What kind of fallacy is this?
"If the woman claim that her people represent the majoroty of the people in this country, how come she lost her senatorial bid a few years ago?"
Thank you all for not actually answering my question regardless of the spelling, grammar structure, and veracity of the statement above.
- foxprojoyLv 62 months agoFavourite answer
Because she didn't appeal to most people regardless of being in the majority - sometimes you can have a certain person of a certain race who says things that no one likes even if that person is in the majority.
- 2 months ago
Tommymc, You'd be pretty wild gerrymandering over gender. Obviously this person's people is that of women people. Did I just say women people?
Supportive Women People will vote the way of their husband.
Roles Reversed Women People will vote have their husbands vote their way.
Single woman are a wild card. So maybe gerrymandering could still work, if you knew where........
- TommymcLv 72 months ago
First, some spelling and grammatical corrections to your sentence: "If the woman claims that her people represent the majority of the people in this country, how come she lost her senatorial bid a few years ago?"
There are several reasons this statement could be true. Senatorial races are held at the *state* level, but the statement speaks of national support. On a national level, support is not evenly distributed. It's entirely possible to be an unpopular senatorial candidate in a small state, but have huge *national* support.
At the state level, turnout is vital. It's possible to have views that are supported by a majority of people, but if they don't vote...or if the other party manages to get more voters to the polls, a popular candidate could still lose the race.
There is also the matter of "gerrymandering". If you don't already know, gerrymandering is where a party will redraw the boundaries of voting districts in such a way that one party is favored over another, regardless of the popular vote. It's not always a matter of total votes which determines the winner of an election, it can be who won the most districts.
On a national level, we've seen this with the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, 3 million more individual votes went to Clinton, but Trump got more "electoral" votes. The 2000 race between Bush and Gore was a little closer, but Gore had just over a half million more votes, yet Bush won the electoral college.Bottom line is that "popularity" doesn't always win an election. The rules, and how many people actually vote can make a huge difference.RESPONSE TO "UPDATE"Your question was posted in the "Words and Wordplay" section where people routinely ask about grammar. Why get huffy when your grammar was corrected? If you're looking for a political or philosophical answer, try posting in the appropriate section. People communicate meaning through words and grammar. Clearly, you did not succeed in communicating your question to us. Perhaps you could ask in simpler language so us dummies can understand?I thought I gave a very complete explanation of how a candidate with majority support could lose an election. I interpreted "her people" to mean "like-minded" people, of any gender. Is that not what you were asking? If not, could you re-phrase it to be more clear? Even if "her people" refers to only women (who comprise a small majority of the population), women don't automatically vote for other women.