Since, legally, the "President elect" is non-existent UNTIL Congress has ratified the results of the electoral college, the Twentieth amendment, section three has NOTHING to do with electoral college results.
You claim he "qualified". I say show the evidence that he did so. If this evidence of such a qualification can't be shown, it doesn't legally exist. If it doesn't exist, it never was shown. If it never was shown, then there was never a "qualification. If there was never a "qualification", then, legally, there is NO President.
You claim that he "qualified" yet have nothing to offer as proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim qualification occurred.
“You claim that he “qualified” yet have nothing to offer as proof. The burden of proof is on those who claim qualification occurred.”
But Uncle Sham, in the real world where most of us live, he did qualify and he is the POTUS, unfortunate as that may be.
You really would like it in France. Their imperial Napoleonic legal system might be just the place to try out your theories. They won’t work here, but as I said, file away. The Federal Courts, as they say, never close.