ProfessorScience

The winner of the popular vote within the state wins the state's electoral votes. And Florida has a sizeable number of electrical votes.

"Don't elect the other guy" campaigning is strongly incentivized by first past the post voting, unfortunately. Not that that's the sole cause, but... it's certainly not helping.

Doesn't take a "church boy" to not assault someone, dipshit.

I mean, going from this example it seems like everyone should be afraid of good guys with guns.

I had a cherry chutney hamburger at a restaurant somewhere in Missouri. I ordered it because I thought it was a weird combo. IT WAS DELICIOUS.

Because he did crimes? Voters don't decide whether people go to prison for crimes (unless they are on the jury, I suppose).

Maybe. But can it be configured to power the ship? If so why wasn't it?

S'pose that's fair. It does seem odd that the report would say the generator was "not configured" to power the ship, rather than not capable of it.

The emergency generator was not configured to power the ship, the report said.

So was it just there for decoration or...

Not a fan of the bit about not voting for Biden. Not that Biden shouldn't be doing better for Palestine, but not voting or voting for Trump are stupid options. I thought that was a distraction from an otherwise strong message.

To reply to myself again as I keep going down this rabbit hole, the opinion in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995) includes

Thus, the amendment as ratified by the citizenry only limits the governor's veto of letters and keeps intact the Wisconsin Senate conclusion that the governor has the authority to "reduce or eliminate numbers and amounts of appropriations" and exercise a "partial veto resulting in a reduction in an appropriation."

A "reduction in appropriation" is clearly not what happened here, but the distinction between letters and numbers is apparently, at least in the opinion for this case, intentional.

I was curious, so I looked up the amended wording, which is

(b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.

(c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.

I guess I don't know how strictly laws are usually interpreted with respect to the distinction between letters in words vs digits in numbers, but I think I would expect the court to rule against Evers here; striking digits seems to be clearly against the spirit of the amendment. On the flip side, though, the partial veto has enough of an established history of gamesmanship that I would also buy the argument that an amendment intended to ban striking digits should be expected to spell that out.