Revenant said...
1. Romney is a bad choice for President.
2. Gingrich isn't Romney.
3. Therefore, Gingrich isn't a bad choice for President.
For the record, the above is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". The problem is that a lot of people who really ought to know better seem to think it is a valid argument.
I recast it back in time:
1. McCain was a bad choice for President.
2. Obama wasn't McCain.
3. Therefore, Obama wasn't a bad choice for President.
For the record, the above is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". The problem is that a lot of people who really ought to know better seem to think it is a valid argument.
_________________
My point goes back to a one I made earlier about negative voting, here
Personally, I think it's unfair to force the voters to be the ones to effectively make coalitions. A two-party/presidential system's stability may be advantageous at the national level, but at more local levels, it's just way too restrictive. It also leads to more contentious and fractious political arguments, but that may be the preference among some.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be more illustrative explanations here and here; unfortunately pictures of fruit and candy have been replaced by drier examples.
Thanks for the thoughts and links, Ritmo.
ReplyDelete