Reply #130: I'm sorry but you just don't make any sense at all [View All]

[Motown_Johnny]

For example:


"The fallacy is assuming that only the votes that actually pushed one over the margin are the ones that mattered. In some sense, saying that "spoiler candidate x" is to blame for a loss is akin to saying that, in a country with 100 billion people, where a candidate lost an election because he received 50 billion votes minus one, the nail on the street that blew the tires of one couple on their way to the ballots was the determining factor. As if these two people that didn't show up were the only ones in the country and the nail was the only force at play."



Yes, those two people not voting would be the determining factor (presuming they were both going to vote for the one who lost by 1 vote, your parable ignores this detail).

If you went shopping and found two identical items, one of which cost 1% more, you would purchase the less expensive item and that 1% would be the determining factor.

That is how elections work. The difference in the number of votes between the candidates determines the winner.

You can blame anything and anyone you want, that doesn't make you right. It is the people who voted for Nader (not Nader himself) who threw the election to Bush.