Our 10 Favorite Smiths Songs present a lisy of songs by the band that we have always found to be the ones that we have spent the most time playing over and over again. Top 10 The Smiths Songs # 10 – Miserable Lie Their debut album‚ The Smiths‚ was a formal introduction to the world in 1983; they were the original Bohemians of the Ronald Reagan era‚ where everything was flashy and the times were much more straightforward. With its distinctive album cover bearing Andy Warhol actor Joe Dallesandro from the 1968 film Flesh‚ the music was far too The post Our 10 Favorite Smiths Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

You can’t make an Indiana Jones game without Harrison Ford. While Machine Games is using Harrison Ford’s likeness for Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle‚ who will voice Indiana Jones himself? Who voices Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle? As revealed by The Game Awards themselves‚ who are as credit a source as any when it comes to video game news‚ Indiana Jones is being voiced by Troy Baker in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. Troy Baker is playing Indiana Jones in the Great Circle. pic.twitter.com/6SDladjtHz— The Game Awards (@thegameawards) January 18‚ 2024 It’s not a huge surprise that Troy Baker is voicing Indiana Jones in the upcoming game. If you don’t know‚ Troy Baker lends his voice to just about every game you love. He’s Joel in The Last of Us‚ Sam in Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End‚ and Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite. He’s in Diablo 4‚ God of War Ragnarok...

If you’ve had the joy of playing Palworld or even seen any media surrounding it‚ you may have noticed that the similarities to Pokémon are uncanny. Nintendo is notoriously protective of its intellectual property‚ so it begs the question‚ how have Pocket Pair not been sued into oblivion? Not the first of its kind I think the main fortress Palworld can stand behind is the freedom of the genre. Palworld isn’t the first game to use the pocket monsters idea and develop it into an RPG. Other titles like Monster Sanctuary and Nexomon have both taken the concept and turned it into a role-playing game. Nintendo has left both of these games well alone. Screenshot: PC Invasion Along with these pocket monster RPG-style games are a huge selection of other similar manga/anime. Yu-Gi-Oh and Digimon have had huge followings and all the related media that goes along with it. Games‚ cards‚ toys‚ and other merchandise have existed off the back of these fr...

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Andy Biggs is introducing legislation this week that would require a woman to be shown an ultrasound of her unborn baby before she obtains an abortion. The Arizona Republican’s Ultrasound Informed Consent Act stipulates that abortionists or “an agent under the supervision of the” abortionist must perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman while simultaneously providing an explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting. The abortionist must “display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them” and “provide a complete medical description of the ultrasound images‚” including the baby’s dimensions‚ cardiac activity‚ and the “presence of external members and internal organs.”  “The Biden administration’s heinous pro-abortion policies continue to incentivize women to end the lives of innocent‚ unborn American children‚” Biggs told The Daily Signal. BIGGS_155_xmlDownload “My legislation provides pregnant women a safe and intimate opportunity to rethink their abortion‚” he added. “This subtle but important process change can potentially save millions of unborn lives.”           The legislation specifically notes that nothing in the bill shall be construed to prevent the mother from looking away from the ultrasound images that are required to be shown to her. It also allows an exception if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The legislation comes the same week as the 51st annual March for Life‚ which will take place on Friday in Washington‚ D.C. House Speaker Mike Johnson‚ R-La.‚ will be speaking at the march‚ in addition to a number of prominent pro-life voices‚ among them former NFL tight end Benjamin Watson. This year’s march has as its theme “with every woman‚ for every child‚” stressing the importance of supporting both mother and child post-Roe v. Wade. “We are overjoyed to welcome these inspiring pro-life leaders at this year’s 51st March for Life‚” said Jeanne Mancini‚ president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. “For the past 51 years‚ the March for Life has powerfully witnessed to the tragedy of abortion‚ while calling for stronger protections for women and the unborn.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post EXCLUSIVE: GOP Bill Would Require Abortionists to Show Pregnant Women Ultrasound of Unborn Baby appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NEW YORK–This city is buckling under the self-inflicted illegal immigration crisis it’s been handed by our derelict president. City and state leaders in New York seemingly have no answers to the influx of illegal immigrants—nearly 100‚000 in 2023—besides throwing money at the problem and cannibalizing other state-funded services. This isn’t just an abstract number. The Big Apple is being transformed by the crisis. I’ve personally witnessed the effects. A migrant center has been set up at St. Brigid School near Tompkins Square Park in the East Village. It’s about half a mile from where I live. The Catholic school‚ which already had been shuttered‚ is being used as a holding area where asylum-seekers are housed and fed. From what I’ve seen‚ almost all the illegal immigrants who pass through there are men in their 20s. They often gather in large bands in and around Tompkins. The southeast corner‚ next to the center‚ is now covered in trash. New York has plenty of trash bags on sidewalks due to an inefficient waste management system‚ but that’s not what I’m talking about. There is literally trash strewn all over the ground‚ including a nearby area where children play. Here are a few pictures of what it frequently looks like in the park. Photo: Jarrett Stepman Photo: Jarrett Stepman Photo: Jarrett Stepman The building for migrants is surrounded by fences and has a higher police presence than most other places in the city. For good reason. I recently woke up to a message on my Citizen crime app that a fight involving “300 people” broke out at the migrant center at East 7th Street. According to the New York Post and other outlets‚ one man at the center attempted to cut into a long line of other migrants  waiting for food. A brawl ensued. NYPD officers broke up the melee‚ but two were injured while getting the situation under control. https://twitter.com/CrimeInNYC/status/1743716128222810360 Even with more police‚ I would be surprised if there weren’t more incidents like this. What do you expect when packs of young men loiter around the park all day? The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that New York state will increase its spending on the illegal immigration situation by another $2.4 billion. The cost of the crisis is projected to reach $10 billion by the summer of 2025‚ state officials say. “Without real immigration reform and a decompression strategy at the border‚ there will be no end in sight‚” New York Mayor Eric Adams said. New York City already is running a $7 billion deficit and has been forced to cut education and police budgets. Priorities. Like a good Democrat‚ Adams dodges the reality that if you don’t build it—the border wall‚ that is—and refuse to deport millions of illegal aliens‚ more and more “asylum-seekers” will come to his sanctuary city. Whether red state governors keep busing illegal migrants to New York or not‚ the migrants know that they can go to the city and get a handout from taxpayers. Adams’ insistence that the city is full isn’t going to deter them‚ any more than Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ saying that the border is “secure” did. The result for New York is that the city’s obligations to illegal immigrants is trumping everything else. This was highlighted recently when the Adams administration temporarily closed down James Madison High School in Brooklyn to house some of the migrants. City officials said they have to use the school to shelter illegal immigrants because of a winter storm. Given the escalating number of illegal immigrants and the likelihood of more rough winter weather‚ it seems other New York schools could be put in a similar state of limbo. This is why so many parents left New York during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The city closed down schools‚ switched to remote learning‚ and generally left the lockdown regime in place to placate teachers unions. The result was catastrophic learning loss. Again‚ we see the priorities. Of course‚ it’s not just a school or two that have been taken over. The city is transforming hotels and other public and private spaces. Crime already has spiked around the Floyd Bennett Field shelter in Brooklyn (the same shelter that sent migrants to James Madison High School in the storm). The New York Post highlighted the problem in a recent report: According to NYPD data‚ theft‚ robbery and petit larceny all increased in the 63rd Precinct‚ which includes the former federal airfield‚ between Nov. 27 and Jan. 7‚ the first several weeks of migrants being housed at the massive tent city. They said some migrants have taken to prostitution‚ while others try to scam motorists by claiming they were hit by their vehicles and trying to extort up to $500 from them to let it go. The city’s answer to the crime spikes around migrant centers is to create a curfew. Better than nothing‚ I suppose‚ but that’s hardly a solution to the larger problem. New York City already was dealing with escalating crime problems and a politicized‚ MIA district attorney‚ so I’d count on a lot of compounding crime and chaos in the years to come. When you have millions of people breaking our laws and coming into the country practically unfiltered‚ it’s hardly a surprise that an elevated number engage in criminal activity. New York is a perfect example of what you get when blue city governance comes into contact with President Joe Biden’s lawless border policies: barely contained social breakdown. New York leaders are out of space‚ out of money‚ and out of ideas. But there’s no chance the flow of illegal immigrants into the city is going to stop‚ not with its “sanctuary” status and Biden in the White House.  So‚ for now‚ chaos and disintegration will continue in the Big Apple. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post I Live in New York. Here’s How I See the City’s Escalating Illegal Immigration Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Pro-life advocates from across the country will descend upon the nation’s capital to once again memorialize the more than 65 million lives lost because of the legal-abortion regime ushered in by Roe v. Wade. Now‚ more than a year and a half after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe‚ states are publishing helpful reporting data showing how the Roe reversal has affected efforts to protect the unborn. So far‚ 32 states have reported 424‚242 legal abortions in 2022‚ an estimated decrease of 31‚951 abortions from 2021. This sample includes a wide variety of state laws protecting life from conception‚ when a heartbeat is detected or after the first trimester. On the flip side‚ other states passed new laws promoting abortion with taxpayer funding and creating other legal protections to make abortion even more accessible. Unfortunately‚ some pro-abortion states that actively recruit women from out of state to obtain abortions‚ such as California‚ New Mexico and New York have not yet reported 2022 totals. But others‚ such as Colorado‚ Illinois‚ Kansas and Washington that neighbor pro-life states have reported‚ providing good insight into the impact out-of-state travel has on abortion totals.  The 2022 data shows an 8% decrease in the abortion rate in the 32 states. The abortion rate‚ which calculates how many women of reproductive age are getting abortions‚ would indicate that fewer women chose abortion in those states even with the option to travel out of state to get an abortion. These preliminary findings track with a study from the Institute of Labor Economics that found states with pro-life laws saw an increase of 32‚000 births due to the impact of those laws. As expected‚ in every state that enforced a heartbeat or life-at-conception law‚ abortions went down. In every state that allowed abortion at 15 weeks or later‚ abortions increased‚ with Vermont—which allows abortions at any point in pregnancy—the only exception that saw abortion totals decrease. Texas saw the single largest decrease in abortions at 33‚572‚ with nine other states reporting a decrease of 1‚500 abortions or more. Despite Florida enforcing a 15-week limit since July 2022‚  abortions there increased by 2‚700. That’s likely due to Alabama‚ Georgia and other Southern states enforcing much more protective laws. The weakness of the 15-week-limit law is what prompted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign the Heartbeat Protection Act in 2023. Even though Kansas has a history of passing pro-life laws‚ it still allows abortions through 22 weeks and saw an increase of more than 4‚000 abortions‚ driven largely by Oklahoma and Texas residents traveling to Kansas. Kansas demonstrates the direct impact a constitutional right to abortion can have on a state‚ prohibiting it from passing strong laws to protect the unborn. Contrary to media narratives‚ the 2022 state reports also show how important pro-life laws are to protecting the health of both unborn children and their mothers. Pennsylvania‚ which allows abortion through 24 weeks‚ reported 469 abortion complications‚ an increase of 45% from 2021. The majority of those complications were fetal tissue remaining in the uterus after an incomplete abortion‚ which are most common with chemical abortions. Conversely‚ Arizona—which had a pro-life governor in 2022 seeking to enforce new pro-life laws after Roe fell—saw a significant decrease in the number of abortions due to maternal medical conditions. Arizona also reported only 8 abortion complications compared with the more than 400 reported in Pennsylvania. Despite the welcome success of pro-life laws in reducing abortions in certain states‚ many hurdles stand in the way of pro-life laws effectively saving innocent unborn lives and protecting women’s health. The primary obstacle is the lawlessness of the Biden administration and the support it receives from activist pro-abortion governors. The Biden administration is illegally performing abortions at VA facilities in pro-life states and flying service members around the country to get elective abortions. Pro-abortion states are also working overtime to publicly flout federal and state laws by mailing chemical abortion pills into pro-life states and providing legal cover for shady abortionists to do so. Thankfully‚ there are two important cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court that can address those issues. The first will determine whether the Food and Drug Administration is able to put politics above science and allow women to legally receive dangerous chemical abortion pills in the mail without ever seeing a physician for an ultrasound or health screening. The other involves a case in which the  Biden administration is attempting to use a decades-old law that simply requires hospitals to screen all patients presenting to an emergency room‚ to force pro-life states to perform unnecessary abortions. Fortunately‚ the law makes clear that both pregnant women and their unborn children are to be screened and thus cannot be used as a mandate on states to perform so called “life-saving” abortions. State-level abortion data proves that pro-life laws work‚ and the abortion industry is catching on. Now is the critical time to ensure that the promise of the Dobbs decision is fully realized‚ by enforcing existing federal laws that prohibit mail-order abortions. While 2022 was the year we celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade‚ 2023 saw several more states pass and begin enforcing new pro-life legislation‚ and now 2024 will be the year of promoting the rule of law and good health care for both women and their unborn children. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Since Dobbs Ruling‚ Pro-Life Laws Are Reducing Number of Abortions‚ Data Shows appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There’s a big-money influence operation going on behind the scenes at the Supreme Court—just not the one you’ve heard about. Motivated partisans keen to discredit the Supreme Court’s conservative justices pound the table and rail on about a “dark money” conspiracy that uses gifts and front groups to reshape the law to the benefit of big business and right-wing billionaires. As others have pointed out‚ this account always has been overly simplistic‚ but it certainly suits the narrative of those who wish to delegitimize the high court to advance their liberal agenda. Rarely mentioned‚ though‚ is the major influence that large law firms have on which cases the Supreme Court decides to hear‚ or any discussion about which side those firms support in the briefs they file before the high court. A recently published study from Professor Derek Muller of Notre Dame Law School finds that the 100 largest and highest-grossing law firms in the U.S. overwhelmingly support progressive causes via amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that they file with the court. The law firms are ranked by American Lawyer magazine and often are referred to in legal circles as Big Law or the AmLaw 100. The talented lawyers employed by these firms prepared these briefs at no cost (or‚ as lawyers say‚ on a pro bono basis)‚ effectively donating thousands upon thousands of nonbillable lawyer-hours (from lawyers who often charge well in excess of $1‚000 per hour) and thousands of dollars of additional firm resources to support these causes. One Big Law firm—Sidley Austin—crowed that its lawyers provided over 154‚000 hours of pro bono services in 2022 alone‚ working “closely with many civil rights advocacy organizations across the United States.” Many other firms also partner with liberal nonprofits‚ forming a veritable army of legal activists. And that’s in addition to the financial contributions made by lawyers at these firms to Democratic candidates and their affiliates‚ which swamp the contributions they make to Republican candidates and their affiliates. Although many law firms may be more “flexible” when it comes to the ideological leanings of paying clients‚ all of them can and do make conscious policy choices about which clients and causes they will represent on a pro bono basis. Many of the matters they choose are a far cry from the traditional pro bono projects of representing indigent individuals attempting to navigate the civil justice system; the law firms prefer to work on “impact” cases that advance “social justice” causes. And although the study’s findings are not exactly startling news to Supreme Court watchers‚ they help capture and define the extent of the influence that big‚ liberal law firms wield even before a conservative-leaning court. The leftward tilt of the AmLaw 100 has been well-established. Lawyers who served in senior positions in the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations struggled to find (or return to) jobs at Big Law‚ but lawyers who served in similar positions in the Barack Obama administration were welcomed with open arms and large bonuses. On two separate occasions‚ former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement‚ a highly respected advocate‚ was given the choice by AmLaw 100 law firms (Kirkland &; Ellis and King &; Spalding) to abandon a client that was advancing a conservative cause or to leave his firm. On both occasions‚ Clement stood on principle and declined to abandon his client (which came as no surprise to anybody who knows him). Robin Keller‚ a retired equity partner who was still servicing clients at Hogan Lovells‚ was unceremoniously ostracized by the law firm after she made comments supporting the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization during a “safe space” conference call for women at the firm‚ to which she had been invited. It has been reported that the same thing happened to another pro-life female attorney at another major law firm. Lawyers at AmLaw 100 firms have no problem doing pro bono work supporting same-sex couples‚ challenging voter integrity laws‚ or representing people on death row or who are Guantanamo Bay detainees. But if you are a young associate at Big Law and want to provide pro bono representation to a pro-life organization or a religious adherent who objects to the government’s trying to force him to violate a tenet of his faith? Not a chance! Given all this‚ it is not surprising that Muller’s study found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of AmLaw 100 pro bono amicus briefs filed with the high court supported the liberal position in a given case. That’s over twice the number of amicus briefs filed in support of the conservative position (31%)‚ with the rest supporting neither side. Moreover‚ the differential was considerably higher in ideologically fraught cases involving abortion‚ guns‚ or gay rights. In these “high salience” cases‚ which attracted the largest number of pro bono amicus briefs‚ fully 95% of those filed by Big Law supported the liberal position. Of the 50 AmLaw 100 firms that filed amicus briefs in these cases‚ 46 did so in support of the liberal position. What many don’t realize is that relatively few lawyers working at the elite law firms covered by Muller’s research dominate Supreme Court legal practice. These lawyers and their firms serve an important gatekeeping function‚ exerting a great deal of influence over which cases the high court will review. A 2020 article on the “elitification” of Supreme Court legal practice found that between 2013 and 2019‚ only nine lawyers argued over one-third of merits cases that the Supreme Court decided. And just 20 lawyers appeared in half of those cases. A small group of 44 private practitioners appeared in almost 70% of the cases argued before the Supreme Court during that time. Lawyers from only nine law firms argued almost half these cases‚ and lawyers from the top 26 law firms (plus three law school clinics) argued 83% of these cases. For understandable reasons‚ this small cadre of highly skilled‚ dedicated appellate practitioners from AmLaw 100 firms—many of whom clerked for one of the nine Supreme Court justices—have considerable credibility. This is because the justices prefer to hear cases that they know will be thoroughly briefed and well presented by the advocates involved. Although conservatives usually are able to find excellent Supreme Court advocates to represent them (often from among dedicated attorneys who work at public interest law firms)‚ the movement simply cannot match the resources‚ personnel‚ and expertise that these high-powered law firms can marshal. Liberals and the mainstream media seem fixated on petitions or amicus briefs filed by small conservative nonprofits‚ but they adopt a “move along‚ nothing to see here” attitude about the giant corporate law firms that dominate Supreme Court practice and are decidedly aligned with their agenda. This asymmetry in power is even more pronounced when one considers the fact that pro bono amicus briefs in the Supreme Court represent just a fraction of the free legal services provided by large firms. And‚ not surprisingly‚ these services‚ too‚ skew decidedly leftward. Major law firms are hiring “100 percent pro bono professionals” to handle so-called ESG (environmental‚ social‚ and governance) cases and racial justice cases‚ according to the Pro Bono Institute. Many firms have committed personnel and resources to assist immigrants who cross our southern border unlawfully. Hundreds of lawyers at Kirkland &; Ellis‚ Covington‚ Sidley Austin‚ WilmerHale[JM1] ‚ and other AmLaw 100 firms provide asylum-seekers and other illegal aliens crossing our southern border with pro bono representation. I could go on‚ but you get the point. None of this is to diminish or belittle the extraordinary pool of talented attorneys who work for groups that support conservative causes. It is merely to acknowledge what those attorneys would tell you themselves: They just wish they were half as powerful as their opponents make them out to be. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post The Outsize Influence of Big Law’s Liberal Tilt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The election process known as ranked choice voting isn’t compatible with one of the oldest state constitutions in America‚ Connecticut Attorney General William Tong‚ a Democrat‚ says.  Tong released an 11-page legal opinion Tuesday stating that the system of voting‚ which allows voters to rank their choices of candidates‚ violates at least two standing provisions of the Connecticut Constitution. The state’s attorney general said it was a “close call‚” however. “This is a close call. But I must conclude that legislation implementing RCV [ranked choice voting] in state general elections would not pass constitutional muster absent a constitutional amendment‚” Tong said in the opinion‚ sent to Connecticut House Speaker Matthew Ritter‚ also a Democrat. >;>;>; Related:  9 Things You Should Know About Ranked Choice Voting The attorney general’s opinion opens a new chapter for an issue that has become one of the largest battlegrounds of election reform‚ as public opinion largely has cemented on matters such as voter ID and mail-in voting.  Alaska and Maine are the only states among the 62 jurisdictions that have adopted ranked choice voting‚ according to the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. The largest city to adopt ranked choice voting is New York City‚ which did so for primary elections‚ while Kansas and Wyoming adopted RCV for presidential primaries.  Conversely‚ state legislatures in Florida‚ Tennessee‚ Idaho‚ South Dakota‚ and Montana have banned ranked choice voting‚ according to the coalition Stop RCV.  A Connecticut bill to adopt ranked choice voting for presidential primaries was cosponsored last year by a Republican and a Democrat and had the support of Gov. Ned Lamont‚ a Democrat‚ but it didn’t gain the traction to pass.  Supporters contend that ranked choice voting makes politics less polarizing and would more closely reflect the candidate supported by a majority of voters than a winner-take-all system would. RCV‚ also known as an instant runoff‚ would save taxpayer money for states that hold runoffs‚ advocates say.  Opponents counter that ranked choice voting undermines the principle of one person‚ one vote and also increases the likelihood that the first choice of a plurality of voters won’t be the winner.  The Connecticut Constitution approved in 1818 specifies that if a candidate for governor doesn’t get a majority of the vote‚ the state Legislature decides the winner‚ Tong’s opinion explains.  The state amended the Constitution in 1901 to scrap this majority requirement for a “plurality provision‚” meaning that whichever candidate got the most votes would be the winner.  “At times‚ elections decided by the Legislature generated controversy—and‚ culminating in the 1890 gubernatorial election‚ gridlock and threats of violence‚” the attorney general’s opinion says. “That debacle led to the 1901 adoption of Article XXX of the Amendments‚ which eliminated the majority requirement and instead permitted state officers to be elected by ‘the greatest number of votes.’”  Tong noted that states and other jurisdictions at the turn of the 20th century were debating voting systems akin to what today is called ranked choice voting‚ and that one state‚ Oregon‚ amended its constitution to allow it.  “And significantly‚ the framers of the 1901 amendment might well have known about RCV—which was then part of the public policy discourse—but‚ unlike the Oregon framers in 1908‚ declined to explicitly authorize it‚” Tong’s opinion says.  The Connecticut attorney general adds: “I must conclude that RCV would likely not be constitutional under Connecticut’s plurality provisions.”  Tong’s opinion next looks at “count and declare provisions” in the state Constitution addressed in subsequent court decisions‚ which require local election officials to tabulate and announce the winner of a contest “in open meeting.”  Under these provisions‚ the vote‚ “not the preferences used in reaching it—must be counted and declared by local officials in [an] open meeting‚”  the attorney general’s opinion says.  The Connecticut Constitution‚ and dictionary meanings at the time the 1901 amendment was adopted‚ defined a vote as a choice rather than a ranking of preferences.  In his opinion‚ Tong determines that “it would be difficult‚ if not impossible‚ for Connecticut’s local election officials to count and declare the ‘votes’ in an RCV system‚ at least for statewide or multi-district elections.” Using the word “elector” to refer to a voter‚ the attorney general writes: Again: in RCV‚ at least as widely practiced‚ an elector’s final ‘vote’ can be determined only after every ballot cast in that election is tabulated and each elector’s ranked preferences are cross-checked and eliminated based on other electors’ preferences. Each final vote turns on other voters’ selections. So in a multi-town district or a statewide race‚ each town’s election officials would struggle to count and declare votes—the final outcome of the re-tabulation process—in an open meeting. They could only count and declare preliminary preferences. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Connecticut’s Democrat AG Shuns Ranked Choice Voting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Bowman Sponsors a $14 Trillion Reparations Bill

Texas Bus Company Sues Chicago over Illegal Alien Drop-Offs