abff08f4813c

How disappointing. I remember reading about something similar in 2016 (though I think that was less about legal framework and more of a boots-on-the-ground attempt to discourage voters).

Oddly, not so much in 2020 - perhaps with COVID restrictions, it was impractical to use the same tried-and-true techniques to suppression voters?

Folks in Virginia, please don't be discouraged. Get out and vote! Remember what the governor said:

Youngkin said voters who believe they were improperly removed from the rolls can still vote in the election because Virginia has same-day registration.
“And so there is the ultimate, ultimate safeguard in Virginia, no one is being precluded from voting, and therefore, I encourage every single citizen go vote,” Youngkin told reporters.

In the other bit of "less bad" news, it seems like the Supreme Court didn't explain the reason for the decision, so that means it doesn't directly on its own set any legal precedents for the future if I'm understanding correctly.

From the linked washingtonpost article though ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/29/gop-voter-virginia-vote-twice/ : https://archive.is/U7AoW#selection-755.0-755.327 ), it sounds like the defense had a very good argument.

Defense attorney Matthew L. Pack contended that Bell would not have gone through with voting more than once in the same election — a felony punishable by one to five years in prison — if poll workers had actually handed him a ballot.

But he never got the chance to demonstrate that because

As it happened, the workers quickly discovered that he had already voted and turned him away.

Speaking neutrally, it's good that we have a system in place that requires a high level of evidence - such as regarding intent - before finding someone guilty. I'd just hope that it equally protects folks regardless of if they are blue or red.

Also available from https://neuters.de/world/asia-pacific/inaction-emissions-could-cut-developing-asias-gdp-by-17-by-2070-adb-says-2024-10-31/

This is awful. At the same time, it's not at all surprising that they had to resort to these sort of tactics in order to get anyone to canvas for them.

Came here to say exactly this. Of course Musk knew this would happen - that's why he tried so hard to get out of buying Twitter back in late 2022 before he realized it was a lost cause.

If I'm born and raised in Texas, then move to Puerto Rico for say five years, and then move on straight to Europe, do I regain my right to vote overseas (though Texas) ? And could be state specific (so maybe Texas wouldn't allow it, but California would, etc) ?

So a U.S. citizen who (having immediately prior lived for a qualifying period of time in a US State or in DC) currently lives in a foreign country has more rights than one currently living in Puerto Rico. A USian in Canada can vote for the President, but one in Puerto Rico cannot. That's .. ridiculous.

The best that can be said about this is that no precedent was set this time. (I mean legally speaking - this is unprecedented, but it can't be cited to justify future purgers.)

Also, https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-LSmULmByAQHQs

I think the reason that this happened is due to structual issues in the way US Presidential elections work (e.g. the Electoral College), hence I'm hopeful that the 127 DC States plan - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review - will be in reach soon if Dems get all three Houses in this election, or at least after the 2026 midterms if Harris wins this year but Dems lose the Senate. Then we can fix all these issues via Constitutional amendment, and with fairer elections, more leftist candidates will have a better chance of winning the highest office.

Thanks, it's been a great discussion. I missed that on the VoteHub polls but I see it now, and you're absolutely right - they've gone from Harris 270 when I first commented to the GOP having 297 now in the EC. Meanwhile, if my memory serves correct, Nate's model is holding steady at a 54% chance of a GOP win, suggesting that VoteHub was just delayed in getting this shift factored in. Shoot.

(But apparently Harris had a good afternoon on the 29th, yesterday, if one ignores AtlasIntel.)

Something new though - it seems like the Harris campaign is feeling optimistic as of the day before yesterday -
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election.html / https://archive.is/EwIkC - I wonder if they have internal polling showing different results.

So I take solace in this quote:

Polling averages show that all seven battleground states are within the margin of error, meaning the difference between a half-point up and a half-point down — essentially a rounding error — could win or lose the White House.

So I think I have to concede my original point that the polling aggregators are being polluted - seems like they're reflecting a real red shift after all. But in the end I can still hope that the red shift maybe wasn't enough, as currently it's still a toss-up (even Nate Silver says so).

For older units, Ontario (in Canada) enforces a very low rent raise cap, probably specifically for this reason.

(Alas, for newer units, the conservative government lifted this, so if one rents a newer unit in Ontario (say built after 2018) then one can still be kicked out by this loophole.)