4 ms·
Not half the country. Almost half of the people who voted.
by lokar 1mo ago
Not half the country. Almost half of the people who voted.
- Laurel1234 1mo ago[dead]
- _whiteCaps_ 1mo agoIMO if you don't vote, you're tacitly agreeing with whoever gets voted into office. (Although US voter suppression weakens this argument)
- toast0 1mo agoThat's reasonable enough, but you have to consider it in the context that we don't vote for president, we vote for state electors to vote for president. If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.
- lotsofpulp 1mo agoIf you can’t be bothered to make your disapproval seen at least once every 4 years, then I consider it a tacit approval. So that actually makes 2/3 of Americans in support of Trump’s brand of America.
- rdm_blackhole 1mo agoI disagree with your take. You have the right to not vote when you disagree with all parties running. In fact, from a moral point of view voting for the lesser evil is highly objectionable because you are voting for someone who you do not even support just so that another person you support even less does not get elected. Its perfectly fine to say, I don't agree with either and I am going to sit this one out otherwise you end up in weird political dynamics that you can see playing out in real time in France for example.
- Ruphin 1mo agoIf your political system does not present you with a candidate that aligns with your interests or beliefs, you should vote to change the political system. Not voting is consent to the status quo.
- rdm_blackhole 1mo ago> Not voting is consent to the status quo. I disagree fundamentally. Not voting is simply not making a choice. If the choices presented do not align with my preferences then I do not vote. Why would I vote for someone who I don't support? I don't pick the candidates that are offered. Want me to vote? Then get better candidates next time! Until then I will exercise my right to not vote. Your status quo also assume that either one or both candidates are presenting you with potential change to what has happened in the past whereas most of the time, the choices are simply a continuation of what has been happening aka tinkering on the margins without pissing too many people off.
- _whiteCaps_ 1mo agoI think purposely spoiling your ballot is a better signal to the parties that none of them are acceptable. Is that possible in your elections? Around here, a spoiled ballot is scrutinized by the party observers, so your message would definitely be heard. I'd love to see a ballot with ranked choice voting that includes a none of the above option.
- rdm_blackhole 1mo agoI could technically vote in 3 countries but I vote in none. My preferred voting system is the ranked choice one in Australia but Australia also has compulsory voting which I disagree with. I think in a democracy, it is up to the voter to decide if and how much they want to get involved in the democratic process just like a person has the right to join or not a parti, listen or not to a political debate and so on and so forth. I wish the blank vote was more represented in the democratic process somehow but I don't really have a solution for this problem.