Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fightinJAG

The rules of the presidential election allow candidates other than the two “major party” candidates to win. Show me what in the rules of the Super Bowl allow something other than the two teams involved to win.

Show me, while you’re at it, how the rules support taking points away from one of the two teams involved by supporting one of the teams who isn’t.


246 posted on 08/10/2008 9:36:34 AM PDT by pupdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies ]


To: pupdog
Sure, the rules may "allow" a candidate other than the two major party candidates to win, but show me ANY evidence that that is going to happen.

Not one of the more conservative candidates even got out of the bottom 2% overall in the primaries. Hmm. Seen ANY unity or consensus around another candidate since?

So you can believe all you want that a non-major party candidate "can" win, but the reality is that that is not going to happen. Therefore, it seems to me that is not a credible basis on which to decide how to vote.

Therefore, supporting the Ravens to win a game in which they are not even playing is a good illustration of what it's like to think someone other than the Republican nominee or the Rat nominee is going to be our next president.

As for your other question, of course the analogy is not exact because in the general election, unlike the Super Bowl, the result is determined by the votes of the electorate, not by play on the field.

That said, the point of the analogy, obviously, was that there are two teams playing on Election Day and one of them WILL win. Therefore, it's a little looney to proceed as if someone else WILL win.

If you want an analogy on how "the rules support taking points away from one of the two teams involved by supporting one of the teams that isn't," naturally we have to go with an analogy where (unlike the Super Bowl) the final result is determined by voting between two finalists, who became finalists after a sort of "primary" process.

An analogy for that is American Idol, for example.

The result (the election of the American Idol) is determined by how people vote, with a series of "races" that eliminate all but two candidates.

At the finale, anyone who cares who the next American Idol is---by that I mean, cares enough about the result to do what is available to him to do to influence the outcome of the finale (election)---must vote.

A person can influence the outcome of the finale (election) by voting for the candidate he likes best or by voting against the candidate he dislikes more.

A person cannot influence the outcome of the finale (election) by voting for someone who was eliminated from the contest weeks previously.

If a person really, really doesn't want "x" to become the American Idol, he can sit around and support someone who was eliminated from the show in previous rounds. Which does exactly NOTHING to influence the outcome of the finale (election). Or he can vote against "x" by voting for "y," thus, in effect, taking a vote away from "x" and, thereby, doing what he can do to stop "x" from winning.

247 posted on 08/10/2008 10:02:51 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Rush was right when he said: "You NEVER win by losing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson