Again, it sounds like you are trying to have an argument that isn't the one on the table here.
Great, if you want to talk about voters and democracy and the way votes are or are not counted in federal election processes, good for you. But that's not what the poster is talking about, so you are complaining about a point being made against the context that you're trying to substitute.
It's something of a strawman argument you're making.
🇳🇱
Strawmen are @TruthSandwich 's speciality :) He is a good guy though, he just gets triggered if you say anything anyone other than a democrat has ever said and then goes off tangents...
*Ha, to be clear I don't mean the following personally and I'm also not claiming it's what's going on in this particular case. With that out of the way:*
One thing I often see is a person who seems to have a limited set of arguments, pretty much including both claims and responses, as if it is already gamed out and ready to be pantomimed to the predetermined conclusion.
The frustrating thing in those cases is that the person ends up trying to shoehorn every other discussion until one of the scripted arguments in their pocket.
It's kind of like a strawman argument, except there's a little more to it since the point is to apply the script, not to actually debate.
In the present case, there are some legit things to study from the differences between cities and surrounding areas, that this diagram reinforces pretty clearly.
Ideas about voters aside from that distinction represent pretty well trod pathways, which I'd say is even more reason not to revert to the same tired argument instead of more interesting observations about urban versus rural divides.
There's just not much to be gained from substituting the standard argument, especially without recognizing that the substitution is being made in the first place.
Yes thats true, most people strugle a great deal with going off-script when it comes to politics (or even in general).
