Pennsylvania's Commonwealth court just ruled that ballots that are in Allegheny or Philadelphia must be counted, even if they are undated or misdated. This only applies to ballots submitted on time, purportedly. The takes that I've generally seen online are that this is evidence that they have plans for fraud. The court argued this, though, on the grounds that dates are unnecessary, as the counties have other means of telling when votes were submitted (I think they scan a barcode when received). But what's certainly a problem is that this decision was written to apply only to Allegheny (where Pittsburgh is) and Philadelphia counties, the two counties that contribute the largest margin to the democrats. Given that they estimate that around 75% of mail-in ballots are for democrats in Pennsylvania, the most mail-in ballots are from suburban and urban voters, and that around 10000 ballots were not counted for that in 2022, this could have the effect of aiding the democrats by 5000 votes or so. Thankfully, this is only 0.07% of the vote, so not all that likely to be decisive.
The other interesting feature of this case is that the court ignored non-severability provisions, which said that if any provision of the act, or its application to any person or circumstance, was held invalid, the whole act is void. They did so merely by arguing for a presumption of severability in Pennsylvania laws, despite the explicit language to the contrary in this case. Voiding the act would have thrown out the entire mail-ballot system. Them striking down part of it, but not the whole thing, against the explicit text, seems the most sophistic part of the whole thing, to me.
This can still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. It's blue, though, so I'm not expecting changes. Thankfully, it doesn't seem like, barring fraud, the effect will be too large.
Edit: Make sure you read the comments of @Rov_Scam, where he argues that I'm not representing this accurately or completely—I don't want to be misleading.
Felagund
2mo ago
But lawfare doesn't really require any explicitly nefarious or illegal action the way murder does—all you need is a willing prosecutor, something plausible, and a jurisdiction where you can get a jury that agrees with you.
Felagund
2mo ago
Hooray, now we're talking about the likelihood of a small-ish set of events, instead of a nebulous variety of considerations: how likely are these?
First, considering schemas like those Trump's attorneys were pushing, what do you think of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022? Do you think that would decrease the ability to do so? Something like that was clearly the intent of its passing.
Secondly, how and why do you expect that to vary depending on whether Trump wins? I'm not seeing anything to suggest that, should Trump disappear, the opposing sides would stop seeing the other side as entirely unable to be trusted, and worth pulling out all the stops against, and I don't see a loss here as likely to help with that in any way. Could you explain your model here a little more fully?
On the other hand, I think it is fairly likely that we get a trifecta. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but Manifold has it trading at a 24% chance. This might be a little of an overestimate (summing individual elections don't match other markets), but it doesn't seem crazy, once you consider that the three should correlate with each other.
I trust this market much less, as there's less activity, but they estimate a 33% chance of a democrat trifecta trying to remove lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court. Senator Whitehouse has said that it would be virtually certain to happen, as it would be bundled with a lot of other desirable things. (Yes, I recognize that those two do not agree.) If we go with the smaller number here, for the sake of the argument, and multiply, that gives an 8% chance. That's high! (And only considering one sort of attack on the Supreme Court, not things like packing or the No Kings Act.) Do you think that that is a significant overestimate?
To me, which party is in office seems to have little long-term effect on how willing people are to break every norm and turn more and more to just what gives power (if anything, things like the R-backed bill to require proof of citizenship should help). This may be wrong! I'd love to hear why. On the other hand, which party is in office seems to have a pretty big effect on whether the judiciary is turned to the will of activists or stripped of power.
Felagund
2mo ago
His people spent money against conservatives in the 2022 midterms so he could maintain power over the Republican Senate bloc.
Or maybe, to try to win? There were a lot of places (e.g. Arizona) where the more MAGA candidates did a lot worse in the general election.
and to a lesser extent confessional Protestantism
Thanks for the mention!
Yeah, I have no idea how the coming years are going to shake out. Looking to political data (since that's what I know has been tracked), there's clearly a large gap between young men and women between conservatives and liberals. I know South Korea's had the same problem. People don't exactly like marrying across partisan lines, so I imagine that'll be a source of some dissatisfaction? Presumably this presidential election will have one of the largest gender splits in a while.
I wish we had better religious stats, I'd find that quite interesting.
Felagund
2mo ago
Hmm. Two points. First, I don't know that I'm seeing that big of a line between what you're using as a deciding factor (Trump using dubious legal theories and severe norm-breaking to try to remain in power) and what I'm pointing to (democrats using dubious legal theories and severe norm-breaking to try to seize power). Both of these look really bad to me, perhaps assuaged very slightly in each case by there being some people in each camp thinking that they're fixing genuine wrongs. Both are sort of operating within the institutional framework, sort of not. (In the case of the SCOTUS schemes, they have components that are probably unconstitutional.)
Anyway, court packing has been widely held to be a terrible and destructive idea for years—people are not at all in favor of FDR's actions, across the political aisle. And I'm not aware of any precedent for doing things like the No Kings Act. I don't think you're realizing just how destructive the latter would be. Letting Congress move court jurisdiction to whatever justices they prefer, and instructing them to rule whatever way Congress prefers is very bad.
The continuing independence of the federal judiciary matters, and Republicans are the only ones treating that institution as worth anything.
Felagund
2mo ago
I think I agree on both points, at least for something at scale large enough to have overturned the 2020 election.
Felagund
2mo ago
But if by cheating you mean what Trump keeps claiming, which is that large numbers of fake ballots are being added to the count, then no, I do not believe it. I would need to see pretty strong evidence to substantiate this claim.
This isn't quite what you're asking for, but I believe there was some recent news that the immigrant communities in Michigan (in, for example, Hamtramck) have been shown to have substantial amounts of vote-buying going on, wherein empty absentee ballots are collected. Claims of this go back well before voter fraud was made a partisan issue with the 2020 election, in, for example, this story. Sure, I get that those are biased sources, but are they wrong? (Of course, it is unsurprising that a D-leaning political machine would be more likely to be investigated by R-leaning people.)
I don't know that that was enough to sway the election, but if he was aware that stuff like this was going on, suddenly his actions seem a bit less crazy.
You ask how a conspiracy would be kept under wraps. Well, in this case, first, it wasn't as if it wasn't talked about beforehand, as I pointed to. But second, the fact that it's an immigrant community would substantially help, as they'd be more isolated, and not as likely to speak English. I'm also not seeing what gains from defecting you are pointing to.
Felagund
2mo ago
At the end of the day I'm an institutionalist. I think the institutions in this country took a long time to evolve, and I'm not ready to abandon them, even if some of the people running them are crazed cultists.
I think I agree with a lot of what you've said about institutionalism, etc.
How do you fit this framework with all the Democrat-led attacks on the Supreme Court? They seem intent to add new justices who will be servile towards their interests (court packing, terms limits bills), or to let Congress strip them of whatever power they feel like, whenever they feel like it (the No Kings Act). Either of these, but especially the latter would be extremely destructive towards our Constitutional order.
Felagund
2mo ago
This seems pretty reasonable.
Because of that, I think claims of cheating should be taken quite seriously, but false claims should be treated very harshly.
Do you feel similarly about all the slander against Justice Thomas?
In contrast, acting to subvert faith in/circumvent the legal means of transferring power is not only breaking the rules of the system, it threatens to undermine the whole thing.
I don't think it was their intention to be that destructive. It's still extremely destructive anyway. If we were in a better political climate, I absolutely would be considering not voting Trump because of it, but there's so much that's unconscionable within the Democratic party that it's still worth voting for him anyway.
In any case, the Democrats are threatening to undermine the whole thing. The No Kings Act is quite radical, and, if implemented and upheld (It has over 30 cosponsors!), would be retaliated against and copycatted with regard to every topic imaginable, destroying the independence of the federal judiciary. They're also proposing term limits plans, which, once passed, after the retirement part is struck down as unconstitutional, are just court packing. These are not good, and are absolutely examples of your final sentence.
This is especially bad, because the federal judiciary is the only branch that cares to any significant extent about constitutional limits, and I like having the bill of rights mean something, and protect against a tyranny-inclined majority (this is the whole principle of your argument, right?).
Felagund
2mo ago
What do you make of Senator Whitehouse saying that they'd pass the reforms that, bundled in a single bill with a bunch of other popular things, to only circumvent the filibuster once? That they would be "virtually certain" to pass such a bill, and that it would have "spectacular tailwinds"? Is he lying, or wrong?
I don't expect Republicans would overplay their hand with replacing Democratic judges, because of what the situation is like right now—if they could get a sufficiently strong commitment to not blow up the whole thing in the future in exchange for replacing the justice with another Democrat, that seems well worth taking. (Though I could certainly see them replacing some of Thomas, Alito, or Roberts, with other conservatives.) I could be wrong; it's possible they have no self-control.
I think immigration can be done with more direct action, so congressional actors are of a little less importance.
I'm similarly uncertain on foreign policy. In practice, it looks like Trump's foreign policy worked out a lot better than Biden's (see: Afghanistan, Abraham Accords, Ukraine, Iran), which is a point in Trump's favor, but I don't know how the amount of risk taken compares. Are you opposed to people using strategic ambiguity?
Felagund
2mo ago
I've yet to see anyone commit that they won't. It's worth noting that term limits is a popular and moderate-sounding proposal, and the no kings act has the advantage of being against an unpopular, and extreme-sounding SCOTUS decision.
In the Senate, Manchin and Sinema were the only ones who cared about the filibuster. They'll be gone.
The list of D-affiliated senators who did not cosponsor the No Kings Act are: Senator Sinema, Senator Bennett, Senator Murphy, Senator Ossoff, Senator Tester, Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Rosen, Senator Hassan, Senator Menendez, Senator Brown, Senator Fetterman, Senator Warner, Senator Kaine, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Manchin.
The most likely set of seat changes, should the democrats win the senate, are Sinema->Gallego, Cardin->Alsobrooks, Stabenow->Slotkin, Manchin->Justice, Butler->Schiff, Carper->Rochester, Menendez->Kim.
That means they would still need to convince all of: Bennett, Murphy, Ossoff, Tester, Cortez Masto, Rosen, Hassan, Brown, Fetterman, Warner, Kaine, Cantwell, Gallego, Alsobrooks, Slotkin, Schiff, Rochester, and Kim. 18 Senators. Schiff's literally running on court packing. Alsobrooks spoke in favor of the Biden "reforms." Kim and Rochester are members of the house progressive caucus, as was Gallego before he had to pretend to be moderate, so moderation should not be our expectation. Slotkin's said she'd be open to term limits. So that's all the new members.
If anyone votes it down, I think it would be one of the current members. These are not as strong, as evidence, but Cantwell, Rosen, and Cortez Masto all cosponsored a bill to propose a constitutional amendment saying that Presidents have no immunity for actions, and generally applicable laws should be ordinarily read as applying to Presidents. Most of the rest supported ethics code things, but I don't really think that's weighty evidence.
Senator Whitehouse recently said that the "reforms" would in all likelihood be bundled in a package containing everything else they really want (e.g. making abortion legal everywhere), so that they only have to bypass a filibuster once. He says that would have "spectacular tailwinds," and that they'd be "virtually certain." It's possible that he's lying or wrong, but I'd expect he'd understand the environment better than I would.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'm unhappy with both candidates' "policy platforms," but in the end neither will be enacted to a meaningful extent.
Are you sure about that? The chance of a trifecta, provided a Harris victory takes place, is about 50%, per the betting markets, I believe. That's high! They might not be able to get some of the price controls stuff through, but if they get 50%+1 in each house, they absolutely will enact "court reforms" (term limits, which are really court packing; the No Kings Act, which is really a way to force the judiciary to stop taking positions one dislikes, constitution be damned) that have popular sounding names and high esteem among democrats (so they'll pass), but have the long-run effect of destroying the independence of the federal judiciary and our system of government. Also, no way they crack down on the border, which will over time, as those here illegally get citizenship, push the country farther left, and get you some more of those policies you don't like.
Felagund
2mo ago
The wing of the libertarian party that's closer to the conservatives doesn't like their nominee, I think.
Felagund
2mo ago
How do you justify this, given that you find the majority of her policy positions abhorrent?
Felagund
2mo ago
Would you then say that what's complaint-worthy is not the deception, but that it evinces a lack of concern for details? That is, there's a problem, but the problem isn't that it's lying?
Felagund
2mo ago
SCOTUS was expected to say as much in Moore v. United States this year. They avoided doing so outright (though the concurrence and dissent, between them four members of the court, did), but were warning enough that I can't see Kavanaugh and Roberts allowing it.
Felagund
2mo ago
there is certainly a negative return because your success attracts some bellend to come and take it.
While I think this may often have been true, I don't know that that was always the case. Usually emperors wanted functioning empires, for example, which upholding property rights is helpful towards. But social pressure would have been common, of course.
Comparing wealth between times is hard to do with a consistent unit.
Felagund
2mo ago
Reddit is still more male coded but I have a vague sense it's become more gender neutral over the years.
It looks like it's 62-38. That does seem to be lower than in the past, after looking it up.
Felagund
2mo ago
I propose a flat rate of $100,000 per green card. Why wouldn't this work?
Why not auctions? Then you can fix the number of people (what a lot of people care about more), and get more money. 100,000 is too low, anyway.
I'm not sure, though, what I think of changing immigration to only be the wealthy—immigrants stereotypically do a lot of the landscaping and such currently.
I'm in favor of some sort of changes to our current system. Our current way, where companies game the lotteries, and where it's often better to come in illegally and then go for citizenship, is not ideal.
Felagund
2mo ago
I read an essay somewhere talking about how suspicion and hatred of the rich was totally reasonable up until about the last 200 years. Rich people were noblemen (descended from those who conquered lands and secured rents) or schemers who'd found some way to secure the bag in a zero-sum universe. You didn't make money, you took money.
This surely can't be entirely true. It would be quite surprising if there were zero or negative returns to ingenuity and assiduousness.
I could certainly believe that that was often the case, though.
This seems reasonable.
More options
Context Copy link