3 ms·

If we're considering all residents of the US, "didn't vote" won the election

by micromacrofoot 1y ago

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Tough shit. People who didn't vote explicitly transferred their rights to those who did vote.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  then it's not a right
zitsarethecure 1y ago
Not voting is a vote for whomever wins.
- TheDong 1y ago
  If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins. Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    Thank you for phrasing this as such. Every time this topic comes up I want to try and make this point, I wish it were more prominent. "You voted for DJT, you're an evil person!" "Well actually, let me explain to you how the electoral college works..."
    - ty6853 1y ago
      The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands. It has certainly happened before.
      - dgfitz 1y ago
        No, correct, they do not. Until an election is decided by rogue delegates, this is a frivolous point. If it ever does happen, it makes the whole exercising of voting even more useless than it already is for states like CA, the vote truly means nothing as opposed to just being symbolically useless. So, the EC absolutely matters, and it’ll matter right up until it doesn’t. At which point, who tf cares?
    - madeofpalk 1y ago
      How can voting for someone ever not be a sign that you support them over the other options? How does the electoral college system work in a way that encourages you to vote for someone you don't want?
      - ty6853 1y ago
        Because voting third party is also a vote for whoever wins, using this logic. Libertarians, Green, etc party voters constantly get accosted over this. You have two top candidates, by voting for a third party you are deferring to the popular vote on the top two and 'subtracting' a vote from your favorite of the top two. https://i.redd.it/qdg4kntdh3jc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/qdg4kntdh3jc1.jpeg
- lucasban 1y ago
  Well, it is a vote for whoever wins their state. I know several people who didn’t vote back in my home state because the outcome for that state was already a given. The current way the electoral college works effectively disenfranchises people living in “solid” D or R states. Yes, I know that there are down ballot races on the same day that matter, but many don’t, for the same or similar reasons. We need elections that let everyone’s vote matter. Things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, working to end gerrymandering, and open primaries would all be helpful reforms in different ways.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  Not voting is by nature not a vote for anyone
- ty6853 1y ago
  Lysander Spooner wrote a significant works on why he believes this viewpoint is discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason
meta_ai_x 1y ago
"Didn't vote" implicitly give their vote by saying that they don't care if any of them win. Effectively they are giving 1/2 votes to each of their candidates, resulting in no change in the final result. But, if you really want to be analytic, the higher the turnout of disaffected voters, the more likely they vote for Trump. That's why, since 2016 or so, Trump always overperforms in general elections, while Democrats overperform in special/mid-term elections where the turnout is low. So, these liberal/democrats copium about turnouts and non-votes no longer hold true. pre-2016 "Get out to Vote" were implicit Democrat crying calls to rally votes for the Democratic party. You still see people who haven't understood the underlying shift using this as a "dog whistle" to campaign for democrats while appearing neutral
barbazoo 1y ago
I didn't believe you so I did the math and you are right: 2024 turnout: 64.1% Total Votes: 155,238,302 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... therefore Total eligible voters: 242,181,438 Didn't vote: 86,943,136 Votes for Trump: 77,302,580
rcpt 1y ago
Kids should be allowed to vote. They are residents with a real interest in the future of the nation.
- slowmovintarget 1y ago
  No, they shouldn't. While being an adult is no guarantee of making wise decisions, we have widely studied the failure of children to comprehend long-term consequences. We know better. Kids should not have a vote, but I'd be willing to say parents should get two votes. No adult has a more visceral sense of societal consequences than someone concerned about creating the future their own child will hopefully thrive in.
  - rcpt 1y ago
    > we have widely studied the failure of... This scrutiny isn't applied to other citizens.
  - oarsinsync 1y ago
    > No adult has a more visceral sense of societal consequences than someone concerned about creating the future their own child will hopefully thrive in. There are plenty of parents who have absolutely no sense of this, and plenty of children who have a better sense of this than their parents, because they’ve had to learn the hard way. Choosing to reproduce, or failing to use birth control, should not give you an extra vote.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      But it does. The house of representation is based on relative population, so places like Texas end up getting more representation as their voters high some of the highest fertility and their children get counted in the census.
    - slowmovintarget 1y ago
      If our biggest issues are the state of education, the environment, the state of the economy, the security of the nation, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the civility of the society we live in, who has a bigger stake in all of these outcomes than parents? So why not? I mean, the argument against surely is not that having children is some existential horror or great evil, right? Civilization advances by our children doing better than we did, maybe materially, but morally, ethically, and hopefully in purpose.

If we're considering all residents of the US, "didn't vote" won the election

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Tough shit. People who didn't vote explicitly transferred their rights to those who did vote.

micromacrofoot 1y ago
then it's not a right

zitsarethecure 1y ago

Not voting is a vote for whomever wins.

TheDong 1y ago
If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins. Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
- dgfitz 1y ago
  Thank you for phrasing this as such. Every time this topic comes up I want to try and make this point, I wish it were more prominent. "You voted for DJT, you're an evil person!" "Well actually, let me explain to you how the electoral college works..."
  - ty6853 1y ago
    The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands. It has certainly happened before.
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      No, correct, they do not. Until an election is decided by rogue delegates, this is a frivolous point. If it ever does happen, it makes the whole exercising of voting even more useless than it already is for states like CA, the vote truly means nothing as opposed to just being symbolically useless. So, the EC absolutely matters, and it’ll matter right up until it doesn’t. At which point, who tf cares?
  - madeofpalk 1y ago
    How can voting for someone ever not be a sign that you support them over the other options? How does the electoral college system work in a way that encourages you to vote for someone you don't want?
    - ty6853 1y ago
      Because voting third party is also a vote for whoever wins, using this logic. Libertarians, Green, etc party voters constantly get accosted over this. You have two top candidates, by voting for a third party you are deferring to the popular vote on the top two and 'subtracting' a vote from your favorite of the top two. https://i.redd.it/qdg4kntdh3jc1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/qdg4kntdh3jc1.jpeg
lucasban 1y ago
Well, it is a vote for whoever wins their state. I know several people who didn’t vote back in my home state because the outcome for that state was already a given. The current way the electoral college works effectively disenfranchises people living in “solid” D or R states. Yes, I know that there are down ballot races on the same day that matter, but many don’t, for the same or similar reasons. We need elections that let everyone’s vote matter. Things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, working to end gerrymandering, and open primaries would all be helpful reforms in different ways.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
Not voting is by nature not a vote for anyone
ty6853 1y ago
Lysander Spooner wrote a significant works on why he believes this viewpoint is discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

meta_ai_x 1y ago

"Didn't vote" implicitly give their vote by saying that they don't care if any of them win. Effectively they are giving 1/2 votes to each of their candidates, resulting in no change in the final result. But, if you really want to be analytic, the higher the turnout of disaffected voters, the more likely they vote for Trump. That's why, since 2016 or so, Trump always overperforms in general elections, while Democrats overperform in special/mid-term elections where the turnout is low. So, these liberal/democrats copium about turnouts and non-votes no longer hold true. pre-2016 "Get out to Vote" were implicit Democrat crying calls to rally votes for the Democratic party. You still see people who haven't understood the underlying shift using this as a "dog whistle" to campaign for democrats while appearing neutral

barbazoo 1y ago

I didn't believe you so I did the math and you are right: 2024 turnout: 64.1% Total Votes: 155,238,302 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia... therefore Total eligible voters: 242,181,438 Didn't vote: 86,943,136 Votes for Trump: 77,302,580

rcpt 1y ago

Kids should be allowed to vote. They are residents with a real interest in the future of the nation.

slowmovintarget 1y ago
No, they shouldn't. While being an adult is no guarantee of making wise decisions, we have widely studied the failure of children to comprehend long-term consequences. We know better. Kids should not have a vote, but I'd be willing to say parents should get two votes. No adult has a more visceral sense of societal consequences than someone concerned about creating the future their own child will hopefully thrive in.
- rcpt 1y ago
  > we have widely studied the failure of... This scrutiny isn't applied to other citizens.
- oarsinsync 1y ago
  > No adult has a more visceral sense of societal consequences than someone concerned about creating the future their own child will hopefully thrive in. There are plenty of parents who have absolutely no sense of this, and plenty of children who have a better sense of this than their parents, because they’ve had to learn the hard way. Choosing to reproduce, or failing to use birth control, should not give you an extra vote.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    But it does. The house of representation is based on relative population, so places like Texas end up getting more representation as their voters high some of the highest fertility and their children get counted in the census.
  - slowmovintarget 1y ago
    If our biggest issues are the state of education, the environment, the state of the economy, the security of the nation, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the civility of the society we live in, who has a bigger stake in all of these outcomes than parents? So why not? I mean, the argument against surely is not that having children is some existential horror or great evil, right? Civilization advances by our children doing better than we did, maybe materially, but morally, ethically, and hopefully in purpose.