in defense of "in defense of ..."

Much email on the LRC piece, just as expected.

So far they fall into 3 broad categories:

1. Thank you thank you thank you!
2. The Holocaust never happened and Jews are evil!
3. Hitler was never elected!

It's true that Hitler never won a majority. In one draft, I had a parenthetical comment next to "majority rules" about the multi-party democratic tradition of "plurality rules" but I took it out because it was awkward, seemed irrelevant, and slowed things down. Now I wish I had kept it in just to cover my ass.

What I'm wondering is this: do these letter writers

1. think the majority-versus-plurality distinction invalidates my argument?
2. believe that it is somehow impossible for a genuine 51%-or-greater majority to vote for evil?
3. just care about historical precision as much as I care about semantic and logical precision?
4. [fill in the blank]