TLDR: The Projection Racket (Part 2)

This is a short-form summary of our long-form note The Projection Racket (Part 2), located here. Whi
Join the Pack: You have reached the maximum number of free, long-form articles for the month. Please click to join.

Paid Members can log in here.

To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.

Comments

  1. Given articles like the following:

    which are extremely alarmist (although in our current day and age, its difficult to tell what alarmism is going to end up reflecting reality and what alarmism is being used to sell papers), it would seem like gerrymandering, elections procedures, representation and voting is once again a focus.

    Most of these issues can be resolved through adopting the CAA with the most alarming (state legislatures ignoring the popular vote to send their own electors) being address through Congressionally passed laws.

    Article I | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
    Section 4 of the Article 1 of the US constitution seems to be at play in the case and relates to “Independent State Legislature Doctrine,” the legal doctrine that seems to quickly be the new litmus test for judicial and election contesting conservatives.
    The CAA obviously address gerrymandering (which would be much more difficult to implement with smaller districts with less people) but in creating a larger house, the ability to pass legislation that would corral and address national elections (the overlooked aspect of article 1, section 4) should be greater (depending on the makeup of the senate).
    Either way it would appear that the outcome of this case (Moore v Harper) seems to be remaking the case for the adoption of the CAA.

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum

Participants

The Latest From Epsilon Theory

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.