The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:08 pm
Maybe you're doing Trump math...

Let's eliminate the partisanship. Let's do what I did with Gary, and simply use algebraic placeholders.

X has more votes than Y.
X wins the election.
Why is that a "failure of democracy"?

This is how margin of error works in statistics:

You manufacture some part.

You have 10,000 parts in a box.

How many parts are defective?

You could examine every part but you don't want to do that.

You randomly pick 10 parts and examine them. Depending on how many defective parts you find, you can calculate how many of the 10,000 parts is defective with a margin of error like +/- 5%. You know the number of defective parts is within some range.

If you examine more parts, like maybe 100, then the margin of error will be smaller, maybe like +/- 3%.

If you examine all the parts, then your margin of error would be zero. You would know the number of defective parts exactly.


The same principle applies in surveys and polling. You don't get everyone's opinion. You get the opinion of some smaller random set of people. Then you can calculate the opinion of the entire population within a certain error range.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:19 pm
"I believe"? Do you have any evidence of that...things that are actually illegal, I mean? If he's withink his powers to do "special military operations," what makes this one more wrong than, say, the Bush operation in Iraq and the Obama and Biden activities in Afghanistan?

THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

Oh. So your theory is that there is no such thing as a just war, or a necessary military conflict? You're a 100% pacifist? Honest question.

Did I say that? I said all the ones you mentioned are wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:01 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 8:53 pm
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... ion-polls/

Margins of error are for surveys, not for vote counts.

Apparently, they're for both. https://ballotpedia.org/Election_result ... ed_ballots

That site doesn't say anything about margin of error.

This is really basic. In the 2024 Presidential Election...
Donald Trump secured 77,302,580 votes. This brought him 49.8% of the total.
Kamala Harris secured 75,017,613 votes. This brought her 48.3% of the vote........ 49.8% + 48.3% = 98.1% of the total vote.
Jill Stein secured 871,222 votes. This brought her 0.56% of the vote.................. 49.8% + 48.3% + 0.56% = 98.66% of the total vote.
Robert F Kennedy Jr secured 757,432 votes. This brought him 0.49% of the vote.... 49.8% + 48.3% + 0.56% + 0.49% = 99.15% of the total vote.

Doi you understand how this adds up yet or must I go through Claudia De la Cruz, Cornel West, Peter Sonski, Randall Terry and Shiva Ayyadurai's votes to show you the last .85% of the tally? Claudia got 168,324.

These are not estimates and are not reported by a selection of the voters, some of whom might not be telling the truth. There is no margin of error in this statistic because it is a direct tally of all the votes counted, rendering that concept inapplicable.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:08 pm
Maybe you're doing Trump math...

Let's eliminate the partisanship. Let's do what I did with Gary, and simply use algebraic placeholders.

X has more votes than Y.
X wins the election.
Why is that a "failure of democracy"?

That's a plurality if X does not get 50% or more of the total vote. And that means that X had the support of less than half of the voters.

You specifically stated that X would win by 50% of the vote or more.

Then you have the cases of 3 or more candidates where the split could be 40%,30%,30%. A candidate would win with 40% of the vote.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:08 pm
Maybe you're doing Trump math...

Let's eliminate the partisanship. Let's do what I did with Gary, and simply use algebraic placeholders.

X has more votes than Y.
X wins the election.
Why is that a "failure of democracy"?

That's a plurality if X does not get 50% or more of the total vote. And that means that X had the support of less than half of the voters.

And that's a failure of democracy, even with margins of error and independent candidates in play?

Then many US elections are not legit.

Statista reports:

Since 1824, there have been 19 U.S. presidential elections where the winner did not receive over 50% of the popular vote. While these winners often secured a plurality (the most votes), five instances involved winning the electoral college while losing the national popular vote.

So, given your claim that 50% is an absolute standard, what would you suggest is the "democratic" solution to such cases? A new election? Should the other chief party, which, in each case, got even FEWER votes, be allowed to prevent the winner, the one that got the MOST votes, from taking office?

And is all that a "failure of democracy"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:11 pm Per usual IC detests the UN

Well, the UN is pretty awful, you have to admit. And expensive for your country, too. It's a stupid organization, really...and today it's dominated by Fabian-types.

...and human rights...

Actually, I'm a huge advocate of human rights. I always have been. But being supportive of human rights means you have to make them durable. The only durable human rights are going to be those grounded in rationality, not those merely asserted gratuitously by one or another faction, whether the UN or America or whatever.

So what is the basis of your belief in human rights, Gary? Mine is that man was made by God, and in the image of God, and for His purposes. The buck stops there. Where does the buck stop for human rights in your view?

I thought, according to you, it was only atheists who had no moral sensibilities.

I've never said that, of course. And I think you know that, too. But I have pointed out that Atheism gives them no grounds for such, which is true. So what's your problem? If you have an Atheistic grounding for human rights, just provide it, and everybody will know I'm wrong.

Go ahead.

You're no Christian. At least I admit I'm not. Though, I'm more anti-war and pro-human rights than you are. You pass yourself off as a Christian. You're pathetic. What a joke.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:20 pm

THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

Oh. So your theory is that there is no such thing as a just war, or a necessary military conflict? You're a 100% pacifist? Honest question.

Did I say that? I said all the ones you mentioned are wrong.

Well, a ton of presidents, both Dems and Repubs, have instituted "military actions" they didn't call "wars," just like this one. I named some of the Dems who did, in fact. Are just some of these wrong, or all of them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:27 pm
Oh. So your theory is that there is no such thing as a just war, or a necessary military conflict? You're a 100% pacifist? Honest question.

Did I say that? I said all the ones you mentioned are wrong.

Well, a ton of presidents, both Dems and Repubs, have instituted "military actions" they didn't call "wars," just like this one. I named some of the Dems who did, in fact. Are just some of these wrong, or all of them?

Obama and Biden continued Bush's war already in progress. They didn't start a new war as both Bush and Trump recently did. Yet you have no problem with Bush or Trump and are more anti-Obama and Biden. You're a hypocrite.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:11 pm Per usual IC detests the UN

Well, the UN is pretty awful, you have to admit. And expensive for your country, too. It's a stupid organization, really...and today it's dominated by Fabian-types.

...and human rights...

Actually, I'm a huge advocate of human rights. I always have been. But being supportive of human rights means you have to make them durable. The only durable human rights are going to be those grounded in rationality, not those merely asserted gratuitously by one or another faction, whether the UN or America or whatever.

So what is the basis of your belief in human rights, Gary? Mine is that man was made by God, and in the image of God, and for His purposes. The buck stops there. Where does the buck stop for human rights in your view?

I thought, according to you, it was only atheists who had no moral sensibilities.

I've never said that, of course. And I think you know that, too. But I have pointed out that Atheism gives them no grounds for such, which is true. So what's your problem? If you have an Atheistic grounding for human rights, just provide it, and everybody will know I'm wrong.

Go ahead.

You're no Christian.

I'm always amused when somebody who tells me he hates God and hates Christians wants to tell me I'm bad for "not being" one.

You don't have any ground for Atheistic human rights. I already know that, because there isn't any. There never has been.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:05 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:26 pm
Well, the UN is pretty awful, you have to admit. And expensive for your country, too. It's a stupid organization, really...and today it's dominated by Fabian-types.

Actually, I'm a huge advocate of human rights. I always have been. But being supportive of human rights means you have to make them durable. The only durable human rights are going to be those grounded in rationality, not those merely asserted gratuitously by one or another faction, whether the UN or America or whatever.

So what is the basis of your belief in human rights, Gary? Mine is that man was made by God, and in the image of God, and for His purposes. The buck stops there. Where does the buck stop for human rights in your view?

I've never said that, of course. And I think you know that, too. But I have pointed out that Atheism gives them no grounds for such, which is true. So what's your problem? If you have an Atheistic grounding for human rights, just provide it, and everybody will know I'm wrong.

Go ahead.

You're no Christian.

I'm always amused when somebody who tells me he hates God and hates Christians wants to tell me I'm bad for "not being" one.

You don't have any ground for Atheistic human rights. I already know that, because there isn't any. There never has been.

And I'm always amused when Christian hypocrites pass themselves off as holier than thou. You're pathetic.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 9:47 pm
Did I say that? I said all the ones you mentioned are wrong.

Well, a ton of presidents, both Dems and Repubs, have instituted "military actions" they didn't call "wars," just like this one. I named some of the Dems who did, in fact. Are just some of these wrong, or all of them?

Obama and Biden continued Bush's war already in progress.

Oh. So Dems have no obligation to stop "military actions" and can continue to do them, so long as they can argue they were "in motion" already? So Trump wouldn't have an obligation to stop the Dems' war in Ukraine, because they started it? He could continue it, and you'd be happy with that?

I don't believe you. I don't think even you believe you.

And that's a failure of democracy, even with margins of error and independent candidates in play?

Then many US elections are not legit.

They are legitimate elections, but they don't represent the will of the majority of voters.

Other issues relating to the "failure of democracy":

The winner may not fulfill his/her campaign promises.

The winner may take actions which are not the will of the voters but were not discussed during the campaign.

Oh. So Dems have no obligation to stop "military actions" and can continue to do them, so long as they can argue they were "in motion" already?

The AUMFs authorize the president to use force. They don't specify which president. If the president changes, the AUMFs are still in effect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:07 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 10:02 pm
Well, a ton of presidents, both Dems and Repubs, have instituted "military actions" they didn't call "wars," just like this one. I named some of the Dems who did, in fact. Are just some of these wrong, or all of them?

Obama and Biden continued Bush's war already in progress.

Oh. So Dems have no obligation to stop "military actions" and can continue to do them, so long as they can argue they were "in motion" already? So Trump wouldn't have an obligation to stop the Dems' war in Ukraine, because they started it? He could continue it, and you'd be happy with that?

I don't believe you. I don't think even you believe you.

Obama stopped the Iraq war and Biden stopped the Afghanistan war. Once one of your presidential favorites gets involved in a military quagmire it's not always easy getting out. But you hate the ones who get us out of them, more than any other. You clearly pick your favorites along party lines not on deeds. How pathetic is that.