3 ms·

Half the voters. 36% didn’t even vote.

by e40 2y ago

brookst 2y ago
Sure they did. They voted that they were fine with either option.
- speed_spread 2y ago
  Or did not approve of either option. No way to tell. Same result.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    If you don't bother to vote, then you're [almost literally] saying you're OK with whoever wins. If that wasn't your intention, you would vote for some third party that you were OK with.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      It's not an opinion poll. People vote to try and get their desired outcome. If someone views their preferred minor candidate as a lost cause in electoral terms, they won't bother going to vote because it won't make any difference to the outcome. Or, worse, there isn't a single candidate on the list in their district who shares their views.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        Whatever people's reasons and motivations are for not voting, the actual effect is implicit endorsement of whoever everyone else picks.
        XorNot 2y ago
        To wit: actions speak louder then words.
    - dontlaugh 2y ago
      Boycotting votes is a legitimate political choice, especially when done in an organised manner.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        It is absolutely a legitimate choice: It's a choice for "whoever wins."
      - barbazoo 2y ago
        No. At least go and make your vote invalid. Are people really THAT lazy?
    - salawat 2y ago
      What we need is to start counting votes of no confidence. Until we can explicitly shoot down what the elites or representatives think is best for us, at best, voting is just a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ossifying oligarchy.
      - Propelloni 2y ago
        Italy's parliament had for a long time a system where you could vote "no confidence" without picking a constructive option. It did not serve them well and they abolished it eventually. While I understand the disenchantment, just adding "none of the above" without committing to one of the offered options is not going to change a thing. You getting out on the streets and into politics is what changes things.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Those who cared voted for a third party not stayed home.
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    People need civics classes, or wherever people learn about their system of government, to learn that that's not a smart move.
- AngryData 2y ago
  That is such a reductionist view as to be totally worthless. You think there are zero other reasons someone might not vote, be able to vote, or not support either candidate?
  - vanviegen 2y ago
    > either candidate? There are more than two candidates. At least in theory.
chpatrick 2y ago
That's the same as voting to let it happen.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Can you explain this logic a bit more because it genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often that I feel I must be missing something. I find it helpful to walk through the logic: For example, it is frequently framed that there are only two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if you're talking to someone more on the left, and is Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right, but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously can't both be correct. It seems to me that the choice isn't actually binary. At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also conclude that a person actually gets two votes, because consider the following scenario: Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote, with the following possible outcomes: 1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A: 11, B: 10, C: 1 2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 11, C: 1 If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible outcomes. Yet, 3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 2 4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 1 All four of those outcomes are mathematically different, which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
  - vladms 2y ago
    I have seen people consider the outcome is one of "candidate A wins" or "candidate B wins" (so binary). I do not fully agree, but practically it seems to be a good approximation - as in 30 years nobody reached something significant, and there was only one instance in 1872 when the 3rd candidate had more than 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...) Any of the supporters of "candidate A" or "candidate B" will have a vested interest to model it this way, because it can mean more votes for their candidate.

Half the voters. 36% didn’t even vote.

by e40 2y ago

Half the voters. 36% didn’t even vote.

brookst 2y ago

Sure they did. They voted that they were fine with either option.

speed_spread 2y ago
Or did not approve of either option. No way to tell. Same result.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  If you don't bother to vote, then you're [almost literally] saying you're OK with whoever wins. If that wasn't your intention, you would vote for some third party that you were OK with.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's not an opinion poll. People vote to try and get their desired outcome. If someone views their preferred minor candidate as a lost cause in electoral terms, they won't bother going to vote because it won't make any difference to the outcome. Or, worse, there isn't a single candidate on the list in their district who shares their views.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Whatever people's reasons and motivations are for not voting, the actual effect is implicit endorsement of whoever everyone else picks.
      - XorNot 2y ago
        To wit: actions speak louder then words.
  - dontlaugh 2y ago
    Boycotting votes is a legitimate political choice, especially when done in an organised manner.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      It is absolutely a legitimate choice: It's a choice for "whoever wins."
    - barbazoo 2y ago
      No. At least go and make your vote invalid. Are people really THAT lazy?
  - salawat 2y ago
    What we need is to start counting votes of no confidence. Until we can explicitly shoot down what the elites or representatives think is best for us, at best, voting is just a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ossifying oligarchy.
    - Propelloni 2y ago
      Italy's parliament had for a long time a system where you could vote "no confidence" without picking a constructive option. It did not serve them well and they abolished it eventually. While I understand the disenchantment, just adding "none of the above" without committing to one of the offered options is not going to change a thing. You getting out on the streets and into politics is what changes things.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Those who cared voted for a third party not stayed home.
- barbazoo 2y ago
  People need civics classes, or wherever people learn about their system of government, to learn that that's not a smart move.
AngryData 2y ago
That is such a reductionist view as to be totally worthless. You think there are zero other reasons someone might not vote, be able to vote, or not support either candidate?
- vanviegen 2y ago
  > either candidate? There are more than two candidates. At least in theory.

chpatrick 2y ago

That's the same as voting to let it happen.

freedomben 2y ago
Can you explain this logic a bit more because it genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often that I feel I must be missing something. I find it helpful to walk through the logic: For example, it is frequently framed that there are only two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if you're talking to someone more on the left, and is Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right, but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously can't both be correct. It seems to me that the choice isn't actually binary. At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also conclude that a person actually gets two votes, because consider the following scenario: Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote, with the following possible outcomes: 1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A: 11, B: 10, C: 1 2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 11, C: 1 If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible outcomes. Yet, 3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 2 4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 1 All four of those outcomes are mathematically different, which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
- vladms 2y ago
  I have seen people consider the outcome is one of "candidate A wins" or "candidate B wins" (so binary). I do not fully agree, but practically it seems to be a good approximation - as in 30 years nobody reached something significant, and there was only one instance in 1872 when the 3rd candidate had more than 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...) Any of the supporters of "candidate A" or "candidate B" will have a vested interest to model it this way, because it can mean more votes for their candidate.