If Clinton, Trump, and Did Not Vote were presidential candidates in 2016

Seriously

I love how the takeaway from this is “yeah fuck politics amirite” and not “dude it is THERE FOR THE TAKING for anyone who is inspiring enough to actually get people voting for them”*

(*and who feels like overcoming the significant hurdles of the media and the DNC cooperating to do their best to tank their campaign which they will definitely do if you are inspiring enough for people to want to vote for you)

THERE FOR THE TAKING I tell you

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

Has someone run on that platform before? Can't vote to change the system if no one is running (allowed to run) who plans to change the system.

Just having the vote on a non working day or giving (almost) everyone obligatory paid leave that day is way easier and could already have quite an impact.

well, no, not unless a politician introduced something like that

I think trump woke a lot of people up. clearly there's still ground to cover but it looks like clear progress in voter turnout

I think the most interesting thing about these two maps, is that Georgia kind of proves the people wrong who don't vote "because it wouldn't make a difference in my state".

Thanks for posting the link separately 🙏

Oh good, Iowa sliding back into apathy where it belongs…

I'm assuming you're showing up for more than presidential elections, though, right? Where your vote counts even more?

If you think presidential participation is low, you should see state and local numbers. Or don't, if you're prone to depression.

You intend to vote red?

Since I moved from a red state to Colorado it’s been mind blowing how painless and accessible it is to vote in this state.

I think that is something we need to stress here: A lot of people in America don't vote not because they are apathetic but because, well, they often don't have access because they have to work and can't get time off, and it doesn't help that certain states cut and limit the amount of voting places to prevent people from voting.

I remember seeing the images from Georgia in 2020 where there were queues around the block, hell, some fucking states have laws preventing people from offering water for people waiting in line, knowing that people will be waiting in line for a long time. And the fact the places where those polling stations tend to be set up in ways to stop certain demographics from voting is another thing. There's laws there to prevent students from voting in some states, there's laws making it hard to vote by mail, you fucking name it.

Meanwhile in the UK, I just had to fill in a PDF form and send it to my local valuation office and I could get a postal vote. No restrictions on who can do this, you can just apply.

Colorado has so many props on the ballot as well since I believe anything affecting taxes has to be voted on that way. I really like the direct democracy.

You’re also automatically registered to vote here as well. There’s a reason that Colorado is on the first chart.

Lets all remember that time one of the largest pop stars in the world gave a message to her fans on stage to remember to vote, and was instantly targeted by the GOP for being anti-american, and they started a beef with her that would drive thousands of people against the right.

How does anyone not see it and get what's happening? I feel like you would have to have eaten ALL the crazy pills for this to make sense.

Right?!

Like...even if you had no idea what either party stood for, or what positions they took on the various specific issues that concern the population in the present, all you really need to know is how a democracy works in theory, how presidential elections work in the US in practice (and by extension, how these two things differ, thanks to the Electoral College)...and where each party stands on voting rights, voting access, districting (and gerrymandering)...and as a dark horse...public education.

One side wants as many people as possible to get out and vote (and while they obviously hope they'll vote Democrat, most of their messaging, to their credit, is focused not on 'go vote for us', but instead 'the most important thing is that you get out there and vote'), wants to make sure that everybody who wants to vote is able to do so, has no roadblocks, hoops to jump through, bureaucratic red tape, etc., wants every voter across the country to have a voice equal to every other voter, and wants everyone to have a good (and improving) baseline of education, as a foundation upon which to make an informed decision about their voting.

The other side wants to suppress the vote, wants to disallow voting by default unless the individual takes steps to prove themselves, wants to introduce obstacles to voting access, wants to maintain and perpetuate a system where some voters have disproportionately more impact than others on the overall results (a system which, by the way, has much of its origins in the political maneuverings of slaveholders)...and most telling (and disturbing) of all, in the long term, actively, directly, and overtly makes efforts to reduce and degrade the quality of public education, literally seeking to reduce access to quality education for anyone not fortunate enough to be born into a family with the means to provide for a private education.

Seen to its logical conclusion, one side is literally seeking to revert decades if not centuries of progress on education and return to a situation where an education (and the opportunity it provides) is a privilege reserved for the children of affluence, where wealth, opportunity, class mobility, and professional occupations are reserved and exclusive to the wealthy, and in effect secured to them and their future generations indefinitely. And the best part (for them) is that once this happens, the future generations of uneducated lower and middle classes won't have the education to understand what's being done to them, or how it might be different.

To give a disproportionate amount of voting power to rural areas.

People look at a map and go "Oh my god look how much square footage is red" and can't comprehend the population density of large cities, so feel they are under represented.

Same principle as two Senators per state, and Congressmen are supposed to balance that out by representing population, until the artificial cap on number of Congressman.

Between that, and the insane gerrymandering, Red rural votes are just weighed higher than Blue urban votes.

So that rich land owners have more power.

It's an antiquated system from a time when travel across the country would take weeks at best

While she did win the popular vote by a wide margin the chart shows how many electors each candidate (including No Vote as a candidate) would get rather than directly representing popular vote by state.

Lmao the same people suppressing voting rights wont agree to that

Just wondering, how is mandatory voting enforced? I assume vote cops don't show up at your door.... What if you turn in a ballot with no choice marked?

Because mandatory anything is spun as an attack on our freedoms, and our generally-undereducated masses eat it up.

Netherland doesn't have mandatory voting and yet our turnup is around 75-80% consistently for years

Source https://www.parlement.com/id/vh8lnhrp8wsz/opkomst_bij_tweede_kamerverkiezingen

That said, it seems the US has a turnup problem to solve

Because the government really doesn't want people to have a say. People are stupid. So let's just have a mock vote with some old wizard math that adds up to who the fuck knows but your guy lost.

Would input from the people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to show up be useful?

I’d rather have ranked choice voting. And get rid of the stupid electoral college.

When you vote in private, on paper, none is always an option. You can deposit a blank form, a form with 1 in every box, a form with zero in every box, a sketch

Hot take: voter suppression would be far more widespread, as it would stalemate the current "interim" government into power. Permanently. The current system, for all its flaws, doesn't have that weakness.

What if "didn't vote" counted as "voted for both options, they're equally wonderful and we'd be happy either way"?

And also ranked choice voting, so there can be more than just 2 people running. F the 2 party system.

Does the top graph not just show that all the gray states had people that did not vote be the largest percentage.

So if for example 30% voted for Biden and 31% for Trump, you still have 39% that did not vote thus making the non voter 'candidate' win.

In this case the voter turnout is 61% yet the non voters represent the biggest share.

It's cause by FPTP. If the largest share of voters in a given state were people that didn't vote, all the electoral college votes should go to "did not vote." That doesn't happen IRL because they just ignore low voter turnout.

40.6% is bigger than half of 59.2%

The problem there is that the Constitution says the state legislators get to pick how electors are selected. They don't even have to hold popular elections, even though all 50 states currently do. In fact, the Supreme Court hinted in its decision in Bush v Gore that state legislature can change the rules between the November elections and the actual election in December.

That is: Republican legislatures can decide to ignore the election results and send Republican electors if they don't like the results.

Texas already passed a law allowing the Texas Secretary of State to overturn elections in Harris County (Houston).

You'd have states mandating voting, and passing laws that businesses must give staff time off to vote. That'll never get up

I live in deep blue Utah with connections to the punk scene. The political apathy that has been expressed to me, while simultaneously wearing badges of pride and shit makes me want to vomit. Pure aesthetic bullshit, made even more hypocritical under the banner of ‘punk’.

Politically active. MN is decidedly not a swing state and is here.