Not before the Electoral College meets on 12/14, or states equaling 270 EVs certify their results (in which case they could sue for a writ of mandamus) https://twitter.com/arjetton/status/1325814696688148481
It'd take a few days presumably, but not long https://twitter.com/nichartley/status/1325816060164104192
Because Trump doesn't appoint Biden electors

The Biden campaign appoints Biden electors

The fear is not rooted in anything even vaguely resembling objective reality; Dems should learn from Rs back in 2016, flipping electors en masse does not work https://twitter.com/forecluse/status/1325821029734756353
They're chosen from among career party activists, the most partisan of the partisans

They could be bought – just not by anyone supporting Donald Trump https://twitter.com/forecluse/status/1325824849562853377
There were -0- faithless electors in 2000

That should tell you something
Sure, but it wouldn't make a difference either way. There is no legal effect to a concession; it's not required, and not having one doesn't impact anything. It's just a mature thing to do when you get blown out in the highest turnout election in more than a century https://twitter.com/fedupspeakout/status/1325832230195912704
Sort of: one of DC's 3 electors abstained from voting at all

I guess that meets the technical definition of faithless? https://twitter.com/mfbarna/status/1325834165602938887
Earlier than that. A court would grant a writ of mandamus once enough states certify that they're guaranteed 270 EVs; definitely no later than the EC meeting on 12/14 https://twitter.com/vote_chuck/status/1325836021574098946
It's all over except the crying

And the Klan rallies https://twitter.com/hercule99924551/status/1325836205821480964
That letter's a fake; the original person who created confessed that it was a fabrication https://twitter.com/liberalliberty4/status/1325837672091299845
No https://twitter.com/dantesimpson11/status/1325836082420781064
Federal law requires electors to be chosen on Election Day (3 USC §1)

States can pick their own (Article II Section 1 + 3 USC §2) only if the results can't be ascertained using the state's dispute resolution processes by the 12/8 "safe harbor" deadline

1/ https://twitter.com/senator_naz/status/1325834566280548352
If a state ignores that safe harbor deadline – appointing its own slate of electors late – both the House and the Senate have to agree to accept them or they're discarded (3 USC §15)

2/2
@Senator_Naz
Correct https://twitter.com/fedupgoper/status/1325839490557095937
Theoretically yes; it would depend on the Supreme Court

I think there's a strong legal argument that a state designating electors for the candidate who lost violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause https://twitter.com/senator_naz/status/1325840846294552576
Yep, I think your take is exactly right https://twitter.com/fearlessgirl24/status/1325845246119272448
👊 https://twitter.com/ericgril/status/1325842691251318784
Partisan judges are still judges. You wouldn't see Roberts (or even Gorsuch) go along with that argument unless there was real evidence of irreparable fraud

Which simply doesn't exist at a big enough scale to matter, because it's more cost effective to win outright than cheat https://twitter.com/senator_naz/status/1325841788280696848
I don't think she'd have discretion to deny the "successful apparent candidate" once you've got certified results for 270+ EVs

They can make a judgment call before then and hope they're right, but after then I'd argue a court can compel them https://twitter.com/jeremyhamlin/status/1325855436936011777
Baseless paranoia

Start here: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1325839634853744640

then scroll down https://twitter.com/forecluse/status/1325889756815749120
👊 https://twitter.com/jaowriter/status/1325896179327135744
Legislatures don't certify electors https://twitter.com/sinurpf/status/1325907840775675904
McConnell is just trying to keep the Trumpist base angry and their donations flowing until after the Georgia runoffs

Joe Biden is the President-Elect whether Moscow Mitch chooses to acknowledge it or not https://twitter.com/ericmpro/status/1325909604673392641
There's not going to be a coup https://twitter.com/jmrubillon/status/1325912832169422849
How do you envision a coup is going to play out? Walk us through it https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325911579481796608
Congress doesn't certify anything, they just count the elector certificates and have the results entered on the journal. 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/null_datum/status/1325911421373325319
Do you think Biden elector Hillary Clinton is susceptible to that?

Biden elector Stacey Abrams?

#cmonson https://twitter.com/therealusgrant/status/1325914567902420997
Exactly https://twitter.com/atticusgf/status/1325914802678505475
➡️ https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1325839634853744640
➡️ https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1325840579608064002 https://twitter.com/dtrumpjrjunior/status/1325915989159108613
No, electors are not chosen by the states

They're selected by the campaigns – along with alternates – and provided before the election

You voted for them on Election Day https://twitter.com/therealusgrant/status/1325916032272379904
Trump's authority to order anything expires on January 20th at noon. He doesn't have to leave office; the office leaves him https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325915655644868620
You should Google better https://twitter.com/therealusgrant/status/1325916981606961157
What part of 3 USC §15 was unclear to you?

The Democrat-controlled House would have to approve a state legislature-appointed set of electors for them to count https://twitter.com/dtrumpjrjunior/status/1325916842590949377
What about them?

If you think someone who hasn't been able to effectively run the Government for 4 years is magically going to pull it off in 2 months – during the holidays – I've got some oceanfront property in Topeka to sell you https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325917302014029826
Correct https://twitter.com/vanestle1/status/1325917987979681792
You evidently didn't read the opinion column you tweeted

If you had, you'd have noticed it results in Nancy Pelosi as Acting President starting January 20th

You're terrible at this https://twitter.com/therealusgrant/status/1325917779292278785
I really assumed people would have gotten smarter since 2016. Clearly my optimism was unfounded https://twitter.com/dylanreeve/status/1325918580844584960
😩 https://twitter.com/haroldwaffle/status/1325920489454317570
The transition was always going to be hamstrung, Dems were aware of that months ago

It's why they're moving forward with parallel stuff without waiting on the GSA https://twitter.com/thatthomasguy/status/1325920775639986177
Maybe so, but I've been dealing with the "iT's A cOuP!!1" folks for literally 4 years now https://twitter.com/theotakujock/status/1325921791223721984
Correct

They can't even control Portland, who the hell thinks they can control everything? https://twitter.com/unsponsoredgeek/status/1325922388437954560
The Trump Administration has been repeatedly shut down by the courts, by Democrat and Republican judges alike, for 4 years

They've lost far more than they've won https://twitter.com/michaeltoole/status/1325922844497338371
General Services Administration. They provide the admin support for the transition https://twitter.com/ruxbin1986/status/1325922834288414721
Agreed

Let's hope Georgians prove you right https://twitter.com/gthank/status/1325922718856908801
Biden will still try just to show he's a man of his word

It's not going to make a difference https://twitter.com/jesin00/status/1325923323897933824
I'm sitting here in genuine disbelief at it all

Someone even @'d me with that 2017 Kohn tweet I debunked and I truly can't tell if they were being funny or serious 😂😩 https://twitter.com/jesin00/status/1325923323897933824
You don't, because it's a lie

If Republicans truly thought the elections weren't free and fair, they wouldn't bother voting

They just want to be aggrieved because they lost this time https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1325925759995670528
GSA isn't obligated to certify anyone until 12/14

Firing personnel now is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic https://twitter.com/simality/status/1325925703557242882
Safe harbor deadline to certify is 12/8 this year (there's a cushion between cert and Electoral College meetings)

States won't certify until they're done with the precinct-by-precinct canvassing though, which typically isn't finished until 2-3 weeks after Election Day https://twitter.com/tjmitchellws/status/1325927063782449154
If you truly believe that, then you should be stockpiling guns and ammo instead of tweeting https://twitter.com/blackpaw3/status/1325928224904372224
They can call for whatever they want. It's not going to stop the PA Secretary of State from certifying the results after canvassing is complete https://twitter.com/forecluse/status/1325929607657238528
The federal government moved its fiscal year to 10/1-9/30 because they couldn't ever get budgets passed by 7/1 https://twitter.com/robertmarc60/status/1325932041225973765
It's going to lose

And even if it won, it wouldn't affect enough ballots to change the outcome https://twitter.com/adam_casto/status/1325932932633079810
They're not going to get a blanket injunction banning certification. They're alternatives enjoining cert of certain ballots is at least plausible https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1325933949600755712
"Throwing the vote to the E. College"? What?

Can't get to SCOTUS without a viable case, and would need a remedy SCOTUS can grant that would change the outcome

That's not going to happen, even with a 6-3 court https://twitter.com/blueboy7/status/1325933498964860929
It's too late in the game for that, if a legislature appointed their own electors after the safe harbor they'd need the House's approval under 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/jacobgoad10/status/1325935092909428736
Like I said before: it's going to lose

And even if they invalidated PA entirely – which they won't, because it's a silly argument filed late – Biden is still over 270 https://twitter.com/youngex20/status/1325934674275938309
There aren't physically enough troops to quash the size and breadth of the protests

It's Titanic deck chair-shuffling, nothing more https://twitter.com/simality/status/1325935931162042369
Article II, Section 1 says legislatures get to appoint electors in whatever manner they deem appropriate, but Congress designates the deadline

3 USC §1 says the deadline is Election Day; related statutes provide for a multi-week "safe harbor" for states to count the votes

1/ https://twitter.com/tonysutton/status/1325937708141776896
3 USC §2 says that if a state hasn't picked a slate of electors by the end of that safe harbor period, the state's legislature can pick one

3 USC §15 lays out the counting process when the new Congress takes over and counts the electoral votes in joint session

2/
@tonysutton
If one of the two pre-election-designated elector slates is sent, Congress just counts and that's it

If there's an anomaly – multiple slates sent, or a slate chosen after the safe harbor deadline – Congress votes on what slate to recognize

3/
@tonysutton
Unlike a contingent election – where the House chooses the President and each state gets 1 vote apiece – resolving disputes over which set of electors to recognize is done by a plain majority vote of each chamber

4/
@tonysutton
So for a legislature-chosen set of electors to "work," it would need the approval of a majority of the Democrat-run House

Until that dispute is resolved, counting electoral votes stops. If it stops until Inauguration Day, Nancy Pelosi is acting President

5/
@tonysutton
Neither side wants Nancy Pelosi as Acting President, so we're not going to reach that point

And it's likely not something SCOTUS can do anything about without violating separation-of-powers issues

TL;DR: not something to worry about

6/6
@tonysutton
An untimely lost cause, designed to keep the donation money flowing to the campaign and RNC https://twitter.com/bonuscontentlol/status/1325939616143192064
That's how it's done in every state except Maine and Nebraska, which award their electors based on the winner of each congressional district then +2 to whoever wins the electoral vote in the state https://twitter.com/brian_c_weaver/status/1325940149616717824
Who is going to stop what?

Courts don't just grant injunctions willy-nilly with no evidence https://twitter.com/amimiked/status/1325941488090451968
Correct

It's mental masturbation https://twitter.com/adam_boyle_/status/1325941705263226880
You sue them for a writ of mandamus and then jail them for contempt when they don't comply

Democracies solved this problem hundreds of years ago https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325941274000678913
Sure, if they want to do an emergency session to pass new laws on how to select electors and have the Governor sign it, they can do that

It doesn't change the federal deadline https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325942094444244992
In the federal court context, the US Marshals Service https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1325942308928417793
Then they get held in contempt and jailed too

Eventually you're going to find someone who voted for Biden and doesn't want to end up in jail https://twitter.com/whiskerkenbrook/status/1325942851696553986
It's spelled out in state law. States' elections laws are incredibly thorough

NC's are excerpted here: https://www.ncsbe.gov/about-elections/electoral-college https://twitter.com/brian_c_weaver/status/1325943048522539008
No

And none https://twitter.com/sleepyzomby/status/1325944506194288641
Same in NC

They're fined $500, deemed to have resigned, their vote is not recorded, and a new elector is chosen to replace them https://twitter.com/guacamowa/status/1325943485652901889
Correct

The military brass remembers the Vietnam era https://twitter.com/jsgjames/status/1325945922925289473
Sometimes they do

Most of the time though it's to reward long-time activists https://twitter.com/zenofdesign/status/1325947389480480768
Exactly right. Bureaucracy and frequent elections are both great bulwarks against strongmen https://twitter.com/riscorpian/status/1325945849596276739
Posturing https://twitter.com/toniintexas1/status/1325948208548343813
No, most of what you said is simply not true

Where laws were broken, acts in violation them were nullified by the courts

People "play by the rules" because they don't want to be fined or jailed https://twitter.com/m1matas/status/1325948130404151298
No

A court can prohibit certification if there ends up being bona fide proof of actual fraud in such huge numbers it would change the result

But a government can't just decide they're not going to certify because they don't like the results https://twitter.com/alohakatie/status/1325966839612989440
Nil

None of them actually believe the sh*t they're saying, that's why they keep voting https://twitter.com/mightybattlecat/status/1325969619958554624
No https://twitter.com/laurenamylove/status/1325969747708530689
State courts have the same powers as federal courts, and often have more (because state constitutions can have a different "spread" of separation of powers)

They'd issue a writ of mandamus to the person who has to certify, and hold them in contempt for non-compliance https://twitter.com/gryphonwatcher/status/1325969597921693698
You jail them

If their successor doesn't comply, you jail them too

Eventually you get to a deputy assistant undersecretary to the secretary's deputy assistant who doesn't want to go to jail https://twitter.com/gryphonwatcher/status/1325971691118473216
No judge will go along with the charade

The rest is plausible https://twitter.com/matthew__cline/status/1325973662655156225
Exactly right https://twitter.com/omega13ful/status/1325974181889105921
Exactly. It's an Obamagate repeat to boost fundraising https://twitter.com/burtonad/status/1325974790331633666
Agreed

Outside of the Secretary level, I'd surmise there are very few indeed – because they're accustomed to having a job https://twitter.com/drpaisley/status/1325975229483585536
Probably. For reasons unknown to me, judges are almost uniformly reticent to punish facially deficient lawyering https://twitter.com/goldstar9711/status/1325975457624432641
Doesn't matter. As with the "Obamagate" unmasking, he'll waste taxpayer money to have some Deputy AG somewhere compile a report with nothing, then scuttle it without public release https://twitter.com/stephenklinck/status/1325975929714335745
This is a myth

The legislatures can't appoint their own electors without the blessing of a majority of the US House of Representatives, run by Democrats https://twitter.com/brent_tonick/status/1325982619620704262
I promise, the bad guys are not going to win https://twitter.com/d_veebee/status/1325984724372910080
The Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 USC §15

Deadline to appoint electors is Election Day, unless the state is incapable of making a choice

In that scenario, a majority of both chambers of Congress have to approve any slate appointed after the safe harbor deadline https://twitter.com/paulsshadow/status/1325985217199345665
Time for that to happen was days ago. Nothing to do now that everyone knows Biden won more votes https://twitter.com/huskermitch/status/1325985770587426816
That's a multi-part thing

Article II Section 1 gives Congress the power to set by statute the deadline for choosing electors

Congress did that via the Electoral Count Act of 1887

3 USC §15 of that Act lays out the process for counting electoral votes in joint session

1/ https://twitter.com/ormeswithun/status/1325985459634376704
Under 3 USC §15, a "late" slate of electors appointed by a state legislature can only be counted if a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate agree to recognize them

If they can't agree, they stop counting until they figure out a resolution

2/
@OrmeSwithun
20th Amendment §3 gives Congress the power to provide by statute who serves as Acting President if we don't have a President by Inauguration Day

That power was used to enact the Presidential Succession Act of 1947

3/
@OrmeSwithun
3 USC §19(a)(1) of the Presidential Succession Act makes the Speaker of the House the Acting President if the dispute drags past January 20th

The 12th Amendment's selection process only kicks in if no one has a majority after all the electoral votes are counted

4/
@OrmeSwithun
Since the issue would be over the counting of the votes under the Electoral Count Act, and not whether someone would have a majority with all votes counted, in a stalemate situation the Dems ultimately win (with Acting President Pelosi or whoever)

5/
@OrmeSwithun
It's also decision-making via powers expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution + 12th + 20th Amendments, so there's nothing SCOTUS can do about it

Obviously neither side wants Acting President Pelosi, so Congress would work something out

6/6
@OrmeSwithun
Yes

The Acting President *is* the President, until a new President is chosen https://twitter.com/howieblumenkopf/status/1325990039084478465
Not exactly. The Acting President isn't included in the list (otherwise every Vice President who exercised temporary power under the 25th Amendment would count) https://twitter.com/pcm1982/status/1325989983883235334
I don't think Dems need to do anything. Everyone knows the results

If states start appointing their own elector slates, just play hardball on January 5th https://twitter.com/gundamguy/status/1325991188999135234
Agreed. They want to win the Georgia runoffs, raise money, and avoid primaries in 2022 https://twitter.com/chucotownmom/status/1325985001930944512
Trump is done at 11:59:59am on 20 January 2021

The only way he comes back is winning the election in 2024 https://twitter.com/sleepyzomby/status/1325990286263201792
They won't be counted

Being counted requires a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate

You get Acting President Pelosi https://twitter.com/ormeswithun/status/1325992441120514048
Yes, IMO, *unless* there is sufficient evidence of so much fraud that there's no way to ascertain a true winner – and the fraud is so voluminous that a majority of the House agrees to count the legislature's slate https://twitter.com/deejaymcguire/status/1325992523756564481
The 20th Amendment fixed that in 1933

We put in a lot of succession planning during WWII and the Cold War https://twitter.com/pdxdevildog/status/1325993445211582464
Correct https://twitter.com/aim4more_lc/status/1325993506901422080
https://twitter.com/violiav/status/1325996255789637633
None of the suits will invalidate enough ballots to overturn the results, regardless of SCOTUS

No new slate of electors chosen by a legislature will be approved by the US House, regardless of SCOTUS

It's President Biden, or Acting President Pelosi https://twitter.com/greengirllds/status/1325982372982976512
https://twitter.com/agtmadcat/status/1326012447694614528
Yeah, a few thousand people said the same thing to me about a lawsuit down in Texas last year

You should ask them how that turned out https://twitter.com/michaelpauledw1/status/1325934109252673539
Nah. I *do* know there won't be enough evidence to change the results though

If you ask me for the cube root of 76,162,943 I couldn't tell you – but I'd still know "rutabaga" is the wrong answer https://twitter.com/zekeslater/status/1326001127666671616
No. If he were, he wouldn't have told people he plans to run in 2024

He's trying to raise money https://twitter.com/brett_tamahori/status/1326023926493802496
Truth be told I miss when I only had 1,000ish followers 😂 https://twitter.com/honestly_m_/status/1326026907331211266
Likely violating their own state's laws in the process, but possibly

Say PA delays then swaps in their own electors. Senate approves them, House refuses.

If there ends up a permanent stalemate, it's Acting President Pelosi; if they agree to discard them, 259 EVs wins (Biden) https://twitter.com/2021mightbeokay/status/1326028798366633984
Exactly right 😂 https://twitter.com/micahmtg/status/1326033369587609601
Not if EVs are discarded as part of an agreement by the House and the Senate under the Electoral Count Act

Use PA as an example. The 538 EV pool drops -20 to 518, and the winner would need a majority (259) https://twitter.com/nycnick7/status/1326035466391531521
No

And no https://twitter.com/sleepyzomby/status/1326035980051243009
Yes https://twitter.com/hp92823252/status/1326036527542116357
Whoops, yeah you're right. Off-by-1 error 🤦‍♂️ https://twitter.com/slworona/status/1326036883072278529
Because if there's no agreement – a permanent stalemate – the EVs for all states after PA never get counted and it's Acting President Pelosi https://twitter.com/nycnick7/status/1326037041788882944
SCOTUS somehow decides that all mail-in ballots in at least 4 states are illegal https://twitter.com/fotodave/status/1326037692438687744
SCOTUS doesn't get to weigh in on how Congress exercises its plenary powers https://twitter.com/rafi_dot_net/status/1326038990252879872
I knoooooowwww 😩

My app only shows me like every 10th @, I now miss most of what folks send 😔 https://twitter.com/molicioushat/status/1326037852254171136
Gonna vary by state docket and case complexity, but they'll all be done by 12/8 https://twitter.com/youfoundryan/status/1326039534379823104
Depends on how we get there

The 12th Amendment that lays out the 1-vote-per-state was modified by the 20th Amendment

Between that and the Electoral Count Act, it's hard to see a scenario where we end up with a contingent election IMO https://twitter.com/jpcronk/status/1326037930364768257
In the sense you'd end up with Acting President Pelosi, sure https://twitter.com/nycnick7/status/1326037824026669056
No, you'd never get that far. Electoral Count Act §15 pauses the vote-counting until the dispute is resolved

If House and Senate stay at an impasse w/o resolution, the stalemate continues until Trump's term expires and Acting President Pelosi takes over under the Succession Act https://twitter.com/ellewoodsgolfs/status/1326041430662369281
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj https://twitter.com/ellewoodsgolfs/status/1326042140632231937
Correct https://twitter.com/joseph_joe_m/status/1326043330602393601
As things exist today, I don't see how

You'd expect a contingent election if there were a tie, or more than 2 candidates getting EVs so no one gets to a majority

I don't see a scenario where only 2 candidates, with the current "flippable" states + scenarios, would get there https://twitter.com/justinlkurth/status/1326044083387654144
Honestly not sure about addressing other business; I'd have to assume no. The parliamentary procedure variant would be to "lay upon the table" and take it up later, but idk House / Senate rules

The dispute would remain until House+Senate worked something out though, yes https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1326044430109822976
SCOTUS could weigh in on whether the legislatures can appoint their own elector slates under their respective state laws, but SCOTUS is powerless to force Congress to accept them since they'd be appointed after the deadline in the Electoral Count Act https://twitter.com/taliesinsf/status/1326044195962843137
That's my assumption. I guess theoretically someone could oust her, but don't know who it would be https://twitter.com/rscholtz/status/1326156714647965696
The short answer is no one knows, because that aspect of it gets into very wonky territory with case law

My view: yes, a Governor could veto if the state's constitution / laws provide for it, because "regular" state processes apply

SCOTUS view: probably no

1/ https://twitter.com/amitshakya23/status/1326049780523470849
One of the very old SCOTUS precedents on the Elections & Electors Clause, McPherson v Blacker (146 US 1 (1892)), held that the Constitution gave the power to determine elector selection to state legislatures and that power can't be circumscribed in any way

2/
@amitshakya23
Notably, the core holding of McPherson has never been affirmed; only bits and pieces of it tossed into Bush v Gore – but it also has never been overturned, so it's technically "good law"

3/
@amitshakya23
I personally think it's nuts – a violation of the very essence of "consent of the governed" – to hold a state's voters, from whom a state derives its powers, can't restrain their legislature via that state's constitution

But my guess is SCOTUS would disagree

4/
@amitshakya23
So that aspect of it – whether the "normal" legislative process had to be followed – would need to be litigated

Then you have a related issue of whether that litigation would be in federal or state court

5/
@amitshakya23
Typically anything involving a federal question is filed in federal court (or filed in state court, with the defendant able to remove it to federal court)

But IMO whether a state's own process needs to be followed on any given topic is fundamentally a state Q

6/
@amitshakya23
Federal courts do have power to hear state law questions tied to federal ones (called "pendent jurisdiction"), but again you end up w/ this issue of core first principles and whether it's appropriate for a federal court to determine how a state governs itself

7/
@amitshakya23
TL;DR: it's potentially a legal quagmire, but the law as it exists today likely means a Governor could not veto – as utterly bizarre and anticonstitutional that outcome would be

8/8
@amitshakya23
That doesn't mean they'd be counted though. You still have the fact it would be after the deadline in the Electoral Count Act, and an "abnormal" elector slate would need the blessing of a majority of the House https://twitter.com/petebray/status/1326185728376664064
No, that's for a contingent election for President under the 12th Amendment when no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes

The Electoral Count Act is the legislation codifying Congress's power to determine the time of appointing electors under Article II Section 1 https://twitter.com/moonbeamer6/status/1326187420656799746
I mentioned it in response to someone last night, but a law professor wrote a detailed piece on possible contested presidential election scenarios here: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj

He basically says what I've been saying, but more thoroughly
But did you know I used to drive a Hyundai? https://twitter.com/apark2453/status/1326022257068572672
Whichever lawyer Joe Biden tasks with the job

You don't need anyone nonpartisan or upstanding. You need someone who knows how to go to court to get contempt orders for each next person in the hierarchy https://twitter.com/DannyMacint0sh/status/1326126083876528128
Our entire system was architected by flawed men, and designed to work knowing it would be used by flawed men

Stop with this "but where will we find someone good and righteous" stupidity
Exactly right https://twitter.com/glynis_walsh/status/1326192195439910916
Not that they're unconstitutional, but that states can criminalize them as they see fit (fine, jail, invalidating their votes, etc) https://twitter.com/doomandgloom/status/1326195430510665728
The Electoral Count Act, 3 USC §15, and Democrat control of the House is what stops it https://twitter.com/guyfiero4/status/1326238320473628679
There's nothing SCOTUS can do, norms or not

How Congress chooses to exercise its expressly delegated powers under Article II Section 1 + the 12th Amendment + the 20th Amendment is up to Congress

SCOTUS is powerless to force the House to do anything https://twitter.com/benjidoverjr/status/1326198865222131714
How does the SCOTUS force the House to continue counting electoral votes? https://twitter.com/nih_llamas/status/1326245163476398081
False

Dems would lose a contingent election vote under the 12th Amendment

There's not going to be a contingent election, so you instead operate under the Electoral Count Act, the 20th Amendment, and the Presidential Succession Act https://twitter.com/crypto_horse28/status/1326241843823202305
There are no other coups available to him

And if people genuinely think there are, they need to get off Twitter and go stockpile guns and ammo https://twitter.com/maxmcadams/status/1326243612368261124
Welcome to the last 4 years

Our National Security Advisor – a decorated military general – was a literal Soviet plant

The number of actual convicted felons in the administration is too numerous to count

Expecting them to act better now is lunacy https://twitter.com/bad_leaf/status/1326247876096192512
Correct https://twitter.com/sparkleapplepie/status/1326250223463624705
Correct https://twitter.com/mokers/status/1326251625011322880
And how will the SCOTUS force the House to continue counting electoral votes? https://twitter.com/noahlz/status/1326255184192933890
Yes https://twitter.com/seasonedham/status/1326257407438303235
➡️ That's not what happened in Bush v Gore

➡️ Even if it was what happened in Bush v Gore, it doesn't apply here to a totally different situation under completely different laws

➡️ How does SCOTUS force the House to count under the Electoral Count Act? https://twitter.com/bad_leaf/status/1326256701566193664
No

It's a centuries-old law adopted pursuant to Congress's power under Article II Section 1

It's clumsily written but not unclear IMO

In any event, SCOTUS can't force the House to do something it refuses to do https://twitter.com/iodarren/status/1326260542982348801
It doesn't change the end results

Someone files a dispute over PA's slate, the houses break their joint session to resolve them, majority of the House refuses to assent, everything's paused (last line of 3 USC §15)

There's no getting around the House's power https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1326391798097465350
Nil

Even if the GOP wanted to try this, it wouldn't work without the blessing of a majority of the US House under the Electoral Count Act https://twitter.com/spookiinate/status/1326395010187730946
The Electoral College doesn't meet in one place; each state + DC meet in their respective capitals

So he'd have to block 51 separate meetings, from Delaware to Alaska

If even 1 solitary electoral vote gets cast, the Electoral Count Act applies https://twitter.com/eoini3s/status/1326544800535867395
Not without a constitutional amendment

The NPVIC is unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional https://twitter.com/faskomil0/status/1326403790271090688
On constitutionality, I think a state designating electors for the candidate who lost the popular vote in that state would violate the 14th Amendment

On enforceability, a state can leave any time and there's no mechanism to enforce compliance https://twitter.com/pyredruid/status/1326546321075941378
The question is whether the 14th Amendment modified the Elections & Electors Clause

Can a state summarily deny black people from ever being electors? https://twitter.com/IfIWasDaKing/status/1326547304401104896
Let's say they do. How do you stop them? https://twitter.com/kellumdander/status/1326548529255313410
Sure it would, it treats those who voted for the state winner differently than those who vote for the national winner, and abridges their fundamental right to vote for electors https://twitter.com/ifiwasdaking/status/1326549019720470533
If the E&E clause is outside the purview of the 14th Amendment entirely, then I agree a state could choose electors however it wants (including banning black ones, women, etc)

But if the 14A applies – which I think it does – a state has to treat its voters equally

@IfIWasDaKing
No state gets more power than its total number of electoral votes

A state leaves the compact to cast its EVs for whoever it wants, it goes back to max power https://twitter.com/districtyoder/status/1326550561714393088
It's the electoral equivalent of a picket line: if everyone holds the line, it works as intended

But once someone leaves, there's no way to force them back in to it
Doesn't matter. The only "they" whose knowledge matters at all is Congress

There is no R President *unless* a majority of the House decides they're going to rubber-stamp f*ckery https://twitter.com/lempalyn/status/1326557101649506305
Nope. They can do full proportional just like they can do the current proportional-by-district

They just can't give the electors to the loser IMO https://twitter.com/saltpotatoes/status/1326553943816642562
And how does that get them past 3 USC §15?

Explain it to the class https://twitter.com/benjidoverjr/status/1326559453685145601
"Section"

I don't know its origins tbh https://twitter.com/gryphonlancer/status/1326568628922294272
You're telling everyone they're changing state rules

No one cares

How do they get around the *federal* rules on counting electoral votes?

Explain it to us https://twitter.com/benjidoverjr/status/1326560120571125763
All it *technically* needs is a state law, so you'd either need (i) enough politicians to do it even if means losing power, (ii) R + D states to somehow "pair" their enactments, or (iii) a bunch of the small vote states that typically don't "matter" starting it (like ME + NE) https://twitter.com/pyronaut_/status/1326566565903396864
This isn't an explanation, it's a hand-wave

You could just admit you don't know how the Electoral Count Act works and there's no way Republicans can force a Democrat-run House to ignore it, and call it a day https://twitter.com/benjidoverjr/status/1326570134941601792
Doesn't matter. A legislature-appointed slate is late, in violation of 3 USC §1, so they're stuck with the backstop of 3 USC §15

If House Dems stick together, it's either President Biden or Acting President Pelosi https://twitter.com/moonbeamer6/status/1326569848726577152
I don't think enough House Democrats want a Trump presidency to *not* stick together https://twitter.com/seanspam/status/1326573258548736000
This is how elections have always worked for several decades now. It just happens this time people are paying attention to how the sausage is made (or counted in this case) https://twitter.com/moonbeamer6/status/1326570899953364992
No

If the legislature picks their own electors, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate will have to OK it under 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/jackie_sma8/status/1326573661952864256
Agreed https://twitter.com/lempalyn/status/1326573218396856320
If he got a majority of state legislatures to disregard the election results and send their own electors, and then got a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate to ignore the election results and affirm those electors, yes https://twitter.com/guyfiero4/status/1326574558988611585
That's a legal unknown at the moment based on very old case law

Previous explanation here:
➡️ https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1326183382594842624

Then continue down the 7 tweets after it https://twitter.com/nickazpiroz/status/1326574834252349442
No

We have hard-coded deadlines in the law for certain things to happen, and litigating during those windows is fine

The proper remedy is for states' attorneys to pursue Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous lawsuits and hoping a judge agrees https://twitter.com/donnalamb_chi/status/1326577316428918787
Greater than the odds of House Democrats approving elector shenanigans. But both are near 0% https://twitter.com/joevc70/status/1326575213098790918
The way the law reads they would just need to be impeached by a majority of the House, no conviction required

They're not being removed from office, just removed from those eligible to serve as Acting President https://twitter.com/ana_safavi/status/1326581996047511555
Trump could use it from a political standpoint ("look, even a federal judge says Biden is not President-elect!"), but it would have zero legal value because it involves totally different issues (e.g. the discretion a GSA official has to decide what "apparent winner" means) https://twitter.com/dotcommodity/status/1326581532039917568
The provision you highlighted applies if the Senate says yes and the House says no

Not if the Senate says yes and the House refuses to say anything at all

Assume the House says nothing, then scroll down to the last sentence of 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/nickazpiroz/status/1326583422203015168
Stopgap until the chambers reach an agreement to resolve the dispute, up to a maximum of the full 4 years https://twitter.com/joevc70/status/1326589274507063301
SCOTUS has no power to decide how Congress exercises its authority under the Electoral Count Act

They're wholly irrelevant https://twitter.com/guidov999/status/1326586018594758663
You think it's a curse being a skeptic, imagine being a former lifelong Republican 😉 https://twitter.com/jsgjames/status/1326591818746777600
Just as non-sensical as the Van Jones video

Everyone skips past the last line of 3 USC §15

There is no Republican President unless a majority of the Democrat-controlled House agrees to allow it https://twitter.com/pplswar/status/1326591960816214017
I get that, but the current law is that a state legislature can appoint its own electors under 3 USC §2 if the voters don't choose a slate on Election Day under 3 USC §1 https://twitter.com/guidov999/status/1326594227933995008
Congress wins a Congress/SCOTUS standoff

I'm skeptical we'd ever get to that point, because at the very least John Roberts knows how that story ends https://twitter.com/slworona/status/1326594313153880065
The last line of 3 USC §15:

"No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of."

You don't know if nobody gets to 270 until the counting is done

1/ https://twitter.com/pplswar/status/1326594530737532929
An unresolved dispute – delegates that are not approved by a majority of the House, regardless of what the Senate decides – stops the counting until there's a resolution

If no resolution, there's an Acting President without ever getting to a contingent election

2/2
@pplswar
Check the 2 tweets just above this one https://twitter.com/bridg137137/status/1326595770796142597
Fair. But good luck pretending you're President without the House approving the budget https://twitter.com/slworona/status/1326597437868429317
Yes https://twitter.com/lususnaturae0/status/1326599506985672705
Nope, there is no requirement for the Speaker of the House to actually be a Congresscritter – they can pick anybody! https://twitter.com/pplswar/status/1326600302330523648
There aren't enough troops who actually like Trump for that to happen

Especially when half the military is non-white https://twitter.com/the_year_is_one/status/1326599752629284874
Taken the House in *2020

Congress starts January 3rd, the joint session to count EVs is January 6th

Yes, it's precarious af this time because Republicans are spineless and intimidated by Donald Trump for God knows what reason https://twitter.com/mrwillmcbride/status/1326599286923141120
No https://twitter.com/____________nj/status/1326598626227924994
➡️ https://twitter.com/search?q=3%20usc%2015%20from%3Agreg_doucette https://twitter.com/figrat/status/1326603116557557761
I laughed

But also: https://twitter.com/mcguire_kirk/status/1326603954046738432
➡️ https://twitter.com/search?q=faithless%20from%3Agreg_doucette https://twitter.com/adelpreore/status/1326607167399501829
Negative https://twitter.com/simality/status/1326607412858646534
No, they don't

➡️ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/
➡️ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/10/26/poll-trump-backed-by-majority-of-veterans-but-not-younger-ones/ https://twitter.com/only1deblee/status/1326610228591398912
That may very well be the case, but what you said was/is still false

The last line of 3 USC §15:

"No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of." https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326634039596421122
Turmoil doesn't ensue, you just end up with the Speaker of the House as Acting President when the House majority refuses to accept late electors under 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/jmcellis73/status/1326635042374823937
No

The House does nothing until it comes to an agreement with the Senate

If it continues to do nothing, the Presidential Succession Act kicks in and the Speaker of the House is Acting President under 3 USC §19(a)(1) https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326635540372992005
No

There is no law or constitutional provision for the Senate to choose a Vice President in the middle of a dispute in counting electoral votes

There would be an Acting President, no VP at all, and temporary Cabinet members https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326636711460425734
I've got some minor quibbles but otherwise that basically says what I've been saying https://twitter.com/guyfiero4/status/1326636138866552832
Yes, when there's a contingent election under the 12th Amendment

But to get to a contingent election, there first has to be a determination no one got a majority of electoral votes

Which doesn't happen when counting stops under 3 USC §15 https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326637767699402754
They won't, it's just a hypothetical based on what Trump's LOLyers are requesting

There is a 0.0% chance of it happening https://twitter.com/alpha_squid/status/1326638450347438080
Yes, if those slates got rejected that could potentially happen

What do you think happens if there's never a vote to accept or reject them either way? https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326639818651136000
The zeal to adamantly insist you're right about a thing thoroughly covered by constitutional lawyers and legal scholars alike – in written documents I've shared with y'all – will never not be fascinating 😂
Based on what?

There's a very clear law that specifically says how it happens https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326641955179274245
Idgi. Truly. https://twitter.com/aminotaurswords/status/1326640943102038022
Let's role play. You're a Congressman. I'm the Speaker.

You call for a vote on resolving the dispute.

I tell you to go f*ck yourself, then rule your motion out of order.

Now what? https://twitter.com/NRafter/status/1326642531942227977
I have

How many votes do you think you need for a discharge petition to succeed? https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326643307095724033
There is no joint session when considering disputes of electoral votes

3 USC §15 very clearly says each house goes back to their own chamber to consider the question independently of the other

So how many House-only votes do you need for a discharge petition? https://twitter.com/nrafter/status/1326644625965273093
https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1326646653269336064
IT'S SO F*CKING WEIRD RALF

Like, it's not just me thinking that's weird, right?? https://twitter.com/ralfthepowerful/status/1326648336250789889
Correct

There is a checklist of things that must happen to get to a contingent election under the 12th Amendment

As in, if *any item is not there,* there's no contingent election

One of those items is "a majority of the Democrat-run House has to agree to the bullsh*t" https://twitter.com/sparkleapplepie/status/1326645947196084225
Several states have already certified

The Electoral Count Act will control how those electoral votes are handled once they're cast

The counting has to finish before there's a contingent election https://twitter.com/bierquaffer/status/1326661238760288259
It's a hard stop for state-level shenanigans

1/6 is the hard stop for Senate shenanigans https://twitter.com/bierquaffer/status/1326662159707873294
Refusing to designate *any* electors doesn't really affect things: that state just gets removed from the total count (so, e.g., if PA sends no one then there'd be only 518 EVs and the winner needs 260)

For all other electors, Congress has to count the EVs first before a CE https://twitter.com/senator_naz/status/1326665259453706242
It wouldn't https://twitter.com/mikepetranek/status/1326673976710606848
Foley's argument elsewhere is basically that Pence could f*ck around with what elector slate he presents for counting; in that scenario, there'd be an objection like the other hypo

Conversely, Rs could object to something the House wants. But then it's AP Pelosi

@mikepetranek
And you'd need Democrat-run states to go along with it as well, which they won't https://twitter.com/rangutang/status/1326689379104944128
1️⃣ They argue the different voting methods have different security requirements and therefore violate the Equal Protection clause

2️⃣ It's facially silly, state legislatures decide how to appoint electors under Article II Section 1, and it had to be challenged before the election https://twitter.com/matthew__cline/status/1326696064980643840
Not thrown out, just challenged without resolution

Just throwing them out doesn't solve the problem, because down that path ends in a contingent election where Republicans would win

The tactical play is to object, and then never resolve the objection https://twitter.com/xrelaht/status/1326707662013296642
As a hypothetical, maybe; as a practicality, no

There are 2 diff fail points, 1 soft and 1 hard:

➡️ It's an open question if legislators can substitute their judgment for the voters after an election. McPherson v Blacker suggests yes, but that's way out of whack w/ society

1/ https://twitter.com/nickbilton/status/1326710705890893826
That question would end up litigated to SCOTUS, and it's tough to game out how that would end. Alito and Thomas would definitely uphold, don't know who else. So count that as a "soft" fail point

2️⃣ The Electoral Count Act's vote counting and objection process

2/
@nickbilton
There aren't enough legislatures able to get Trump to 270, so the only hope is keep both under 270 and do a contingent election under the 12th Amendment (which Rs would win b/c each state delegation only gets 1 vote)

But any Senator + Rep can object to any EVs

3/
@nickbilton
Under 3 USC §15, all counting stops, the houses return their respective chambers, and a majority has to decide how to resolve the dispute

If Dems never decide one way or the other, there's a permanent stalemate in this frozen state

4/
@nickbilton
You never get to a contingent election, because the counting process never completes

Freeze past 1/20 at noon, and the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President under the Presidential Succession Act, 3 USC §19(a)(1)

5/
@nickbilton
This is the "hard" fail point. There's no chance a majority of the Dem-controlled House takes any action on a state's "abnormal" electoral votes if it would end in a Republican eventually becoming President

6/
@nickbilton
There's nothing SCOTUS can do about that one, because Article I Section 5 empowers each house to choose its own rules of operation. It's a political issue SCOTUS can't touch

7/
@nickbilton
Every iteration of the process ends in either President Biden or Acting President Whichever-Democrat-is-Speaker-of-the-House, so one would hope the GOP wouldn't waste everyone's time with the dog and pony show

8/8
@nickbilton
I'm saying Pelosi because I'm assuming she'll be the Speaker

They could also just elect Biden as Speaker as a precaution, and the process ends with Acting President Biden https://twitter.com/prannon/status/1326714527690465282
Sorry 😂 https://twitter.com/heyaries1981/status/1326714619486986240
Acting President has the same powers as the President, their term just ends when the House and Senate come to an agreement to resolve the electoral vote dispute https://twitter.com/prannon/status/1326716165780103170
I think this is both the legally and philosophically correct argument, but until SCOTUS explicitly says so it'll never be official https://twitter.com/bornadjudcation/status/1326713874754768896
Nope

They have never chosen anyone outside of the House, but they could if they wanted to https://twitter.com/mhlkong/status/1326719826883174403
She'd have to resign. Can't serve in 2 branches of the government at the same time https://twitter.com/mullymt/status/1326721518596919297
True. A weird anomaly in the checks-and-balances structure and dual-office-holding prohibitions https://twitter.com/steps2saves/status/1326722970564190209
There's no Acting Vice President under the Succession Act; we've had no VP before

Normally a President would nominate one, subject to majority vote approval of the House and the Senate (25th Amendment, Section 2). But unknown if a merely Acting President can do that nomination https://twitter.com/activisthat_/status/1326723215067111426
If Congress completes counting electoral votes – not frozen in perpetuity due to an objection under 3 USC §15, but they actual finish counting every state's EVs – there is a contingent election under the 12th Amendment if no candidate has a majority of electors appointed https://twitter.com/damnnoneof/status/1326712709795221505
Definitely in the realm of possibilities https://twitter.com/jontalotta/status/1326725866303479810
Nope. Just needs to be signed by 1 Representative and 1 Senator and state the basis

Any objection would presumably be "Biden won the state under the laws that existed on Election Day" https://twitter.com/iratewoman/status/1326730253515943936
In theory, yes

They'd just as likely make Joe Biden the Speaker https://twitter.com/michaelginda/status/1326730749203128320
This is false

They only vote by state delegation during a contingent election under the 12th Amendment

You never get to a contingent election until all the electoral votes are counted. Until then, the Electoral Count Act applies https://twitter.com/janet22190152/status/1326738602827526145
It really is hard to articulate how much false legal knowledge people like Van Jones and Fareed Zakaria have planted in people's brains the past few days
Sundays https://twitter.com/lindseypaigeb/status/1326740095723036673
Can confirm https://twitter.com/thejimmymurray/status/1326740357573447680
The judges hearing them absolutely could, it's just very rare https://twitter.com/micahfaulkner11/status/1326741583803379715
I am always grateful to have spent so many years in the NC State University Student Senate, where RRoO (Newly Revised) was gospel, our operating rules were modeled after the US House, and you always had at least one person trying to weaponize parli pro 😬 Gained lots of expertise https://twitter.com/vote_chuck/status/1326740834369359873
(Most of which is still surprisingly useful in board meetings of nonprofits!)
You sound very rational, and definitely not a walking manifestation of Dunning-Kruger https://twitter.com/wanderlustyogi/status/1326890307502354434
The margins –

AZ: Biden +11,635
GA: Biden +14,148
MI: Biden +148,645
NV: Biden +36,870
PA: Biden +53,898
WI: Biden +20,546

Biggest recount margin change in American history: -667

#CryMoar https://twitter.com/InternetNewsAg2/status/1326925332348334090
ChEcK tHe MaRgInS jOe! https://twitter.com/joseph_joe_m/status/1326933382169677826
The QAnon folks are uniquely dumb though, somehow worse than the baseline Twitter moron https://twitter.com/a_nick_bradford/status/1326933660185071617
Nothing. That will be the outcome if there ends up being shenanigans https://twitter.com/ruldar/status/1326946069859737600
It is; there's also no real way around it

The assumption is that a majority of Congresscritters wouldn't be mendacious enough to ever force everyone down that path without cause https://twitter.com/ruldar/status/1326946360554348544
This isn't a Founding Fathers thing; the Electoral Count Act wasn't adopted until 1887, after both the Civil War and the Hayes-Tilden election and a f*ckload else

Our politicians just recognized the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction back then https://twitter.com/amazingprizzini/status/1326947575673581568
I definitely knew all the rules, but I was the guy shutting down the people who tried to abuse them 😉 https://twitter.com/isaac32767/status/1326908789619109888
My recollection is that it was NeverTrump Republicans. I don't remember Ds trying it too https://twitter.com/thingone6/status/1326978637241995280
You can follow @greg_doucette.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.