The argument is quite simple while it carries an assumption.
If you have 3 options, and depending on how you want to frame it, one is outlandish or the other 2 are simplify more similar. You have following issue.
In this example A and B are similar and C is the outlandish one.
Let’s say: A has 15 votes, B has 3 and C has 17 votes.
Then C wins while it would be reasonable to assume that B voters would have chosen A over C, as A is more similar to B than C. So now the A and B voters get together and talk about the situation. A voters argue that A had historically far better results than B and B voters should have expected A to get more votes than B, and as B voters prefer A over C, B voters risk that C wins as A is missing the votes from B voters. So while not voting for C, B voters voted in a way that is unlikely to result in B winning, while hurting A winning chances as they didn’t vote for A, which results in C requiring less votes to win and could help C in winning
So in other words, if not C, is a shared interest of A and B, voting B is expected to reduce the amount of required votes for C.
If C needs 18 votes and a “not C” voter votes B, A cann’t reach 18 anymore, ofc B can reach 18 but historically B never got close, so effectively C requires 1 less additional vote to win, just like when someone would have voted c.
Math works with assumptions all the time. Math itself is based on assumptions. Logic is based on assumptions.
And I have explained that going from 10/20 to 11/20 or 10/19 is functionally the same as in both cases, the person only needs 9 more. If you don’t understand that, I can’t help you
In percentage/fractions, yes. As you asked about absolute numbers, it is a difference of 9 missing votes for both. I am sorry that you don’t understand that. No one taught you that, I guess.
But let’s say that your ridiculous goal post move is a fair critic, then let’s talk about details in the American election system. It is not a popular vote, as the electoral college decides who will be the president and the vote of the elector in the electoral college doesn’t have to follow the popular vote held in the state, while some states require them to. How many electors each state has, is based on a system that is a bit too complicated to explain here but you can Google Huntington hill method. But the result of that system is that 1 elector in Wyoming is 193.000 votes but over 700.000 in Texas and California. Which means that a single Wyoming vote is 3 times as valuable as a Texas vote. So in other words, the whole percentage thing is more complicated than just a popular vote. But you didn’t actually want to have a conversation about how valuable a vote is (assuming that the elector doesn’t ignore your popular vote which they might can) otherwise you would have pointed that out in my response.
And you would have known all of this, if you would actually care about the question and the elections. Like I am not even American, but even I know that little.
Edit: why are you dming me? You asked a public question. Why move into private one now?
Also in case, someone doesn’t know how he doesn’t understand how voting work and how the whole .05, .02 is moving the goal post, basically if people always case whole votes, so in a normal popular vote, if you need 9 votes, you need 9 votes. There is no practical difference between 0.5 and 0.02 in this case. People cast whole votes. Now in my response, I make clear that Wyoming are more valuable but that is only the case if you treat the system as if it was a popular vote as commonly done, both in these comments and the general public discussion. If you look on the election on a state level which is a totally reasonable thing to do as generally speaking, the statement that he asked you to prove, could have been state between to people from the same state. If you do so, then my point about the value of the vote is irrelevant but then we can talk about votes are a static value and then a vote is always a whole vote and my point about people cast whole votes apply, then we have to realize that if we save he needs 20 votes to win, that technically he doesn’t need 20 votes to win but only 19.0000000000001 votes to win but as people cast whole votes, you “can’t” get e.g. 19.32 votes. So we say 20. By reducing the required votes to win, we morph the value of a singular vote. Because A and B still needs the 20 votes to win but C only needs 19. So 1/20 is .05 but 1/19 is .052… So now we can take the .052 can create a fraction for it, that would be 1.04/20. Oh look, trump can win with 19.04 now. The difference between 0.05 and .052 is irrelevant for this situation.
If you think OP can understand a proof…
The insane fact that you genuinely thought his math worked out correctly.
Although, the US is generically the worst “first” world country in maths so I guess this is to be expected…
The argument is quite simple while it carries an assumption.
If you have 3 options, and depending on how you want to frame it, one is outlandish or the other 2 are simplify more similar. You have following issue.
In this example A and B are similar and C is the outlandish one.
Let’s say: A has 15 votes, B has 3 and C has 17 votes.
Then C wins while it would be reasonable to assume that B voters would have chosen A over C, as A is more similar to B than C. So now the A and B voters get together and talk about the situation. A voters argue that A had historically far better results than B and B voters should have expected A to get more votes than B, and as B voters prefer A over C, B voters risk that C wins as A is missing the votes from B voters. So while not voting for C, B voters voted in a way that is unlikely to result in B winning, while hurting A winning chances as they didn’t vote for A, which results in C requiring less votes to win and could help C in winning
So in other words, if not C, is a shared interest of A and B, voting B is expected to reduce the amount of required votes for C.
If C needs 18 votes and a “not C” voter votes B, A cann’t reach 18 anymore, ofc B can reach 18 but historically B never got close, so effectively C requires 1 less additional vote to win, just like when someone would have voted c.
You seem to not understand that assumptions are not how math proofs work mate.
Again, where is his total +1 exactly?
Math works with assumptions all the time. Math itself is based on assumptions. Logic is based on assumptions.
And I have explained that going from 10/20 to 11/20 or 10/19 is functionally the same as in both cases, the person only needs 9 more. If you don’t understand that, I can’t help you
11/20 = .55
10/19 = .52
In percentage/fractions, yes. As you asked about absolute numbers, it is a difference of 9 missing votes for both. I am sorry that you don’t understand that. No one taught you that, I guess.
But let’s say that your ridiculous goal post move is a fair critic, then let’s talk about details in the American election system. It is not a popular vote, as the electoral college decides who will be the president and the vote of the elector in the electoral college doesn’t have to follow the popular vote held in the state, while some states require them to. How many electors each state has, is based on a system that is a bit too complicated to explain here but you can Google Huntington hill method. But the result of that system is that 1 elector in Wyoming is 193.000 votes but over 700.000 in Texas and California. Which means that a single Wyoming vote is 3 times as valuable as a Texas vote. So in other words, the whole percentage thing is more complicated than just a popular vote. But you didn’t actually want to have a conversation about how valuable a vote is (assuming that the elector doesn’t ignore your popular vote which they might can) otherwise you would have pointed that out in my response.
And you would have known all of this, if you would actually care about the question and the elections. Like I am not even American, but even I know that little.
Edit: why are you dming me? You asked a public question. Why move into private one now?
Also in case, someone doesn’t know how he doesn’t understand how voting work and how the whole .05, .02 is moving the goal post, basically if people always case whole votes, so in a normal popular vote, if you need 9 votes, you need 9 votes. There is no practical difference between 0.5 and 0.02 in this case. People cast whole votes. Now in my response, I make clear that Wyoming are more valuable but that is only the case if you treat the system as if it was a popular vote as commonly done, both in these comments and the general public discussion. If you look on the election on a state level which is a totally reasonable thing to do as generally speaking, the statement that he asked you to prove, could have been state between to people from the same state. If you do so, then my point about the value of the vote is irrelevant but then we can talk about votes are a static value and then a vote is always a whole vote and my point about people cast whole votes apply, then we have to realize that if we save he needs 20 votes to win, that technically he doesn’t need 20 votes to win but only 19.0000000000001 votes to win but as people cast whole votes, you “can’t” get e.g. 19.32 votes. So we say 20. By reducing the required votes to win, we morph the value of a singular vote. Because A and B still needs the 20 votes to win but C only needs 19. So 1/20 is .05 but 1/19 is .052… So now we can take the .052 can create a fraction for it, that would be 1.04/20. Oh look, trump can win with 19.04 now. The difference between 0.05 and .052 is irrelevant for this situation.
11-20 = -9 10-19 = -9 -9 = -9
Fixed that for you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom