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.
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.
And finally, after exhausting any logical defense, you arrive at ad hominem attacks! Thanks for playing have a good day!
it is not ad hominem to insist that someone who refuses basic tenets of reasoning is not dealing with 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.