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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
asserting it doesn’t make it so.
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
this is just storytelling. it’s not a natural law.
Now you’re denying what the laws regarding the voting system is the USA?
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
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.
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.
Check their comment history, I’m not convinced they’re even a real person.
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.
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.
Oh really?
Scenario 1: Baseline
Scenario 2: Two voters for Candidate A are convinced not to vote (non-vote) or vote for a candidate other than A or B
Proof enough?
no, and the quixotic attempt at proving a counterfactual indicates to me that you are detached from reality.
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.