Read for meaning, Eagle. I have posted enough that if you do so, you’ll know clearly where I am coming from.
You’re not an idiot, far from it. I know that for a fact; I’ve had pleasant and stimulating discussions with you here, although it’s been a while. As I recall, you’re not only thoughtful, but you’ve also been around the block a time or two. And I have learned from you, and I appreciate that.
If memory serves, you’re a farmer or rancher by trade — correct?
Please read — at your leisure — the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
If you’re still interested in exploring this rathole after that, by all means let me know, and we’ll do so. If I’m correct in my guesses, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by joining the RDS brigade.
FRegards
This has nothing to do with RDS, it has to do with the idea that simply not voting for someone (candidate A) is the same as casting a vote for candidate B.
That is simply false, as I demonstrated in my first post to you.
Not voting for candidate A is just that, he gets zero votes. So does candidate B.
To be redundant; If the guy behind me, in my example, goes into the booth and doesn’t vote for candidate A, candidate B doesn’t automatically get a vote in his column.
I further demonstrated the false emotional argument you presented by saying that my imaginary voter later did, in fact, cast a vote for candidate B.
When he leaves the booth, candidate Bs’ count goes up by 1 vote, not 2, and candidate As’ count remains unchanged.
Naturally, if that happens enough, the election will go in Bs’ favor, but not because the voters all voted for B, but rather because A did not get enough votes.