4 ms·
Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were run
by sgerenser 7mo ago
Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates).
- tomjakubowski 7mo agoWith Trump getting a little bit less than half the vote and a 65% turnout, "did not vote" was the plurality.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo agoWhich is functionally a vote for the status quo. Someone who can't bother to vote isn't going to bother e.g. protesting or otherwise affirming their rights.
- datsci_est_2015 7mo agoOr defeatism. Discouragement campaigns go a long way: “both sides are bad so don’t vote!”
- hedora 7mo agoSo, in this case, "plurality" means "third place".
- Braxton1980 7mo agoNot voting is a choice and the same as voting for the winner
- justinclift 7mo ago> Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates Sounds like both candidates were terrible enough that quite a few didn't bother?
- Braxton1980 7mo ago1.They weren't equally bad. 2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either. 3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.
- Braxton1980 7mo ago"Both sides" Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.