Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsToDiscovery
If you keep things accurate and really say, "50 percent of Americans voted for Bush," then it's not really a generalization so much as it is a statistic. But when you take something like "50%" and begin replace it with hot button words like "more than half," or "most," then you are grossly generalizing. You can say 50% of Americans voted for Bush," but I can just as easily say that 50% did not vote for Bush. The difference is, your version is a wrench used to spite people, and mine is a rebuttal to prove there is an equal amount of non-supporters unlike the generalization you're imposing.
|
Right I meant that in the case of an Election, you need a majority vote to win, which means that the majority of the voting population elects you even if it's 50.1 to 49.9, to be honest I don't know what the figures were for that example, either way I do make the assumption it's a majority, which also means most. It's not used to exacerbate a situation or to misuse a statistic towards evil ends.
In other words, "more than half" or "most" are in fact perfectly accurate and not gross generalizations when referring to the out come of a national election.
Most Americans supported Bush, twice. (discounting the non-voters and any foul-play that may or may not have occurred) That is entirely true, isn't it?
I could also just as accurately say that "In all developed democratic countries, most of it's population support their leader, even more so if he is reelected."