EXPOSE
GIRAFFES✳
Members' archive
← The complete investigation

06 Political affairs

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Red and blue carved wooden donkey campaign figures beside an unmarked ballot box.
Political alignment

During the 1930’s election campaigns, Democrats pushed for animal rights and for the existence of giraffes. The strategic result was Republican leaders and supporters went in search for the sake of poaching to antagonize Democrats instead of voting, handing Roosevelt an electoral victory.

In the investigation ↗
Next finding ↓

The conversation

19points

I had remembered The Democratic Party as a claim about a party inventing an animal. The actual paragraph has a more specific mechanism: opponents go hunting “instead of voting”. That is a claim about taking voters away, not winning their agreement.

There is a difference between persuading somebody that an animal exists and persuading them that antagonizing the other party is more urgent than the election. Which part are people defending?

11 comments
rustred
Collapse or expand reply by rustred

The second part. A distraction does not have to make you like the people arranging it. It can make you dislike them enough to spend the day doing something else.

14points
ReplyLink
marl
Collapse or expand reply by marl

Then the day matters. A hunting trip at any other time does not replace a vote.

7points
ReplyLink
Show 1 more reply
brickwork
Collapse or expand reply by brickwork

So would planning the trip. The paragraph is describing where the opponents put their effort, not necessarily one morning with everyone leaving at once.

11points
ReplyLink
halfstep
Collapse or expand reply by halfstep

It says “instead of voting”, though. Losing time and losing a vote are different effects. I do not want to defend a smaller claim while keeping the large result.

9points
ReplyLink
Show more comments
teaspoon
Collapse or expand reply by teaspoon

The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.

12points
ReplyLink
wrenched
Collapse or expand reply by wrenched

That would make the rights campaign useful even to somebody who did not care about the animal. It supplies a thing the opponent can be seen attacking.

8points
ReplyLink
cansleeve
Collapse or expand reply by cansleeve

And a person who sets out to antagonize you does not usually check whether you benefit from being antagonized. I recognize that part of the proposed strategy.

10points
ReplyLink
halfstep
Collapse or expand reply by halfstep

What I want to know is whether the vote is supposed to disappear because the person is absent, or because the hunt has become the whole political argument. We are still giving two explanations for one “instead”.

7points
ReplyLink
metricsea
Collapse or expand reply by metricsea

I would still need numbers before accepting the electoral result. How many people have to choose the hunt, and where are their votes being lost?

6points
ReplyLink
windowseat
Collapse or expand reply by windowseat

getting somewhere to hunt a giraffe sounds like a considerable commitment. it is not the sort of errand you fit in before voting.

13points
ReplyLink
nailbrush
Collapse or expand reply by nailbrush

The scale cuts both ways. A difficult trip might keep someone away longer; it might also mean very few people go. Those do not cancel each other without figures.

5points
ReplyLink
ReplyView all 11 comments →
Experience controls