[extropy-chat] late response to Dan/Technotranscendence

[Adrian Tymes]

--- aperick at centurytel.net wrote:
> And, I dare say
> that if females and males
> are equally qualified to vote (and I'll agree that
> they ARE!) then the set
> of all females is a true random sample (so far as
> their votes are
> concerned) -- therefore, disallowing females voting
> would have no effect on
> the outcome of elections.

It is trivial to prove this is logically inconsistent,
unless by "qualified to vote" you mean "qualified to
vote for whoever the males would vote for" or
something like that.  A candidate who, for instance,
advocated treating women as property would get a fewer
votes from women used to freedom than from men used to
freedom.  Therefore, disallowing females from voting
would make the election of such candidates more
likely, and the set of all females is not entirely a
random sample with respect to the set of all human
beings.