4 ms·
I'd argue that Democracy cannot be exercised by the electorate when > 36% of the voting population did not vote (90m / 245m https://www.usnews.com/news/national
by dbetteridge 2y ago
I'd argue that Democracy cannot be exercised by the electorate when > 36% of the voting population did not vote (90m / 245m https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-1...).
You're dealing with 64% of the voting population, who inherently lean one way or the other so a small nudge can be the difference between one side or the other winning.
e.g. Candidate swapping might bring votes from minority groups or Women.
Imagine a scenario when even 5% more people voted, suddenly the margins are much wider and the results hold stronger validity.
- Gormo 2y ago> 36% of the voting population did not vote If those people are eligible to vote but choose not to, than that is their vote. It's not appropriate to second-guess people who abstain any more than it is to second-guess the ballots of those who do vote. There's only a problem if people who want to vote, and are eligible to, are being prevented from doing so. If you're trying to engineer the process to contrive specific outcomes, that itself is anti-democratic.