Legal implications usually come after the events. Seems like a waste of time to ask everyone this questions when they already stated support, no need to gatekeep. Action over words.

He literally says "it's a legal term." Since he is not a lawyer, and he clearly is against what Israel is doing, I would more assume he is merely covering his ass on a legal basis.

Yup, agreed.

We're making progress in the US. IRV is slowly gaining ground at the grass roots, which I believe is a wise strategy; my concern is that it'll take too long. With proportional represention and balanced voting, and eliminating the electoral college, many of the issues we have will be mitigated. IRV isn't the best, but it's a huge step towards getting out of the cycle of voting for the lesser evil, the need to appeal to the base, and the inability to elect anyone who doesn't toe the party line. We still need to address the issues introduced by Citizens United, and the outsized influence in politics of special interests like AIPAC, which I suspect is behind much of the pussyfooting around the genocide; RCV won't solve that. RCV won't solve congresspersons doing inside trading.

But even if we fix some of the processes, I'm still concerned about the fact that enough people voted for a convicted, unrepentant felon and traitor that it was possible to believably fudge the election enough for him to win (if you believe some of the questions about 2024). It's conceivable that with IRC someone more leftist than Harris could have won, but I doubt it. The scales are too unbalanced; the votes in the center of the country count more than the votes on the coasts, and there's too much opportunity for voting shenanigans that go entirely unchallenged by the left/progressives/liberals.

I agree that we have important disagreements, but I also think that as long as the left is divided, they stand no chance of winning, which means the greater evil always wins.