[ajross]

That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject.

Seriously?

[curt15]

This comment simply attacks the source while doing nothing to actually refute its arguments.

[ajross]

First: Yes, it does. Because it was presented as an "explanation" for problems with popular vote, and it's literally the opposite: it's an advocacy piece, and readers need to know that before clicking on the link.

Second: my response wasn't to Heritage, but to skirunman above, who didn't explain any of this stuff either. If you want to ding me for attacking the source, you need to cop to the fact that the whole subthread is an appeal to authority. And that authority is pretty suspect.

[throwaway729]

I don't tend to assume advertisements provide an unbiased review of a product. Also, I think pointing out submarine advertising tends to produce more informed consumers.