741
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 month ago

53% of white women voted for Trump, and they aren't going to join 4B. "Men" didn't elect Trump, a slight majority of America did. When you point a finger, three are pointing back...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not. I can tell you I voted and was offered to answer none of those questions from that site. So I'm going to say none of them represent all of the voters if you don't actually ask all of the voters.

Just for the sake of more information: 337m Percentage over 18 ~78% That makes about 262m voters possible. 74m vote for Trump makes 28-29% of possible votes in 2024 81m votes for Biden in 2020, population was around 331m then. About 31-32% of the possibilible votes.

Point being, people need to vote. Making voting easier makes it possible to ensure you get a more complete tally of what people want in a democracy. People shouldn't have to jump through hoops to say they won't be in town, and will be working or w.e else to convince someone that a mail in ballot is wanted.
Should have a request a ballot button online as well. Why mail a form in to have the forms sent to you. Gets rid of some waste there too.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Uhh... 335 million Americans, 260 million voting age Americans. With 63% turnout.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

If you're sceptical about exit polls you could always look up how they're conducted...

22% of Americans voted for Trump. 78% did not.

and what, 40% of those didn't vote at all? How many people here voted for kamala 20%? 21%? Man you aren't very good at statistics.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

That data was irrelevant to the premise. I could also have listed how many men, women, and chariots voted, but it really doesn't do anything more than show that if there is a 2 party system, it would be nice to have the winner near 50%. Id like to see everyone vote.

so why did you even bring up the data lmao? Just make the argument without it.

I'd also like to see more people vote, but i think we're probably our own biggest obstacle here lmao.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

People want to vote. Give them a candidate and party worth voting for.

Abstaining from a broken system is a protest in itself. How else would we know how broken the system was if people weren't allowed to withhold their vote from all candidates.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I'm not saying to force everyone to vote. But if mandatory voting was a thing I'd say put a new candidates opinion in, and if it gets over 50% of the popular vote, all new candidates required would be an interesting change. Probably has holes, but what the hell, I'll try anything rather than this 2 party money fueled government we have now

[-] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

There's abstaining and there's not being bothered to vote

If the object is to send the message that the current options aren't good enough at least in the UK we vote for parties other than the main two (green and reform for example)

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 month ago

People can write in a name. That's a protest vote, and one that should be fine in a mandatory voting system as seen in literally all the places it is.

A good candidate would be a great idea to help deal with apathy from a difficult to vote in system but making it easier would also be a huge step up.

Both things are needed and I wish could be done in any order. But not voting at all is definitely the goal of one side more than the other.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
741 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19194 readers
2858 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS