The piece ends:
But can a measure that has passed in every state in which it has been put before the voters be called divisive? Not with a straight face. Thirty-one for thirty-one isn't division. It's unanimity.
Friday, November 06, 2009
"Divisive Unanimity"
Spectator piece highlights that an issue that has had 31 wins at the ballot box and zero losses is not an example of "divisive".
The piece ends:
The piece ends:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Technically, it's not unanimity; it's even distribution.
The measure has won in all thirty-one states where it's been legally voted upon; in no state that I know of has it won by more than a single digit's worth of a margin of difference.
Personally, I'm glad it has won as often as it has. But supporters of Obama were rightly challenged when they claimed that the wide margin of victory in their *electoral* vote somehow trumped the extremely narrow margin of victory in the *popular* vote; if the statistical trick is objectionable there, it shouldn't be resorted to here. I have a profound dislike of using statistics to obscure truth, whichever side does it.
Followup after actually *reading* the Spectator article -- which I should have done in the first place: I was wrong; some states evidently *have* voted to keep traditional marriage with well over a 10% margin of victory.
Nonetheless, I think the point still stands; if the entire nation voted in a Federal referendum, gay marriage might still get voted down - but it would not be by a large enough margin to suggest the populace is "unified" in opposition.
Post a Comment