# "Gore would have beat Bush if the popular vote had been used" - A fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2016, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612 "2016-03-01T08:58:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/41 "2016-03-07T15:35:46Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > This is exactly correct. The 2000 election was just the example that was in my mind since the meme was floating around Facebook. > > Since golf was mentioned upthread, we could also use that as a analogy. > > Golfers know that there are at least 2 distinct aspects to playing golf, the short game and the long game. Well, if we were going to invoke golf, I’d suggest the relevant comparison would be stroke play (popular vote) vs match play (electoral college). ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/42 "2016-03-07T16:19:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if we were going to invoke golf, I’d suggest the relevant comparison would be stroke play (popular vote) vs match play (electoral college). If I had had my coffee, I probably would have thought of that. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/43 "2016-03-07T18:40:33Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I think the fallacy is the strawman, but it is being made by the person asserting that the claim is a fallacy. > > So, the claim “He uses this to determine that under a different set of rules, he would have won.” is entirely correct within a hypothetical universe identical to our own except that the rules regarding victory were changed after the fact. I suspect that if you were to ask the speaker that would have been the scenario that he was referring to. > > The second person is then making a logical fallacy in attacking a strawman of a hypothetical universe where the conditions of victory were edited before the contest and agreed to by both parties, which the quoted speaker never specified as being what he was referring to. Which is another way of saying the person proposing the counterfactual has to do an adequate job explaining what he’s really changing and what’s staying the same and when the change(s) take effect \*before \*anyone can usefully comment. Or at least the other debaters need to extract the rest of those details before opining on the revised scenario. A lot of so-called debates are simply folks talking past each other with significantly different understandings of what they think they’re talking about. Damn near nothing useful comes out of those conversations. But they do create a lot of smoke & noise. Speaking just for myself, I find the idea that the golfers scoring system would change after the game ended to be utterly implausible. Nobody would ever think that’s what the proposed counterfactual meant. Of course it means only that had we changed the rules beforehand then the winner would be different. You’re correct that that is the precise reading of the words said. But IMO hat’s a ridiculously tortured interpretation in the real world of conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/44 "2016-03-07T18:47:01Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Which is another way of saying the person proposing the counterfactual has to do an adequate job explaining what he’s really changing and what’s staying the same and when the change(s) take effect \*before \*anyone can usefully comment. Or at least the other debaters need to extract the rest of those details before opining on the revised scenario. > > A lot of so-called debates are simply folks talking past each other with significantly different understandings of what they think they’re talking about. Damn near nothing useful comes out of those conversations. But they do create a lot of smoke & noise. > > Speaking just for myself, I find the idea that the golfers scoring system would change after the game ended to be utterly implausible. Nobody would ever think that’s what the proposed counterfactual meant. Of course it means only that had we changed the rules beforehand then the winner would be different. > > You’re correct that that is the precise reading of the words said. But IMO hat’s a ridiculously tortured interpretation in the real world of conversation. But the OP has confirmed that this is, indeed, exactly what he meant. You seem to be saying that you are to be forgiven for ignoring the precise reading of his words, because everyone knows what he meant. Somehow, though, others who read the same words were able to respond to the precise meaning of the words and not add a layer of interpretation to them. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/45 "2016-03-07T19:22:16Z")
Sadly I left my punch-line off my post. Which lack contributed to your ( **Bricker** ’s) reading of my intent. Here it is: IMO the “fallacy” (using that word very, very loosely) in these counterfactuals is exactly the gap between the precise technical reading of what little was said, and the more practical interpretation of the surrounding situation. My comment to you ( **Bricker** ): The OP’s first post says there’s error in assuming the precise meaning: a change in scoring method after the game is played. He asserts the change must be known in advance and would consequently invalidate the rest of the _ceteris parabus_ assumptions that come for free in the [post-facto rules change] case. And he wants to know the name of that disconnect. My take is the disconnect is simply people not noticing there \*is \*a disconnect as they each launch off into defending their results without examining their differing interpretations of implicit facts-at-issue. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/46 "2016-03-07T19:57:24Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The OP’s first post says there’s error in assuming the precise meaning: a change in scoring method after the game is played. He asserts the change must be known in advance and would consequently invalidate the rest of the _ceteris parabus_ assumptions that come for free in the [post-facto rules change] case. And he wants to know the name of that disconnect. I’ve spend a bit searching through a list of logical fallacies, and this just isn’t one recognized by any reputable source I can find. I mean, it’s obviously bad reasoning, but there’s no name for it. I can’t even think of a good one. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/47 "2016-03-07T21:30:12Z")
Agree it isn’t a recognized fallacy in the formal logic sense of the word. Back in post #19 I proposed “paradoxical _ceteris parabus_”. IOW, assuming everything else will stay the same when it’s massively implausible (or maybe even actually formally paradoxical) that everything else actually will stay the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/48 "2016-03-07T22:13:30Z")
Well, if _malceteris paribus_ seems too pretentious, just say it’s a situation where _all else being equal_ does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/49 "2016-03-07T23:16:31Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > You’re correct that that is the precise reading of the words said. But IMO hat’s a ridiculously tortured interpretation in the real world of conversation. Well, it may be that my experience with golf is different from yours, but the post-round conversations I’ve had were longer on good-natured trash talking and joking around and shorter on rigorous and detailed descriptions of logical premises. In that context my intuition as to which is the more likely intent is the post-facto rule change one, quite possibly claimed with the full knowledge that this it wouldn’t be s particularly fair way to score but is nevertheless technically true enough for the intended purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612/50 "2016-03-07T23:56:06Z")
Tragically unlike golf, though, when you get angry you can’t throw your candidate into the nearest water trap. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gore-would-have-beat-bush-if-the-popular-vote-had-been-used-a-fallacy/747612.md?page=2)