i wrote a pretty in depth treatment of this yesterday, but i don’t like to just spam copy pasta everywhere.

you might want to ask your self “what would a critical rationalist say about my postulate?”

yea. you are just telling stories, not doing science.

I provided exactly as much support for my argument as you for yours.

wrong

yep.

I’m not willing to kill people. I care about human lives.

you are the only one saying that

inaction is a valid and rational choice in the trolley problem

First-past-the-post voting systems inevitably trend to two-party systems over time. We see it play out in election models and we see it play out in real life.

this claim is not falsifiable. it’s a tautology with no genuine predictive power. it’s not science, it is storytelling.

everything you said after this was also wrong

but why would taxes need to be increased at all? just change the account values.

biden will push us further into fascism just as he has for the past 50 years. voting for him does not, in fact, ensure we don’t fall further into fascism.

i can believe the other guy is worse without believing its moral to help biden maintain power.

the spoiler effect is story telling.

always happy to be of help where i am needed.

because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.

saying it doesn’t make it so.

I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying.

i don’t want to argue with you, either. but i do think anyone reading this should know that you are poisoning the well, here.

in a show of good faith, i’m about to break from my usual rhetorical style. i hope you find this explanation helpful

Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.

For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.

stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true.

i believe anyone may claim that the price of a good can be described as the point at which temporal demand met temporal supply, but that doesn’t make it a useful observation. it’s not even disprovable, as there is no way to test it. so there is no reason to believe it’s actually true.

The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution

i don’t know the exact context you’re referencing, but i do know that trying to pigeonhole me with creationists is underhanded.

a tautology is also an appropriate term for any post hoc explanation of material facts that gives no insight into how the future will happen.

duverger’s “law” is storytelling, it’s not science.

i provided just as much evidence an he did.

Throwing your vote away on a third party is equivalent to not voting.

election misinformation. my vote must be counted just as everyone else’.