What is vs. what would

Many have analysed the outcome of the Pemuda contest. The results were as follows:-

1. KJ            304
   
2. Khir Toyo        254
   
3. Mukhriz Mahathir    232
   

Those who could not accept that KJ has won said that it was because KJ paid the voters. Well, if he did, the others did too. Never mind the findings of the UMNO disciplinary board. Every candidate pays in some form of the other.

Then, there are the born again mathematicians. They reason out the number of votes not secured by KH is greater that the votes he obtained at 304. If KT and MM had made a pact, they would have gotten rid of KJ. Of course they are assuming that KT and MM are malleable and can merge into a commonality of aim. That is wishful thinking quite against the cold logic of a mathematician.

How many votes separate KT and MM? Only 20 votes separate them. What does this suggest? This clearly suggests that as between KT and MM there are is no substantial differentiation. This in turn suggests that if the contest had been one to one, either MM or KT would receive not more than what each individually received now. The possibility of that being highly certain, KJ would have emerged the winner still.

We live in a world of what is and not what would. Joan of Arc would have lived, if only she recanted and say she accept Catholicism. Thomas Moore would have lived if he endorsed the marriage of the amorous king of England, King Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn.

Here, MM would have won, only if the Javanese had agreed to a pact. Only dreamers live in the world of what would.