Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They're Guilty? (Patreon)

Published:
2021-04-26 02:57:23
Imported:
2021-05

Downloads

Content

We get so many intelligent, thoughtful questions from our amazing listeners and patrons that we decided to do a show about it! Today's episode features three listener questions. First, what happens if your client tells you they're guilty? Next, a union leader asks if Janus v. AFSCME completely disregarded Garcetti v. Ceballos? Finally, can electors report fractional votes?

Appearances

None. Have us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Files

Comments

Anonymous

You play ice hockey Thomas? Beer league? What position?

Anonymous

Re: a proportional Electoral College, a form of instant runoff would be compatible with proportional allocation of electors if you reallocated losing votes within each state only up to the point where every remaining candidate has at least some threshold percentage of the vote that guarantees an elector (the most intuitive answer is 1/N of the total vote, where N is the number of electors the state has). There are some problems to work out there -- as I just described it, the threshold would vary wildly from state to state (from 1/3 in the lowest-population states to 1/54 in CA under the pending reallocation), which would make large states vastly more likely to give a few EVs to minor candidates, and unless a single system were imposed at the federal level, states might just adopt different rounding rules or different thresholds to build in advantages for their own majority party and/or specifically make it harder for more than two candidates to do well. Look at the major parties' presidential primary rules over the last few cycles for a wide variety of ways you could allocate electors badly across many candidates. But I still think that would probably be an improvement over our plurality-winner-takes-all EC.