Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2020, 01:26 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,038

Winner in 2016 was actually "did not vote"


Interesting way to look at the 2016 election

https://twitter.com/HeidiBriones/sta...950533/photo/1
  #2  
Old 04-29-2020, 02:43 PM
Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 14,707
A number of times in recent Presidential elections the number of people who didn't vote was more than the number who voted for the winner. It appears that there has been no Presidential election since 1908 in which more than 65% of the voters voted for President. There have only been five Presidential elections over all American history in which more than 80% voted:

https://www.fairvote.org/voter_turno...er_turnout_101
  #3  
Old 04-29-2020, 11:39 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Those who don't submit ballots allow others to vote for them, not necessarily as they'd like. Abstain; accept being suppressed; then you just do not fucking matter. That's why GOPs are so big on voter suppression and disenfranchisement - they can only "win" by canceling constitutional voting rights. That's part of why GOPs are scum.
  #4  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:04 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,236
Dave Wasserman (Cook Political Report), who always keeps my optimism in check, calculated that 23 million likely Trump voters did not vote in 2016. I hope that the "likely Hilary" voters outnumbered them but that number scares me to death. Rachel Bitecofer (Niskanan Center) says that, while Trump will probably see a surge in vote totals this November (based on her study of the midterms), a blue wave is building that will dwarf it in turn. I just hope it's distributed well enough.
  #5  
Old 04-30-2020, 03:28 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,505
/joking: It has come to my attention that many of you do not read all my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do you know which "candidate" has won almost every single Presidential election? I'm speaking of the candidate who beat Reagan in the 1984 "landslide."

Did.Not.Vote. Did.Not.Vote even edged out LBJ (barely) in the 1964 landslide. American elections are not about changing people's minds....
The last time that Did.Not.Vote lost a Presidential election was in 1904 when it was narrowly defeated by the very popular Teddy Roosevelt.
  #6  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:23 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Those who don't submit ballots allow others to vote for them, not necessarily as they'd like. Abstain; accept being suppressed; then you just do not fucking matter. That's why GOPs are so big on voter suppression and disenfranchisement - they can only "win" by canceling constitutional voting rights. That's part of why GOPs are scum.
nm
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 04-30-2020 at 04:26 PM.
  #7  
Old 04-30-2020, 05:59 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 29,006
I understand why people don't vote.

I vote, and I think everyone else who can, should. But, on an individual level, the choice not to vote is not an irrational decision. If you do a cost-benefit analysis comparing the likely results of you, as one person, voting vs. not voting, you might well conclude that, for one person, the costs outweigh the benefits.
  #8  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:00 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,841
My understanding is Oregon with automatic voter registration and mail in ballots has turnout close to western Europe levels. Around 70-80%
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #9  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:41 PM
tim314 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I understand why people don't vote.

I vote, and I think everyone else who can, should. But, on an individual level, the choice not to vote is not an irrational decision. If you do a cost-benefit analysis comparing the likely results of you, as one person, voting vs. not voting, you might well conclude that, for one person, the costs outweigh the benefits.
I agree with you -- everyone who can vote, should vote (and furthermore, some people who currently can't vote ought to be allowed to vote). A lot of decisions come out badly if we look at a cost-benefit analysis of our individual action, in isolation.

This is where societies benefit from having a rules-based system of ethics... If I steal a candy bar from the store, the harm inflected is minimal, and maybe in a strictly utilitarian sense it's worth it because I really love chocolate. But if everyone steals a candy bar, maybe the store raises prices to cover the loss, or maybe they even decide it's not worth carrying candy bars at all -- and everyone suffers. So it's a good thing most of us subscribe to the ethical rule of "don't steal (not even the cheap stuff)".

Similarly, I think we'd be collectively better off if more people considered it their civic duty to vote, regardless of how unlikely it is that the their one vote decides the election.
  #10  
Old 05-01-2020, 02:10 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I understand why people don't vote.

I vote, and I think everyone else who can, should. But, on an individual level, the choice not to vote is not an irrational decision. If you do a cost-benefit analysis comparing the likely results of you, as one person, voting vs. not voting, you might well conclude that, for one person, the costs outweigh the benefits.
Shhhhh. You're right of course, but spread that message when you're chatting with rednecks, not here among the blue-necks we want to vote!

Even in a small town election where your vote has a 1% chance of changing the outcome, and a convenient nearby polling station means you waste only $5 of your time voting, voting is "uneconomical" unless the value to you of your preferred candidate is $500. Voting against Trump, even in a swing state, is uneconomical unless you'd give up a decade or two of salary to oust the man!

Picking up your trash instead of littering is similar. Tossing your picnic waste instead of packing it to the next trash-can will have no cost to you even if you return to that site, you won't see that trash (if only because it's lost in the piles of other litter).

This is the very strong case for making voting mandatory.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017