this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
345 points (80.4% liked)

Political Memes

5425 readers
2049 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

only votes for trump help trump.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That is factually untrue in the plurality voting system we have.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

asserting it doesn't make it so.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's true. Asserting doesn't make it so, its actual definition makes it so:

"In single-winner plurality voting (first-past-the-post), each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner of the election is the candidate who represents a plurality of voters or, in other words, received more votes than any other candidate. In an election for a single seat, such as for president in a presidential system, voters may vote for one candidate from a list of the candidates who are competing, and the winner is whichever candidate receives the highest number of votes. " source

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

this is just storytelling. it's not a natural law.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

this is just storytelling.

Now you're denying what the laws regarding the voting system is the USA?

it’s not a natural law.

Its state law in 48 out of the 50 states.

"48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 54 of California’s electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent." source

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the existence of a winner-take-all system does not entail that a non-vote or even a vote for some candidate besides trump or biden helps trump. only a vote for trump helps trump.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You're moving the goalposts. What was being discussed is if a vote would have gone to Biden, but becomes a non-vote, then that absolutely helps Trump under plurality voting.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Check their comment history, I'm not convinced they're even a real person.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I wasn't sure either. I was curious how far the script would go. I think I finally go to the end of it with its ad hominem attacks finally arriving.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

it's unprovable what might happen if a vote, known to have been cast one way, were cast some other way. this is known as a "counterfactual" and they are, tautologically, unprovable.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

it’s unprovable what might happen if a vote, known to have been cast one way, were cast some other way.

Oh really?

Scenario 1: Baseline

  • candidate A receives 10 votes
  • candidate B receives 9 votes
  • Outcome: Candidate A wins under plurality

Scenario 2: Two voters for Candidate A are convinced not to vote (non-vote) or vote for a candidate other than A or B

  • candidate A receives 8 votes
  • candidate B receives 9 votes
  • Outcome: Candidate B wins under plurality

Proof enough?

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago

under what circumstances can you claim that two voters would vote differently, but nothing else would change? given that the circumstances changed enough for them to make a different decision, we must conclude that we don't know enough about the fictional alternate reality to guess at the outcome.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

no, and the quixotic attempt at proving a counterfactual indicates to me that you are detached from reality.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

indicates to me that you are detached from reality.

And finally, after exhausting any logical defense, you arrive at ad hominem attacks! Thanks for playing have a good day!

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago

it is not ad hominem to insist that someone who refuses basic tenets of reasoning is not dealing with reality.