@ramespaulus There are several versions of it but a basic example is: You have 5 choices in a primary. You rank them on your ballot in the order you prefer them. Officials determine the candidate w/the most #1s. If that candidate gets the winning # of votes needed (could be any %) they win./1
@ramespaulus That’s not likely tho, esp if the winning % needed is substantial. So then the candidate with the most #5s is eliminated. Then the ballots are recounted without that candidate, which changes the percentages. Rinse & repeat. This is just one way to do it. /2
@ramespaulus So if the guy you ranked #1 on your ballot who turned out to be ranked #5 by the most people, your ballot’s 2nd choice now becomes your vote. If you & enough people picked the highest vote getter as their 2nd choice, he now gets those votes & maybe now he’s got enough to win. /3

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

16 Jun
NONE - I repeat - none of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jan 6 cases will turn out to be undercover agents/informants. The law doesn’t consider them “conspirators” whether they’re indicted or not - they’re not legally agreeing to the offense. /1 revolver.news/2021/06/federa…
There may be undercover agents or informants in the cases -I’ll get to how likely that is in a minute- but they WILL NOT be identified in DOJ pleadings as unindicted co-conspirators. If DOJ knows they are cops/informants, they can’t put them in charging docs as co-conspirators./2
The ONLY way that happens is if DOJ doesn’t know the person is undercover/an informant, or if the AUSA has gone completely off the rails in violation of the law & Dept policy. Any AUSA who’s done that will be in SERIOUS trouble, as will any LEO who may have misled DOJ about it./3
Read 19 tweets
13 Jun
Today is my birthday. I am really happy to be alive, to be an American, to be married to my hubs, to be free, to be able to read & write. For lots of things. I am the happiest I’ve ever been at 53 because I know who I am, I love who I am, I accept myself, mistakes & all. /1
In the past, I struggled w/finding happiness but I haven’t for years. I know I am connected to the Creator of all; that a piece, if you want to think of it that way, of the Almighty lives in me. I know my husband loves me, faults & all, as I love him. We love being together. /2
But more recently I have also found a true joy in life. I find it beautiful, rich, rewarding, delightful, joyous; regardless of circumstances or trials or pain. Life itself amazes & captivates me. My heart bursts with happiness simply from being alive. /3
Read 6 tweets
3 Jun
Charles may be right that DJT has said or believes this, but neither he nor Maggie Haberman name ANY source for the claim. The Right is correct & rational to be skeptical of a story based only on anonymous sources, especially one about DJT. /1

nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie…
And Maggie’s tweet 👇🏻 hardly qualifies as “reporting.” She points to no source or evidence for her factual assertion & then offers her own legal opinion at the end. Given her track record with the Russian collusion hoax, people are wise to be wary of anything she says. /2
I agree w/Charles on the substance of the matter. You can see my thoughts in my tweets on Sunday commenting on Sidney Powell’s remark about “reinstatement.” There would be a myriad of constitutional & legal problems even if it were crystal clear to all that DJT had really won. /3
Read 5 tweets
3 Jun
Ok, since we’re on the subject. For all you young ones: this ad 👇🏻which ran in Hustler magazine, is the basis of a leading Supreme Court case dealing with satire.
And in this ad, the very upright leader of the Moral Majority, a Baptist preacher, discusses his first sexual encounter - his “first time” - which is supposedly with his mother in an outhouse while both are drunk. It’s very crude but also hilarious if you find irreverence funny.
And the Supreme Court said this was protected speech as satire because no one could seriously contend that anyone reading it would think it was true! (I simplify.) It’s obviously satire & therefore obviously not actually true & therefore not actually harming your reputation.
Read 4 tweets
22 May
Now that the pandemic is starting to abate, it's time for legislatures to completely overhaul state statutes authorizing the powers state governors & health authorities have to respond to a health emergency. These laws are seldom used & they need to be modernized & clarified. /1
The states have the power to deal with health emergencies - in ways that the federal govt DOES NOT. This is true about many things beyond health. It is part of the division of powers in our federalist system of govt. /2
But the state executive's powers are not unlimited. They are limited by at least three things: 1. people's constitutional rights (state & federal), 2. state statutes passed by the legislature, & 3. the factual context of the situation (the flu is not ebola for example.) /3
Read 7 tweets
17 May
Carter Page case.

As many of you know, I have the privilege to represent Carter, along w/a team of other lawyers, in his case against the govt & former govt officials. Although there are limits to what we can say publicly, there are some things we can share. /1
The case is still in its early stages even though we filed it in Nov 2020 because of the procedural rights given to the govt & former govt officials in federal court. This coming week, however, the defendants will be filing their responses to our Complaint. /2
The defense pleadings are likely to be Motions to Dismiss to try to get the case thrown out on (probably very) technical grounds, rather than the formal Answers to the Complaint. This procedural step is normal in federal civil litigation. /3
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(