>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: IRV unconsitutiona;?
>> Anthony said that equal protection under >> the law means that eveyone's favorite >> candidate must win, or that it could be >> so interpreted. Pehaps by Anthony. Perhaps Mike is not familiar with the literary device of parody, or the corresponding logical method of reductio ad absurdam (it's one of those nefarious mathematical things). >> Perhaps Anthony hasn't heard that that >> equal protection clause has been applied >> to voting rights. Perhaps Mike has forgotten a previous suggestion that Approval is unconstitutional because it does not ensure that everyone gets the same number of votes, and therefore violates "one man one vote", or some such. The mistake here is the same as the mistake then, of failing to see that in this context, a 'vote' refers to a ballot. Political discourse does not use words as precisely as mathematics. This makes it possible to assume more precision than is actually present in the usage, and get erroneous results. But in fact, "one man one vote" means "one man one ballot", and "every vote must be counted" means "every ballot must be counted". To assume more precision than that gives the appearance of a logical conclusion, but the inference is illusory. >> Saying that everyone's favorite candidate >> must win isn't like saying that everyone's >> voted preferences must be counted. For >> one thing, of course, it would be impossible >> for everyone's favorite candidate to win in >> any meaningful sense. The important thing about the two examples is that both are fallacious -- mine intentionally, as an example, Mike's apparently not. >> Californians have just passed a state >> constitutional amendment requiring that >> everyone's vote must be counted, suggesting >> that not only is that possible, but it's also >> considered reasonablle. There's a common belief that reality can be manipulated by manipulating the corresponding ideas and, very importantly, the words that represent those ideas. Thus, if we can come up with some bizarre interpretation of the notion of counting a vote, then we have somehow changed the reality. Fortunately, the courts rarely fall for it. Unlike the rest of us, who can pretend, the courts must give undiluted precedence to reality. If Mike were to take such an argument to court, he would end up sitting next to the guy who is arguing that Texas is still and independent republic.
