4 ms·
I think "begging the question" describes your answer, in the classical sense of "assuming what you need to prove." You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-c
by AlbertCory 2y ago
I think "begging the question" describes your answer, in the classical sense of "assuming what you need to prove."
You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. But that needs to be proven by you, not assumed.
In a pre-RCV system, the parties would choose their candidates, however they do it, and then the general election would pit one candidate of each party against each other, plus whatever other parties qualify for the ballot. The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated. It did make things hard for third parties, but so it goes. Prove that that's a bad thing.
- bb88 2y ago> The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated. RCV will be on the ballot this fall in Ruby Red Idaho. Let's see what happens. > You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. Easy. Both Trump's and Biden's approval numbers are both in the toilet. Yet they both easily won their primaries.
- AlbertCory 2y agoIf that's your idea of "proof" I think we're done here.
- bb88 2y agoSo you'll take your arguments and go home, and not even try to convince me otherwise and potentially win me over with your candor and intellect and personality? That seems like the problem with politics as a whole these days.
- AlbertCory 2y agoNo, citing one example of the current system as "proof" that the whole system must be thrown out is the problem with "politics as a whole." Also: thinking that a few paragraphs on Hacker News constitutes sufficient wisdom is another problem with "politics as a whole." It is not going to convince you no matter what I or anyone else says. Do some research. That probably means reading some books, hate to warn you.