I think I'm missing a piece here, if they were to deploy major questions as a way of limiting this executive action, doesn't that make it *easier* to use it in other later cases, by making it seem like more of a neutrally applied principle?

If Brooke makes the Infinite Jest shirt, I would absolutely buy one.

(yes, yes) is I think where "this is within the probability distribution" gets you.

I think (no, no) is the only ethically correct option. You may be correct that party leadership is largely or entirely (no, yes), but that doesn't change what the right thing to do here is.

You can break into four camps, label based on whether voting irregularities are acceptable when they harm Frey or the Left.

(yes Frey, no the Left) and (no Frey, yes the Left) are both "friends everything, enemies the law" positions, just with different friends.

Is it? It seems like you're arguing that because the DFL party in your head would not behave justly in a hypothetical you built, they should not behave justly here either.

Yeah I guess if you want to embrace that approach, you can? But it seems like a truly terrible way to run things, I'd rather have a system that follows generally fair rules even if that sometimes produces outcomes I don't like

But you're not offering an example of that ability being abused here. You have an election that everybody admits was irregular being overturned, and others, with unfavorable results for the other side, not being overturned, because nobody claims that they were irregular in the same way.

there's a shell game here between "convention rules allowed this endorsement so you shouldn't complain", "party rules allow this rescinding, but they shouldnt have done it" that seems to be hiding a real results-oriented approach to the core question "should votes be counted accurately"

So your position on voting irregularities is that they are bad, but it is wrong to correct them if we can imagine a hypothetical where they would not be corrected?

I don't like Frey, I intend to vote for Fateh still, but it's ridiculous to act like "for some reason people are only concerned about the vote where a bunch of the votes weren't counted 🤔" is some sort of ratfuckery smoking gun

if the opposite had happened, and the vote had been fucked up in a way that produced a Frey endorsement, I don't think you'd be at "we can't fix that, there can't be takebacksies that only go in one direction".

It seems closer to "heads I win, tails you win, if the coin spontaneously bursts into flames and bounces around the room before coming up heads or tails, something is wrong with that coin"

if all you're saying is "this happened, therefore it is possible for this to happen, and therefore it's fine that this happened", fair enough, I guess? But that'd mean that nothing that actually happens can be unacceptable, which I don't think anybody really believes.

but "doggerel" was chosen for the field,
and in that field the meter should be clean.
to use a three-beat word to cover four
an error even amateurs detest

if this were human work, one might suggest
avoiding hubris, not to self-describe
as "tight" or "neat" in rhythm, or to cry
"iambic grace" so soon post-fucking-up

I do not counter-claim to have it beat,
I recognize pentameter is not
a guarantee of wisdom, or of wit,
or any other quality of "poem"

the generated poem's rhythmic pulse
ungainly, halting, full of stops and starts
at times a chasm opens, missing beats
unsettling, like smiles with absent teeth

"a new independent work is really just a new interconnected universe with only one work in it so far" is... technically true I guess? But the whole point here is that that's an incredibly flat and depressing way to think about art, and it's bad that the media landscape pushes us to think that way.