I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of Left/Right is a travesty.
I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend. I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and inconsistencies implied in all of this. On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > --- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but > *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then > --------- > > Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we should conceive > politics as utterly and completely a choice between the two of them. > God forbid that we conceive of judges using any other dimensions. In > fact, let's enshrine it in law that we must forever focus on exactly > whether we have a "balance" of "left" and "right". Ugh! > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ha! I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my drinking arm!" when > someone offers to buy me one... the only one to twists my > drinking arm > this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe Stephen and his circle > on "ZoomGrappaNight". > > I don't like the language around "packing the court". I don't think > "reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the court". > Clearly, > the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would* pack the > court... add > 6 more justices and make sure they are ALL conservative leaners. > Pete > Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my earshot, and HIS > version > sounded pretty reasonable... reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to > 15 but > *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then > leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the remaining 5 (through > some arcane process?). What the Republicans have been building > up to > for decades is "packing the courts". > > Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on social norms and > standards, but I think it might be "as good as it gets", at least for > the time being. > > - Steve > > > On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > > Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel member's > phrasing suggestion for Kamala Harris in response to Pence's > question about packing SCOTUS. The elaborated version was: > "Because confirming Barrett, NOW, is such a horribly wrong thing > to do, we have no choice BUT to pack the court." ... I.e. now look > what you made me do. That was my dad's favorite phrase to justify > whatever abuse he chose to mete out that day. He once ran over my > bicycle with his truck. I *made* him run over my bike because I > left it laying in the driveway. It's a running joke with my fellow > drinkers who *regularly* FORCE me to drink more than I should. > There is no free will. I live to serve. > > > > On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> Look what you made me do, > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
