When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them. However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books. Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?
...So now that we have almost gotten an answer out of you: seeing as the Puppies are an ideological organization that only votes on books based on the politics of the author and whether or not they suit the Puppies, how can you defend them? Furthermore, before you go with "but the other side is also doing it" can you prove that there was a progressive conspiracy that targeted authors purely based on their politics and not based on what they wrote? Specifically, can you even prove that writers who did not in any way put their own ideologies into their books suffered BEFORE the Puppies began the organized voting?
Somebody already proved the ideological biases using math:
https://madgeniusclub.com/2014/08/25/a-very-surprised-looking-sperm-whale-and-a-bowl-of-petunias/
a) You are again missing the point.
b) That dude writes like someone who deserves to get punched in their whore mouth. The arrogance that comes from his "I am SOOO much smarter than everyone else and I only recently realized how fucking stupid other people are since they don't even count mathematical odds in their heads all day." That is not how you make an argument in a debate. That's just showing off and if you really want to make someone see things your way you should not insult them with every other word. (But this is something that I've also said about SJWs.)
c) I did not ask you to prove that the ideology of the writers does not matter to the voters. I have asked you to prove that the people were voting ONLY based on the ideology of the writer
even if it did not show in the book. When you read something like to Sword of truth the ideology is very much present in the books and sometimes it seems that the books only exist to be writer tracts, to show how objectivism is the one true path and how people who do not support killing unarmed civilians are evil and must be killed before they destroy the nation.
d) This dude doesn't actually understand how probabilities work:
What LUCK the reds have! Still, that’ll be much less for them in future. After all out of every 100 noms they should get 15. And they’ve already had 3. And the other two balls are more-or-less white. No blacks.
So we go on to 2006. And lo. There are 3 more red balls… and two whites, and no blacks. Miracle of miracles because everybody knows there is no ideological bias in Hugo awards. And the old man says: “Well son. Two years in a row! It’ll be your great-great-grandsons’s time before that happens again two years in a row!”
He thinks that the previous results will affect the future results. For all his talk about math he suddenly seems to think that luck is a thing that exists and that it can be "used up." If I toss a coin 50 times in a row then, yes getting it heads up everytime is really improbable BUT if I have tossed it 49 times and gotten heads 49 times what are the odds of getting heads on my next toss? If you think that the answer is anything other than 50% then you don't know how probabilities work.