8 ms·

Just a (semi-)minor quibble. The US population is currently around 322 million. The number of eligible voters in 2016 was somewhere around 220 million [1]. Just

by ojbyrne 10y ago

Just a (semi-)minor quibble. The US population is currently around 322 million. The number of eligible voters in 2016 was somewhere around 220 million [1]. Just under 63 million voted for Trump [2] 1. https://www.quora.com/How-many-estimated-eligible-voters-in-2016-presidential-election https://www.quora.com/How-many-estimated-eligible-voters-in-... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president So it would be much more accurate to say he garnered "support of roughly 50% of voters." Or even "active voters."

finid 10y ago
So he got 63 million votes, and Hillary got, say, 66 million. That a total of roughly 130 million. Know that that means? About 90 million did not vote.
- ojbyrne 10y ago
  Of course. But 50% of the population is not an accurate phrasing in any way.
  - finid 10y ago
    It's accurate, but raw numbers does something to our understanding of matters like that.
    - kajecounterhack 10y ago
      It's not accurate. 50% of voters is accurate. 50% of the population is not accurate.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      It's not accurate. Like Brexit, it was a fraction of all potential voters that voted, and of those less than half voted for that particular thing. At best it was 28% of the voting age population.
slg 10y ago
I would counter-quibble because I didn't mention anything about voting. I used the word "support" as in "approve". From what I have read, there is rarely more than a few percentage point difference between the net favorability ratings of active voters and of the population at large. I therefore think it is fair to say roughly 50% of the general population approves of the platform of the Republican party.
- mindslight 10y ago
  As a conscientious objector, I emphatically reject the idea that abstaining implies any inkling of support for republicraps or democants. 63 million supported Trump directly, 66 million supported him as their second choice, and an additional 8 million couldn't resist supporting the broken process. The rest of us just want to be left alone by this religion of democratic totalitarianism.
  - slg 10y ago
    >66 million supported him as their second choice Wait, are you actually arguing that someone voting for Clinton contributed more to Trump winning than someone not voting at all? Regardless of how you spin it a vote that you forfeit is a vote that isn't cast for any of his opponents. You can't fix a broken system by turning you back on it.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      Many voted for Clinton primarily to stop Trump from winning, and believe it or not, vice-versa. Their support fed on each other, which is the exact race-to-the-bottom degeneracy you'd expect with a captive audience that feels required to vote. I've got some respect for those who voted for Johnson, Stein, etc, as they still resisted the siren song of choreographed panic. I just personally think that if one of the current third parties became one of the two parties, it would be quickly invaded by the same status quo shills (see: the Tea Party). The actual brokenness resides in all of our heads - the fundamental idea that any matter should be subject to possible focus and mass scrutiny, with everyone judging from afar to form some for-or-against opinion. This setup is great for those who mediate the focus (eg media, which is why it's gotten so popular), but only contributes to the disempowering helplessness we all feel. Black Mirror's "Fifteen Million Merits" reminded me a great deal of what modern democracy has become. Turning my back on the homeopathic lever helps me to avoid being misled by it.

by ojbyrne 10y ago

finid 10y ago

So he got 63 million votes, and Hillary got, say, 66 million. That a total of roughly 130 million. Know that that means? About 90 million did not vote.

ojbyrne 10y ago
Of course. But 50% of the population is not an accurate phrasing in any way.
- finid 10y ago
  It's accurate, but raw numbers does something to our understanding of matters like that.
  - kajecounterhack 10y ago
    It's not accurate. 50% of voters is accurate. 50% of the population is not accurate.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    It's not accurate. Like Brexit, it was a fraction of all potential voters that voted, and of those less than half voted for that particular thing. At best it was 28% of the voting age population.

slg 10y ago

I would counter-quibble because I didn't mention anything about voting. I used the word "support" as in "approve". From what I have read, there is rarely more than a few percentage point difference between the net favorability ratings of active voters and of the population at large. I therefore think it is fair to say roughly 50% of the general population approves of the platform of the Republican party.

mindslight 10y ago
As a conscientious objector, I emphatically reject the idea that abstaining implies any inkling of support for republicraps or democants. 63 million supported Trump directly, 66 million supported him as their second choice, and an additional 8 million couldn't resist supporting the broken process. The rest of us just want to be left alone by this religion of democratic totalitarianism.
- slg 10y ago
  >66 million supported him as their second choice Wait, are you actually arguing that someone voting for Clinton contributed more to Trump winning than someone not voting at all? Regardless of how you spin it a vote that you forfeit is a vote that isn't cast for any of his opponents. You can't fix a broken system by turning you back on it.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Many voted for Clinton primarily to stop Trump from winning, and believe it or not, vice-versa. Their support fed on each other, which is the exact race-to-the-bottom degeneracy you'd expect with a captive audience that feels required to vote. I've got some respect for those who voted for Johnson, Stein, etc, as they still resisted the siren song of choreographed panic. I just personally think that if one of the current third parties became one of the two parties, it would be quickly invaded by the same status quo shills (see: the Tea Party). The actual brokenness resides in all of our heads - the fundamental idea that any matter should be subject to possible focus and mass scrutiny, with everyone judging from afar to form some for-or-against opinion. This setup is great for those who mediate the focus (eg media, which is why it's gotten so popular), but only contributes to the disempowering helplessness we all feel. Black Mirror's "Fifteen Million Merits" reminded me a great deal of what modern democracy has become. Turning my back on the homeopathic lever helps me to avoid being misled by it.