I mean, I certainly don’t want car lanes, even low speed ones, between my pedestrian paths and the things I’d be walking to.

Making that change would be at least as difficult as getting it passed in the first place has been, probably harder, since for that to happen each state would need to pass a new law amending it.

I don’t think the compact allows for only counting votes from participating states, but otherwise yeah.

I don’t expect there to be lawsuits from the compact “flipping results” as you put it, partly because that’s entirely the wrong framing for how it works but mostly because all those lawsuits would be gotten out of the way when the laws first come into effect. The reason flipping a state’s results is the wrong framing is simple, the compact only comes into effect when there are enough electoral college votes participating to be able decide the election on their own. At that point it is meaningless to say someone “won” any individual state, because the only number that matters is the national vote.

The only way red states would be disenfranchised in any way would be if presidential candidates decided it wasn’t worth spending money on them to earn their outsized voting power. Under this scheme everyone gets an equal say in who becomes president, unlike now where your vote in Wyoming counts for about triple your vote in Indiana because Wyoming has the bare minimum of three electoral college seats and only the population to deserve one.

Take a guess at how many red states have signed onto the compact at this point. It’s zero, exactly zero red states have signed on to this.

The cause behind the two party stranglehold is the first past the post system, not the electoral college or voting districts or anything like that (Duverger’s law). Choosing the president by popular vote will be great, but it won’t solve that.

The point of ranked choice voting isn’t as much to get higher quality candidates in any individual race, it’s to break the two party stranglehold that first past the post forces on everyone.

They said the justification he used didn’t include the ability to set tarriffs, only shut off trade entirely.

So they shouldn’t even try?

I mean, that’s at least better than no line at all… wait, why am I defending these pieces of shit!?

Successfully impeaching him after he left office may well have been enough to keep him off the ballot in '24.

Ok, I might be off base here, but I’m a bit concerned that him dying now would be much worse in the long run, just because without him being so visibly awful in the lead up to the election people are going to forget how awful everything around him was and decide to vote back in the people enabling him.

Honestly this change has been a long time coming. In fact, why wasn’t this the case back when digital copies were first introduced?

This isn’t talking about gambling stuff, no. To be clear, there’s definitely a fuckton of money to be made off gamblers, but this is just about people buying appreciation “DLC” like soundtracks.

It’s still allowed for effectively spellcheck passes and first drafts of translations, but hopefully both of those uses are basically harmless.

HOORAY! (Not a Frenchman, just someone who likes alternatives to cars anywhere)

There are legitimate reasons to ask for an “all permissions” token, such as setting up and using a third party client. A game is not one of the things that should be asking for that though.