RCV doesn’t “solve” the issue though. The fact that third party candidates can sway elections to the least preferred candidate is known as the “Spoiler effect”, and RCV is also subject to it.

RCV seems to be objectively better than plurality (what we use now), but it and any other ranking-based voting system are still subject to spoilers. One thing that can actually “solve” the issue though is rating-based systems, like Approval Voting, Score Voting, or STAR voting.

Good video on the subject

If there’re no other alternatives, then I propose that going forward the new term for this should be “Crowd Striking”

I’m interested in the sourcing of this image.

What are the page numbers referring to? If they’re referring to a document for Agenda 47, I have not found any such document. If they’re referring to the official Project 2025 policy mandate that I found here, then I don’t think the page numbers match up for at least some of the points raised.

Also, is there an original image without the page numbers, and if so where did that come from?

Tbh I suspect that this image contains misinformation, which would be a real bummer. I know at least that the pdf I linked already says some crazy stuff, not the least of which is suggesting an abortion ban, but it’s 922 pages so there’s a LOT of pointless fluff.

Edit, 922 pages, not 923.

Edit: I received a couple downvotes but no direct responses. Is that just bc I’m coming off as someone who’s defending Project 2025, or bc I’m lame for asking about sources and/or sweating the details, or some other thing?

That’s a reasonable interpretation of my simplified statement “a person is eligible if not (a), (b), and ©”, but I purposely kept my simplification all on 1 line to bring down the line count, which was futile in the end anyway :)

A closer simplification to the exact text is:

“A person is eligible if not:

(a);

(b); and

©”

With formatting I think it’s fair to say “not” should apply to all 3 bullet points, but it’s unclear whether it applies before or after “and-ing” the 3 together.

Edit: formatting. Idk if it’s just my lemmy client or if it’s markdown constraints, but if I only put 1 “newline” between successive statements then the newline is ignored and my entire point of putting different things on different lines making a difference is completely sabotaged :)

This is a very misleading article. A lot of other comments are already touching on the nuance of the argument here, but I just want to break it down the way I understand it.

(Before that, though, I just want to point out that this is a 6-3 decision, but it’s not the usual 6-3, since Kagan and Gorsuch flipped sides. I think that’s telling enough that this isn’t simply a party-lines interpretation.)

It’s not that SCOTUS argued that “and” means “or”, it’s that when you have a statement “a person is eligible if not (a), (b), and ©”, there is ambiguity in the order of operations between “not” and “and”. The statement could either mean

(1) E = !(A and B and C)

or

(2) E = (!A) and (!B) and (!C)

Demorgan’s law says we can rewrite (1) and (2) as

(1) !E = A and B and C

(2) !E = A or B or C

The court went with interpretation (2), not because one is more “correct” than the other. It seems like (2) was chosen because of the two “statutory difficulties” listed in the syllabus of Pulsifer v. United States.

(1) Pulsifer’s reading would render Subparagraph A superfluous because a defendant who has a three-point offense under Subpara-graph B and a two-point offense under Subparagraph C will always have more than four criminal-history points under Subparagraph A. That reading leaves Subparagraph A with no work to do: removing it from the statute would make the exact same people eligible (and inel-igible) for relief. That kind of superfluity, in and of itself, refutes Pul-sifer’s reading. When a statutory construction “render[s] an entire subparagraph meaningless,” this Court has noted, the canon against surplusage applies with special force. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U.S. 109, 128. That is particularly true when, as here, the subparagraph is so evidently designed to serve a concrete function. Pp. 15-20.

(2) Pulsifer’s reading would also create a second problem related to Paragraph (f)(1)'s gatekeeping function. The Guidelines presume that defendants with worse criminal records exhibiting recidivism, lengthy sentences, and violence deserve greater punishment. Under the Government’s reading, Paragraph (f)(1) sorts defendants accordingly. When the defendant has committed multiple non-minor of-fenses, he cannot get relief (Subparagraph A). And so too when he has committed even a single serious offense punished with a lengthy prison sentence (Subparagraph B) or one involving violence (Subpara-graph C). Pulsifer’s reading, by contrast, would allow safety-valve relief to defendants with more serious records while barring relief to defendants with less serious ones. A defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point violent offense would be denied relief. But a defendant with multiple three-point violent offenses could get relief simply because he happens not to have a two-point violent offense.

Contrary to Pulsifer’s view, that anomalous result cannot be ignored on the ground that a sentencing judge retains discretion to impose a lengthy sentence. If Congress thought it could always rely on sentencing discretion, it would not have created a criminal-history requirement in the first instance. Instead, it specified a requirement that allows such discretion to operate only if a defendant’s record does not reach a certain level of seriousness. Pulsifer’s construction of Paragraph (f)(1) makes a hash of that gatekeeping function. Pp. 20-23.

In summary, this is a ruling that could have gone either way, and the side the court chose isn’t totally ridiculous.

It is the side of giving fewer people just the eligibility for relief, which is pretty shitty. But if the court was stooping to an argument as bad as the headline made it out to be, IMO we’d have MUCH bigger problems.

Are they? A little odd for a neo-Nazi…

Could you explain this to me? Not trying to defend Shapiro or anything, and not saying a person of Jewish descent can’t be a Neo-Nazi, but from what I know of Shapiro he seems pretty devoutly Jewish, so I don’t really get labelling him as a Neo-Nazi.

What about a price hike? If Netflix or Spotify increased their prices, would that be news?

Ah, a comrade of the fellowship. I, too, am a person with many people of color.

The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.

Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?

It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.

I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.

Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).

Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.

I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.

Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.

I think you’re really misinterpreting OP’s argument. When he says the Democratic Party chose Bernie, I don’t think he’s saying “democrats as a whole” chose Bernie, but that the higher-ups in charge of the DNC chose Bernie, and that he lost the primary largely because of that minority.

That’s fair. I don’t think he was 100% joking either, I just don’t think he was absolutely convinced of the lab leak theory.

The way I see it: either it was a) just a bit, or b) a bit that was fueled by his frustration that the lab leak theory hasn’t been outright disproven (though I think him saying it’s “more than likely” would still be irresponsible), or c) him being serious and trying to make a joke out of it, or d) none of the above.

I think c) is totally worthy of criticism. Just not as much so under a) or b).

I’m still interested in a source of that not being the only time he defended the lab leak theory.

Source on him talking about this throughout the pandemic? Only thing I’m aware of is him going on Colbert’s show post-lockdown.

On that occasion, to some extent, I’m pretty sure he was just joking, given that he gives his entire speech in a comedic tone and doesn’t fight Colbert back on mostly anything he replies with.

Your*

And it’s based more on timing than anything. Like I said, the feds didn’t move to indict trump until after he obstructed an investigation, after he was subpoena’d, after months of non-cooperation with the national archives.

But all of this happened BEFORE Biden’s documents were discovered. So it sets a precedent.

It’s a really shitty precedent, sure. And it’s obvious that these are rules for thee and not for me (a normal federal employee who did as much as trump or even just biden might be in prison by now). But if Trump is gonna be allowed so much leniency for going so far, then Biden should be given at least as much leniency for doing way less.

When the bar is at a reasonable height, sure.

But when the other guy did worse with more documents AND didn’t cooperate, and HE didn’t get charged until after he was caught obstructing the investigation, well then the bar’s in hell.

Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to “unfair taxes without representation”.

Yeah? Well I’d argue that saying “slavery” leaves it open for “the strengthening the federal government in support of slavery.”

So yeah, I’ll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history

I’m gonna presume to know something about the majority of internet strangers who’ve downvoted you: they didn’t downvote your details. They downvoted your assertion that the details challenge the idea that it was about slavery. It seems to us like you’re being overly pedantic.

You’re not a martyr for truth, you’re a martyr for your personal opinion on the answer to the question “assuming the Civil War was principally about strengthening the federal government in support of slavery: is saying that the Civil War was about slavery a reasonable summation?”

If instead of saying “it wasn’t about slavery bc …” you’d just said “for some added nuance, …”, then most of your downvotes would be from ppl challenging your information.

As for that information, do you have any arguments against what GoodbyeBlueMonday or banneryear1868 have said? They are, so far, the only ppl to cite actual sources, and it apprears neither of them agree with your assertion that it wasn’t “about slavery”. And reading/listening to their sources doesn’t convince me of that, either.

It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

Saying the American Revolution was about

England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.