[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Fair enough, but, I do think it can be said that most people thought he was the best they had to choose from.

So, two things.

1. You're taking back both "There's no denying that he's a great leader" and "Most people disagree with you." Fair enough indeed. I agree that you were wrong about both of these claims. That was my point.

2. No, it can't be said that "most people thought he was the best they had to choose from", for utterly obvious arithmetical reasons that I just fucking explained to you.

5 party state? Get Real. Nobody who votes for the Green party actually thinks in their head that they are casting a vote for Prime Minister. The fact you've mentioned such an irrelevant unelectable party implies that you are probably a staunch supporter of them.

Please attempt not to be a complete fucking idiot. Never mind your bizarre attempt to mindread both Green voters and me: the point is, Green voters clearly count as people. So your repeated claims about what "most people" thought clearly deal with those voters. So if they voted, but they didn't vote for Harper, it follows that they did not think that "he was the best they had to choose from". You don't get to pretend they don't count.

The percentage of people who voted for Harper's party was 37.6%. The percentage of people who did not vote for Harper's party was, perforce, 62.4%. Do you need still further help figuring out the status of your "most people" claim, or will you just continue to repeat it, stupidity notwithstanding?

Which affected all leaders and parties equally. How you can construe that as an advantage to Harper is ridiculous.

I'm going to slow down here just to ask whether you are a voting-age adult. I don't want to club a baby seal. If you're 14 years old, please do let me know, maybe by a PM. If you're an adult, though, you have to stop reading for a full 60 seconds and slap yourself at least 10 times.

Your claim was about what "most people" think. You cited Harper's party's minority election win as evidence for what "most people" think. But the fewer people who voted, the worse the evidence of the election is for what "most people" think. (It's crappy evidence in any case, given the confounds between reasons for voting in a parliamentary system and one's evaluation of party leaders. My favorite leader is probably Gilles Duceppe; but I'd never vote for the guy.)

Actually, it means you are upset that your little Green party couldn't win a single seat out of 308 ridings where they stood candidates.

Awesome. Best confusion of knowledge for ideology since Adora decided I must be a fundie because I knew more about biblical history than she does.

Perhaps, and you'd be no exception.

That's true enough. I'm probably full of shit about lots of things. But not about this very simple evidential and arithmetical matter.