anon_
2mo ago
That kind of seems like regular politics. Possibly unpleasant, but not some kind of illegitimate thing. Parties do it to each other all the times -- the left wing broadcasts MTG in their fundraisers all the time. Right wing blasts the squad.
What's more relevant to me is the question: if a movement never becomes popular, how do we distinguish between "we were discredited" from "our ideas were never palatable to more than 10% of voters"? Because I feel that many losing movements declare that, and it can't be universally the case.
anon_
2mo ago
You can't see that a bunch of consensus in favor of the secret ballot is not a consensus against VBM unless one also believes a separate fact about it?
Maybe it's best to return to pragmatics. I got my ballot in the mail, I filled it out at home where no one was here. I sealed it and dropped it off personally at a drop box inside the police station. I am totally satisfied in the secrecy of this ballot, and I don't even think that going in person (which was a choice I could have made) would have further protected it.
In terms of attack modeling, if the police and the registrar are in on the scheme, then neither method would have protected it.
anon_
2mo ago
[Epistemically] is important, especially in the context.
Society decides policies via an epistemic process, not a causal one.
Jesus, the Gish Gallop distributed Motte & Bailey of rotating arguments. First it was inherently fraudulent[1]. Then it was fraudulent-by-method-of-adoption[2]. Then it there-exists-fraud-in-fact via stuffed ballots or water leaks[3].
In any event, do you think the result in Wisconsin numerically reflect the intended desire of the eligible voters?
anon_
2mo ago
The consensus that you point to is for a different topic than the one you are claiming.
You are trying to manufacture a consensus against VBM by pointing to universal support for the notion of secret ballots. The core of the disagreement is whether VBM (especially optional-VBM where anyone that wishes can go in person if they choose!) is sufficiently protective of the right to a secret ballot.
If anything, the point that one can derive from this is that mandating VBM is not good policy. On that, sure, we can easily agree.
anon_
2mo ago
I'm not sure I get the distinction between you're drawing here about "active methods".
anon_
2mo ago
Those are all valid points!
I agree that there is the possibility of fraud in VBM, but the original bombastic claim was that VBM is itself intrinsically fraudulent:
mass-mail in voting is considered fraud by historical Democratic principals [sic]
There is a huge difference your nuanced points and this blanket statement.
anon_
2mo ago
Bruh, this idiotic “so I guess (a bunch of crazy shit I don’t believe)” is tiresome.
Yes I believe in the secret ballot. I do not believe that the option to do mail in seriously erodes that.
anon_
2mo ago
If someone is agitating for fringe views, and the country is even roughly representational, then keeping them down is the expected behavior.
You're right that they are growing though, but even a growing fringe can still be anathema to ~2/3 of the population -- that was more or less what the French election just showed.
anon_
2mo ago
That is an interesting question, but I think it's clear that before we do interesting questions we should strive to get the uninteresting ones correct.
And truth be told, I'm not sure if Congress can regulate that criminally or must do so via the impeachment process. I could be convinced that it's proper to prosecute that criminally after he leaves office, but I could also be convinced that saying "you can't appoint an ambassador in exchange for a bribe" is not too far from saying "you must appoint an ambassador based only on X,Y,Z criteria".
Certainly I think the surrender of a fort to the enemy was already beyond the reach of the courts on a number of other grounds.
anon_
2mo ago
That is a tendentious appeal to consensus that doesn't exist. Oregon has been doing vote-by-mail since 1996.
anon_
2mo ago
I think you using the term "regardless" in a way that doesn't distinguish epistemic from causal thinking.
(2) is true but I would amend it to clarify that
Proposition A is true, regardless[causally] of what a majority of people believe
anon_
2mo ago
One mitigating factor here is that Labour consciously sacrificed vote share by making policy declarations that would allow them to win in the constituencies they needed to pick up.
Yup. "Punch the far-left wing of your party as hard as you can as fast as you can" turns out to be a really good strategy for left-of-center parties.
anon_
2mo ago
The expanse of mass-mail in voting is considered fraud by historical Democratic principals. Trump wins in a landslide without that.
In what possible sense? Oregon has had vote-by-mail for a while now, I think it's hardly sensible to claim that all elections in Oregon are fraudulent by any sensible principle.
Now sure, maybe mail-in voting could induce or enable fraud. But you seem to be suggesting that the means of voting is itself fraudulent, even if the result is generally reflective of the indicated preference of valid and eligible voters.
anon_
2mo ago
But I think that the paranoia on both sides is basically driven by structural problems:
It's not driven by structural problems, it's driven by the fact that radical wings are ... radical wings. They are weirdos and of course, to them, everything looks like "the uniparty is keeping us down".
Bernie bros were genuinely the worst about this.
anon_
2mo ago
The concern is that not having any immunity would allow frivolous criminal cases to proceed, which would seriously limit the bold action that the founders would have wanted a president to take. In such things, the dangers of intrusion on the executive branch must be considered
Right, and this is why the whole thing is so weird. The CW aspect has always been "deep state blob trying to charge Trump on whatever" and yet the decision (as you point out) has nothing about that whatsoever.
For that reason, I think the decision is fairly sensible. If the President gets to appoint ambassadors, Congress cannot say "it's a felony not to appoint So-and-So as ambassador to France before August 1". How that ended up as a CW lightening rod is totally beyond me.
anon_
2mo ago
Do you believe that this is true because (1) a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true, or because (2) regardless of what a majority of people believe, combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston?
This question has two very different parsings:
- A Do (you believe this is true) because ...
- B Do you believe (this is true because ...)
I think this is probably the root of the issue, the difference between epistemic and causal modes of thinking.
My point is purely epistemic -- if everyone believes something and a small bunch of people don't, they are very usually wrong. Of course, in retrospect knowing what we know now, one can find a contrarian in the past to our liking. So it does happen, it's just that prospectively, for every such instance there are far more where they're just plain nuts. For every John Brown there's a thousand Ted Kaczynskis, so do the math.
anon_
2mo ago
Yes, A because I live in 2024.
Consider also:
C — Fire is the product of combustion of materials with oxygen in both 1700 and 2024. I know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 2024.
D — Fire is due to the liberation of phlogiston. People in 1700 know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 1700.
Do you believe in the symmetry of C/D? Or do you believe 300 years ago fire really was phlogiston?
Maybe in the future people will have a different view on fire or whatever else. That’s unknown-able to us. They are welcome to it. And anyone can got and promote that view and, if it takes hold, good for them!
anon_
3mo ago
What's silly is the idea that my judgment today of has to be based on what people thought in a different century.
What I asked for is your argument that the abolition of slavery was a moral improvement.
The same reason -- it's a near universal truth.
Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality
They do. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.
The fact that majorities in the past thought otherwise doesn't itself (without more) mean anything to my judgment today.
which will contradict your argument for the prohibition CSAM.
This is a strange hill to want to fight for.
anon_
3mo ago
The difference is, I don't believe we are ever again going to see a world where premarital sex as taboo as sex with a 5 year old.
If you want to agitate for it, go for it.
By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago
This is a fairly common, silly argument.
To clarify, I (a person living in 2024) believe slavery is wrong whether it happened in 1800 or 2000. Some other entity (perhaps, as you suggest, a person living in 1800) did not believe slavery was wrong. That person is not me and I am not them.
anon_
3mo ago
I think the intent of Congress in both cases that a decision can be challenged when an individual entity is affected by application of a (regulation OR discriminatory compensation decision). Indeed, a supermajority of Congress expressly opined that the statutory construction in Ledbetter was not what they had intended:
(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid
For what it's worth, I fully concede that legislative intent is not the end-all of statutory construction (cue Gorsuch "we are governed by laws, but not by intent") so this is not a dispositive point. And I'm fine if people say the original version of 42USC§2000 did not properly enact that intent while the APA language at issue in Corner Post did.
I can say, in the counterfactual that I was coerced, I could still have gone to vote in person which would have invalidated my mail-in ballot.
More options
Context Copy link