The actual outcome of this election with •the whole US population• as the denominator:
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by [email protected]
Several replies fail to distinguish “checked out” from “shut out” when talking about non-voters.
Please, folks, please note the asterisk in the OP. It's an important asterisk.
-
@inthehands I think it is "accurate enough" to say that eligible voters who didn't vote were "fine with letting others decide". Given the OP's numbers, this means out of eligible voters,
Around 68% were fine with Trump.
-
@bityz This one is for you: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/113511777335121868
-
@inthehands I don't want to harsh your mellow but I haven't seen any reliable study/evidence that the vote isn't representative of the missing ~25% eligible voters, the bias due to vote suppression targets likely Harris voters more, but even if you had 100% of eligible voters, while it might change the outcome (yay!), the ratio is probably not going to change much, certainly not 70/30, this brand of fascism is way more popular amongst some powerful demographics than we'd both like.
-
@inthehands I saw the '*' -- for a country that styles itself as a democracy, it's shameful that voting is so challenging. Gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, weird campaign finance rules and all sorts of shenanigans. It's so odd.
-
@talexb
Indeed, where “odd” mostly means “racist.” -
@inthehands or 50% doesn’t care about democracy
-
@inthehands @coolandnormal @jwi there isn't enough consensus and political power to enact this now, but I think the nation would better if anyone who lives here more than half the year was considered a resident and vote in local elections and easily become a citizen with no more administrivia than getting a passport. If you chose to live under the rules of a location you have a stake and should have a say in how those rules are made. It shouldn't be substantially more difficult than moving state
-
Hugs4friends ♾🇺🇦 🇵🇸😷replied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands Still depressing to think that nearly half the population didn't vote.
-
@Tooden @inthehands Of that half, most were children. Turnout is low, but also second highest in over 100 years.
When people don't vote it's because they don't think it has an impact on their lives. And if you don't care who governs because you don't see the difference in your life, it probably doesn't. End the two party system, so people feel represented, and you'll see higher turnouts.
This was what the US wanted as much as anything else in the past. In context, high turnout, clear victory.
-
In my view, this is the best data.
The VEP/VAP difference is key.
Also lots of turnout figures are out of registered rather than VAP.
-
@mmm @davids7
I like to include children too, because they are certainly stakeholders. Climate policy in particular will affect them even more than those eligible to vote. The same for non-citizens: they cannot vote, but they are affected by the outcomes of elections.If we are asking “Who supports the outcome of this election?” and “What kind of mandate does the Trump admin have?,” we must remember those people who, rightly or wrongly, are shut out of voting.
-
@inthehands
This is also an error, assuming that of the quarter that didn't vote, they would have all chosen someone else.Right? What am i missing?
-
@mav
You're missing that I said “vote for,” nor “like” or “favor” or “hypothetically would have voted for” or similar. Only 22% of the total population •actually voted for• Trump.And yes, non-voters do of course have preferences! But a lot of grumpy posts here are eager to ascribe very specific and homogenous intent to non-voting or being vote-ineligible, just glibly assuming those preferences, and/or to say that some sizable chunk of the population doesn't really count.
-
@inthehands Of those 26% eligible but did not vote and those 28% not eligible to vote, is there any reason to assume they would have voted different the 45% who voted for either Trump or Harris? That the outcome would have been different, had they voted? Just curious!
-
@SebastianArcq
That is one of the zillion dollar questions!How many of those people were indifferent? How many had an opinion and wanted to vote, but could not? Of those latter, do we disproportionately prevent from voting people who support one candidate vs the other?
Disenfranchisement is a long-time Republican strategy, and we've recently learned that Russia was running an active demotivation campaign. How effective were those strategies? Did either alter the outcome?
-
@omegaprobe
It would be interesting to know what the difference is between an average swing state and an average solidly partisan state with regard to turnout.Fact is in a lot of states your vote (for president) is mostly pointless anyway.
@Tooden @inthehands -
@mav @omegaprobe @Tooden
Well, Minnesota (where I live) consistently has either the highest or (occasionally) second highest voter turnout in the country.That's despite being a solidly blue state in most recent presidential elections.
The difference? Access. It's really, really easy to vote here. Early voting, mail voting, same-day registration, multiple ways to prove identity, abundant polling places, etc etc.
-
@inthehands So 49% were totally fine with MAGA fascist government gotcha.
