This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
> Michael Geruso: If you think about the mindset of a voter in 2000 going into the Bush v. Gore election, there hadn't been an inversion-a case where the Electoral College and the popular vote didn't match-in over 100 years.
> You have these low population states like the Dakotas, Alaska, Wyoming, [and] Montana, where Republicans are more likely to win and because a fewer number of citizens' votes transfers to an Electoral College vote in these states, there's a built in advantage for any party that wins small states.
> A candidate that wins just shy of a majority of the state's vote gets zero Electoral College votes in the final tally, whereas the candidate who wins just the barest majority gets all the Electoral College votes.
> Geruso: An inversion can occur any time there is a gap or a wedge between the number of citizens voting for the president and the number of Electoral College votes that those citizen votes correspond to.
> A statistical consequence of that voter suppression is that an Electoral College vote in the South could be won with fewer white citizen votes.
> That's a way in which this gap was created between the citizen votes and the Electoral College votes that were representing those citizen votes.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: vote^#1 Electoral^#2 College^#3 inversion^#4 election^#5
Post found in /r/science.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
This is the forty ninth in my series of neoliberal ranking sitting senators. Any senators with a "P" next to their name denotes the potential of their senatorship (how well people *think* he/she will do). Like always the list of ratings is below:
- Susan Collins (1.8)
- Angus King (3.8)
- Jeanne Shaheen (3.2)
- Maggie Hassan (3.4)
- Bernie Sanders (2.5)
- Patrick Leahy (3.8)
- Elizabeth Warren (3.3)
- Ed Markey (3.2)
- John Reed (3.2)
- Sheldon Whitehouse (3.5)
- Chris Murphy (3.8)
- Richard Blumenthal (3.4)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (3.3)
- Chuck Schumer (3.4)
- Cory Booker (3.9)
- Bob Menendez (2.1)
- Pat Toomey (2.0)
- [Bob Casey Jr](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/k1mn96/how_would_you_rate_the_se
"What happens to your moral compass when you get a taste of power?"
Great little interview with Peter in the New York Times. He continues to love the ending of the show and disagrees with Martin that the show could have gone on a few more seasons.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/movies/peter-dinklage-cyrano.html
Barring any surprise ruling from Judge Netburn (who has proven to be a highly intelligent and adept interpreter of the law), this lawsuit is turning out to be an immense blunder on behalf of the SEC. Further, Gensler was positioned in the perfect situation to bring his broad knowledge of cryptocurrencies and technology to the agency and to reign in a lawsuit that will damage the SEC's ability to further enforce against other cryptocurrencies after all this is settled. Instead, he's chosen to keep the course set by his corrupt predecessor.
The problem with pursuing Ripple is that it has the funds to secure some of the best lawyers in the industry, and already has secured former SEC employees to assist in both its expansion of business and its legal teams. What this means is that as every day passes, Ripple is launching more effective counterattacks against the SEC. And for every one that Judge Netburn rules in favor of Ripple, it becomes another documented legal weapon for every other cryptocurrency the SEC will choose to pursue after its attack on Ripple.
The SEC had a wonderful position to be proactive on both shepherding the innovation of new technology and to provide guidance for cryptocurrencies to thrive and grow. Instead, it's been timid and cowardly, most likely influenced by the existing financial system.
Make no mistake. If the SEC loses this case against Ripple, it will only be able to pursue other cryptocurrencies from a much weaker position. And even if there is a settlement, all of these rulings will be able to referred to by new defendants and will have to be re-examined, forcing the SEC to once again attempt to protect its power and push it towards a less favorable settlement.
This entire case, the corruption by Clayton, and Gensler's dumbfounding decision to stay the course with the lawsuit against Ripple and his unwillingness to provide a tech-favorable framework to the broader crypto-sphere will be examined by law students years from now to better understand how an agency in such a prime position weakened itself immensely through a series of blunders and mind-boggling decisions.
https://twitter.com/ProfDevine/status/1379191615928086530?s=20
