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

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

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).


And the side that *actually, verifiably* tried to use fake electors to subvert the will of the people (even against the stacked deck of the electoral system that benefits their side)...is also the side that loves to spread constant (and constantly disproven) lies about their opponents' voter fraud.

Like...even if I agreed with their platform on the issues, the GOP would *still* not get my vote based on the way they try to *get* that vote...in order to gain power...to realize their goal...of getting to a point where my vote loses its power.

i couldn't have said it better.

but don't forget to include that *one side* chose to employ fake electors

*one side* staged an insurrection at the capitol to try to overturn the entire election process

even ignoring all the fraud, adultering, rape, pornstar hush money, criminal negligence, theft of classified documents, and everything else their wannabe dictator cult leader did, the 2 things above really tell you all you need to know about republicans

I don't see it changing anytime soon. If I may go off on a tangent.

If any of us have gained anything of material use from the "AI revolution" it wouldn't be plagiarized drawings of Taylor Swift as an anthropomorphic fox with six breasts, it would be the dawning realization that *we're not so special.*

If so many of us can be tricked with a predictive text app into believing something is aware and alive, a technology in its infancy, what are the next several decades going to look like?

I don't believe in the AI hype, the "singularity" subreddit is packed with the most delusional people in the world. *And they sound exactly like Christians, Trump supporters or scientologists or any other cult.*

It's inherent to our experience here, that our brains trick us into thinking that thinking is special, that our conscious experience is somehow separated from the universe.

The harsh reality is it's not separate from the world. Most of our decisions are made up to an hour in advance, most of our life is rehearsed by parts of your brain that don't talk, that don't narrate. You are made of thousands of layers of "entities" that sort and assemble information and then make you think you're able to control the world around you with something called "choice."

So now, understanding these hard truths about the human condition... when will it get better? When will we start to set aside superstition and fear and mythology to make us feel better about that gnawing fear we all have, the one lingering in the backs of *all* our minds that we can't quite touch, the fear that we really aren't in control, we really aren't that special. We made cities, but can ants. We travel in space but so can fungus. We go to war with each other but so do chimps.

We are not letting go of religion or mysticism. Not in our current form. Maybe if we're really, really lucky some of the most delusional techbros are right, and we will have a system in our lifetimes for "upgrading" our brains and expanding our ability to comprehend and understand each other. I am not holding my breath though. These are the same people who tried to convince us that NFT's were the future.

>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.

I keep repeating this, and people don't like to hear it, but 75% of American Adults identify as religious, 68% as Christian.

The majority of Americans are willing to discard logic, reason, and evidence in favor of believing in an imaginary man in the sky. These aren't usually simple spiritual belief systems either, these are complex religious, historical, and social belief systems the rely entirely on "faith" to believe - or to believe it because you were told to, not because there are any real-world reasons to give these beliefs validity. The beliefs that the majority of Americans believe in range from "demonstrably false" to "having no evidence", and yet people believe in these things with their whole hearts.

With the most devout (read: immovably stubborn) Christians concentrated on the right, it is no surprise at all that the far-right is completely divorced from reality. Republicans treat their political views like they are a matter of faith already. They believe, despite the lack of any evidence of it, that Jesus Christ personally supports their party and their candidates.

Now, inevitably someone will chime in here to say "but Todd, I believe in the almighty skydaddy, are you saying that I am stupid?". Yes, I certainly am. My point here is that the further disconnected from reality we get, the worse our decisions get, and if you believe that there is a supernatural entity watching you from the sky deciding whether or not to torture you with fire, you are disconncted from reality and I trust you less than I would someone that doesn't believe obviously fake shit.

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.

Yeah, I think it's the best detailed, but beginner-friendly, overview of why electronic voting is a bad idea. Heck, I'm Australian too, and we treat *pens* as too high-tech for our elections because they could be switched for ones with disappearing ink.

IMO analogue is just better for elections. Whether mail-in or not, there's a physical object with your vote attached, not just a few bytes in a computer. It is far, far harder for a bad actor to control an election when they have to contend with faking thousands of bits of paper.

I knew it would be that Tom Scott video

Sorry man but you are wrong. It was a couple years ago, but they had an actual vote on this and about half of house democrats voted to lower the age, and virtually no republicans did. Democrats would like to lower the age because they would get more votes. I can look it up if you wish, but its a thing they want.

I CORRELATE age with knowing what is going and being deceived less. So now see above question.

No one is trying to get the voting age lowered. Could some people be talking about it and some media hacks focus on that talk? Sure, but not anyone with any power to do anything. It's like those on the right who want to increase it again to 21. Are there some talking about it? Sure. Will anything be done about it? Not anymore chance than it would be lowered to under 18. It's a BS media talking point click bait

Why are you conflating age with intelligence?

If conservatives are the ones that dont want educated voters, why do the democrats directly seek to get younger people to vote and even want to lower the voting age?

more educated voters

Yeah, no - that’s not how it works in the US.

There is only one political party intent on making it harder to vote (GOP), as they have long deduced that they are unable to win when voter turnout-out is high. Reminder that the only time a Republican president won the popular vote in the last 30+ years was in 2004 - and required both 9/11 and the incumbency advantage to get it done.

Conservatives don’t want educated voters, they just want to incense their (gullible) base and disenfranchise everyone else from voting.

Its different in that they actually have to take effort to vote so that would tend toward more educated voters and ones that actually care and are not just swayed for a moment while laying in bed.

How is that any different to now, beyond just more people being disenfranchised from voting due to not being able to stand in line for hours?

I like your idea better. It makes waaay more sense and more people would probably vote that way honestly

As someone who works in IT, an online option is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. Instead, every registered voter should get a mail in ballot automatically sent, and if you prefer to vote in person you can do that instead.

Disabled people exist so it wouldn't just be "catering to lazy people." And like you pointed out, not all states have mail in ballots. An online option would be good for people who literally can't stand in line for hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

How would that not just make them vote due to whatever bullshit commercial they saw the day before?

I disagree that we need to cater to the laziest people in the country to get their vote. Voting is already very easy, especially in states with a mail-in ballot. If you can't even be bothered to open a letter, fill in a couple of bubbles, sign your name, and drop an envelope in your mailbox, then idk that we actually want your opinion on who should run the country.

By "you" I just mean anyone, not actually *you*.

Because the electoral college is what needs to have a majority, not the general election.

Because the electoral college is broken.

Why would more than 50% need to vote for the same person when the last few elections have been won with around 37.5% of the vote?

I mean….. no. Not really. 50% (more than) of the country would need to vote en masse for the same person.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that if we *could* get that level of unity we’d be able to fix everything. But not being that unified is why we can’t in the first place.

That isn't why it existed in the first place but it is part of why it still exists today. Afaik nobody has made a serious effort to get rid of it but it's time. The electoral college needs to go

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.

yes

1. Thanks!

2. I see Trump as a flim-flam man playing on people’s fears and frustration with the system. However ignorant his rubes are, he’s still selling snake oil and that’s the real crime. I mean, he’s done it many times in many different venues and markets, can you blame poor simple Iowans for falling for something he’s clearly a pro at?

And just fyi I would have asked the opposite question if you blamed Iowans bc I have no fucking idea how this version of the fall of Rome works

1. baller-ass username

2. Is Trump to blame or are his voters?

That’s what I moved here looking for. I blame Trump, honestly.

Back in my day it was an up-and-combing purple state… and remember how quickly they permitted all-gender marriage?

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’.

Special type of stupid to see a variety of issues boiling down to “muh liburaltianisms” …truth be told most people aren’t that dumb.

Nah, that's a violation of the First.

It's true but for the broader picture one should add that many people don't bother to vote if their state is predicted to be a landslide victory for either candidate.

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%

Absolutely

I like the way you think

My counter to that is the interim gets executed if they go over a time limit, and new one is appointed.

kamala is worth voting for tbqh

The problem with a Presidential system is that there *are* plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren't any "electable" ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one "electable" option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.

One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don't need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.

But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.

Not really, did not vote is exactly the same as voted for the winner. In a FPTP not voting is saying whoever wins, that's what I wanted.

Well that's what it counts as now.

I’ll take one good option. That’s all I ask, someone to vote for, not as a vote against the other person.

That would be amazing... If it were true

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.

In New Zealand we have a "voting day" which is a Saturday, but you can vote before the day, there is no restriction. You can vote for a week before the election.

The last two elections, I cast an early vote because it fit better with my schedule.

So fun fact: In the UK, elections and votes are *always* on a Thursday because it was the furthest day from Saturday (when people went to the pub) and Sunday (when people went to church, this rule was instituted when people were more religious).

Now my local polling place was my local school (which changed with Covid because they didn't want to interrupt education even more) so when I was a kid when there was an election we always got election day off. :)

Yeah but you see, the suburbs vote for the people in power.

Yep! It's real bad, I had to wait in a line around a building on a Tuesday morning the first election I voted in. One of the big things too is that there are *fewer* polling centers in the city, and usually more in the suburbs (proportional to the amount of people there).

So while you have a quarter of the eligible voting population in a city go to a single voting center, in the suburbs you have a much smaller group with a less crowded (& usually more convenient) polling area.

in Colorado you don't even have to apply for a postal vote, it is the default voting mechanism (though in person ballot boxes are also available)

Thats insane, here in Germany voting is always on sunday and (at least in my state, we may have some small time variations in others) I can go vote from 8-18:00, or I could do a postal vote, although I never bothered to do that because its just easier to vote in person, the lines were never really long or even existant at all.

Right now I just have to walk 200m to the next primary school and vote there, its very easy and relaxed.

It’s also very manipulative. TABOR is the worst thing about Colorado honestly.

One odd holdover from TABOR (giant tax structure from the 90s that is still around in one way or another) is that any issue affecting taxes MUST BE PRINTED IN ALL CAPS FOR THE ENTIRE TEXT. It's so funny to see

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.

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

>And yes, I am prone to depression.

Felt.

Yes. Unfortunately I live in a nepo congressional district where the mob boss's — I'm sorry, party power broker's — little brother has a seat for life and runs unopposed every primary. And said "power broker" is VERY deeply embedded in the state dem machine (and much of the business dealings in and out of the public view), to the point where court action was needed to stop the ballot placement fuckery.

It's also next to impossible to dig up information on county commissioners, township committee, and school board candidates. "John Doe was born in neighboring Othertown but has lived and worked in Hometown for decades. He has three children in the local school system with his wife Jane. 'I care very deeply about policy and I think things should be good, not bad.' John likes to go for long walks in the local park when he's not hang gliding at his mountain vacation house."

Unfortunately techniques like this work, as (at least) one of the Moms Against Liberty types got voted onto the school board last term. The term before that, they were all mask-off for the standard conservative Covid crap and lost... but not by much. They scrubbed their online presence to be as generic as possible... and the only POC on the board lost her seat.

And yes, I am prone to depression.

All good, you covered for me while I was trying to be witty \>\_\>

Thank you for elaborating, and apologies for assuming I fully understood.

I totally get the existential dread, anxiety, and depression. Never easy to cope with.

hey, maybe it doesn't feel like it matters, but the margin of popular vote victory does mean something for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the ruling party (especially in the face of coup attempts)

Yup, that was the point. They used to do that but now realize they might actually be needed.

I did vote in 2000. "Wait... so the son of the VP during Regan's Reign of Dementia is really a for real candidate?" Didn't matter, state went blue, Florida did not because some guy named Chad Brooks hung his brother in front of SCOTUS.

I did vote in 2004. "Well this guy is completely forgettable but at least junior is going to follow in daddy's footsteps and be a one pump chump." Didn't matter, state went blue, I begin to question reality.

I did vote in 2008. "I have no idea who this guy is but he talks a good game and he pisses off the bigots." Didn't matter, state went blue, record numbers came out to vote, and my mom suddenly cared about politics because she's a racist piece of shit.

I did vote in 2012. "Let's keep this rolling please and thank you." Didn't matter, state went blue, Bain Capital went on to kill both KayBee Toys and Toys R Us as revenge.

I did not vote in 2016. "These choices are bullshit, what the hell." Didn't matter, state went blue, large areas of empty space went red, and the oval office went orange despite almost three million more people voting for Buttery Males over Fraud Inc.

I did vote in 2020. "This election smells of mothballs and Icy Hot but at least I don't have to stand in line." Didn't matter, state went blue, record numbers came out to vote, fascists went mask-off.

I will vote in 2024 (and already voted in the primary, which... didn't matter). "I truly believe we are living in some sort of simulation, how can this possibly be real life?"

Pass the coconuts.

Ah, that still seems like a risky move.

No, they were saying they didn't bother since their party was winning anyway. Easy to misread though.

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?

Freakonomics did this one but I forget the numbers apart from what is technically the 3rd largest party, or the largest third party, exists at a minute fraction of the other 2. While 3rd largest is technically correct, they can’t compete.

I don't think Harambe got that many votes but I'm too lazy to look that up

aren't the libertarians on the right wing of politics and the largest 3rd party?

A national RCV race would be an absolute nightmare to count if it ever became remotely competitive. Approval Voting is better in general, but especially for big, competitive elections.

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

I'm well aware, but I have to go to work. I'm just not sure how it is possible while meeting the obligations of my survival.

Looks like I misunderstood what I had read previously. Thank you.

You can vote early in Indiana.

https://www.in.gov/idr/hoosiers-vote/vote-early/

Indiana, actually.

All of that means that it is much more important that you do vote; they are actively trying to stop you for a reason.

So mississippi?

I'm not sure what is worse: Soviet elections without choice or American elections without choosing.

Who debated that. Historically, culturally Russia is European. Most of the population of Russia lives on the western side of the Urals.

But using it as a good example of elections, well... In the US you can choose from 2 candidates. In russia you can select from 1...

Another confirmation that Russia is European country.

Also, US, please fix yet another thing you are worse at than Russia.

Yeah, I'd love voting on a Saturday tbh. There's still a lot of people working service schedules who wouldn't be able to, but that could also be fixed by universal vote by mail, or make it two separate days even.... really the answer is just to make it a damn mandatory holiday and call it.

we’ll have turnout of 70%+

That's not good enough. Are you afraid of people having their opinions be heard? Without 100% participation you do not have democracy. Voting should be done on the weekend or on a public holiday or held over the course of a week or two. If people don't want to vote they are most welcome to move to Russia. American democracy is hanging on by a thread anyway. If Harris wins January 6th might happen again and the MAGAs will know what they're doing this time. If Trump wins he'll abuse his power and set back international relations (I would like him to tear up the AUKUS "deal" because it sucks for Australia). And with the assassination attempt against Trump we might have the crazies from the other side take matters into their own hands.

Both sides think America is over if the other guy wins. I'm lucky I don't have to deal with this shit in my country (though we are certainly on that path)

The problem I have with mandatory voting is, besides the fact that it would require a national holiday and changes to timing that would already drive up voter participation... given *current* political behavior in the US it's going to drive a lot of apathy voting to just avoid the consequences that could be more harmful than not.

I absolutely think every citizen should be voting, but it's also not really right to just *force* them to do it- Give them the resources (time off) and the reason to actually do it, and we'll have turnout of 70%+.

It wouldn't really help I think, I think what needs to be done is a change in the verbage and communication, nov 5th should be communicated as the deadline, and early voting should be renamed to just be the voting period.

In my state early voting starts on Oct 17th, meaning you have more than two week for in person voting.

Absentee ballots (mail in) can be cast as soon as you get it, which is typically almost 2 months in advance.

Besides, the people who would get 'national vote day' off as a holiday are the people who probably already have the means to get to a ballot box.

Having a national work holiday would do wonders for voter turnout. Most people in states who are required to vote in person can't get the time off to visit a poll booth while they're open.

Seconding your vouching. It really is painless.

I live in Oregon and can vouch for this system. Voting is super easy. You get mailed your ballot, you can fill it out and mail it back at your leisure, or turn it into your local county drop box if it's too close to election day. The system is secure, all ballots are verified locally and create their own paper trail. No voter fraud, and anyone who claims there is is just a piece of shit.

That’s why Colorado is on the 2016 chart with such good turnout. It’s incredibly easy to vote here. You’re automatically registered. You automatically receive a blue book weeks ahead. You automatically get a mail in ballot. And there’s thousands of drop-off locations. Mine is literally two streets over. Takes like 4 minutes to walk there, I don’t even bother to mail it in because it’s almost just as much work to do that as drop it off.

Can Biden just say fuck it and declare a national holiday? Would that help at all? What about making voting mandatory like we have in Australia? You get a small fine if you don't vote which is usually enough incentive.

Another shout out to all the states that have at-home voting through the mail. You get a pamphlet with their stances and websites and you have a long time to get it in. It's an amazing thing.

This is an example for the primaries in August: https://voter.votewa.gov/genericvoterguide.aspx?e=888&c=99#/

In most of the countries of the World elections are on Sunday and Saturday for this exact reason, US could change to weekend voting days as well:


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/46ukem/so_camerons_eu_referendum_is_on_a_thursday_which/

People had time to vote, they had time to research things and take part in political discourse

Which is precisely why it should be mandatory, otherwise politicians can just go about making life difficult for people to suppress votes. There is no place for political disengagement in a democracy

Everyone was also at home/working from home/on flex schedules due to covid in 2020. People had *time* to vote, they had *time* to research things and take part in political discourse. Everyone always forgets that little historical tidbit.

2024 may hit record *low* voter turnout as the nazi's ratchet up anti voter laws, removing polling places, and companies keep putting the economic screws on their workers with stagnant pay and forced return-to-office so citizens don't have time to think about the political process.

2020 was the highest US voter turnout in over 100 years (percentage wise), and it was *still* atrocious. Also worth noting, trump got the second most votes of any presidential nominee in US history, thankfully beat by Biden, but it's not like all of the new voters were purely against trump.

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…

millions of libertarian party voters not turning up /j

It's a dangerous line of reason you're skirting around there buddy.

The young and poor?

We can. And pre-poll votes. We don't need to mail forms to everyone as most people can and will make it to a polling place on the day.

We can also vote out of state or from outside the country at an embassy or High Commission

I think we can request to vote by post although I'm not really sure. We can vote early in person though, and many people do

I very much prefer California then, which mails every registered voter a return-postage-paid ballot and provides locked ballot boxes if you prefer, as well as having in-person voting places. I mail mine in, at least a week early, and if I didn't get the text notifications I could walk in and do provisional. My spouse is basically bedbound but can vote from home.

And you can buy a sausage on a slice of bread

Yep. Us Aussies can only waste our vote deliberately. If we want to vote we can number every box. And because we have a single transferable vote we have a lot of boxes, the last senate vote form had more than 40, and you could vote any of them first

And if the rest of your electorate didn't rate your number 1, you might agree on number 2

News reports call out the losers — this party is last, its votes get distributed per the voters' forms and you watch for which bars on the graph grow as the shooters and hunters party (I didn't get to vote in the election where the sun ripened warm tomato party failed to get elected) is excluded. A forty horse race is better than a two horse race

It's also nice to choose your actual preference, even if it isn't popular

Also preferential voting means you can actually vote for the candidates you want (you can't 'waste' your vote by voting for someone other than the big two parties like in US), and (afaik) when your do this, and a candidate wins based on your lower preferences, that candidate gets data on what your first preferences were (so e.g. they know that a certain percentage of my voters had a higher preference for this other party, which means next time around I should possibly consider adopting some policy from this other party).

(I might have gotten some details wrong, someone feel free to correct me)

Eh, not fucking things up in the way that seems to happen in the states. Our conservative government is much more corporate oriented and less strong on climate policy, but they aren't insane. They don't tend to strip rights from women, and almost the entire party supported gay marriage legalisation with many openly stating they personally disagreed with it but understood that their constituents needs should come before their own opinions.

Edit: I guess to expand upon my point, mandatory voting means candidates need to run on a platform which considers the needs of the whole population. Optional voting means that if 50% of the population doesn't turn up, and 30% of the remaining population feels very strongly about an extreme view, it becomes easier for that extreme view to win an election.

And yet they still regularly have a right wing government fucking things up for them. Perhaps turnout is not the primary issue after all.

Looks like they mostly pay fines. So let's figure out approximately how much money it will make and sell it to the Republicans as a money making venture!

Teacher: If you don't go to school, you'll be punished!

Student: Oh yea, what's the punishment?

T: Suspension from school

S: Great, glad we're on the same page, see ya never

You receive a penalty notice in the mail and have to pay a fine. Similar to a traffic infringement or parking fine.

All elections are held on a weekend and voting booths are everywhere, to make it a little easier for everyone to vote.

You can choose to not mark the ballot, no one would know. As long as you turn up to a booth and get your name marked off, then you are considered to have voted.

As a result, voter turnout is generally over 90%.

You are allowed to cast an empty ballot, or write in a candidate who isn't running. You just have to participate. When you go, you get marked off an electoral roll. Those people who don't show up get a fine in the mail of something like a couple of hundred dollars. Not bad in isolation but this applies to state, federal and local elections so about 3 times in a 3-5 year period, for something which takes all of 15 minutes out of your day.

Not sure how it is there, but in a few areas you basically lose your right to vote of you don't. Which is fair motivation.

Or there is option of making ballot invalid

If they can find a way to block student loan forgiveness they'll find a way to stop this. Just need to get it in front of the SC and it'll be squashed.

>> We could probably spin it around and give a tiny tax break for those who vote.

>

Now you’re talking!

Make tax refunds and all tax write-offs contingent on proving you voted. >:D

We could probably spin it around and give a tiny tax break for those who vote.

Now you're talking!

It'll still definitely get attacked though.

Yeah. It'll be presented as unnacceptable to us temporarily-embarassed-billionaires.

We could probably spin it around and give a tiny tax break for those who vote. It'll still definitely get attacked though.

You still have the freedom to not vote. However you have to go to a polling station and get your name marked off but no-one can force you to write on the piece of paper.

and our generally-undereducated masses eat it up.

Get some commies, they quickly will do likbez and universal education.

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?

*democracy may not be available in all areas, ask your local TV conglomerate whether democracy is right for you*

I have a former roommate that her reason for not voting is that she doesn't think it effects her. She thinks she can live an apolitical life because she just doesn't want to deal with it. Meanwhile she can't afford anything because our state makes it really hard to get food stamps

voting third party will just split the vote for the side you want though (and thats a big problem when the opponent is literal evil or whatever, and the margins are so tight), we need to switch to a better voting system like ranked choice voting to allow more than 2 options.

Wait, what was that quiet bit in the middle? /s

Nah. There's always going to be those, "They'll never win", "they're not a practical choice", "Voting third party is a waste" types.

Democrats and Republicans can only agree on one thing. They don't want more competition. I think that's why voter apathy is so bad

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."

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.

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.

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

If all of the people who didn't vote because "It would never make a difference" actually voted, we could have had a constitutional amendment by now removing the electoral college.

For anyone like myself that was interested in 2020:


Found it here (Although the data source is shown on the chart)

...okay, you've convinced me. As someone from a beige state that's been presidentially blue for over 30 years (meaning my vote means dick-all due to EC shenanigans), I will continue to show up and vote to make sure it stays that way.

Maybe one day I'll even get an inspiring candidate to vote for.

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.

Before every election all registered voters automatically get a mail-in ballot, as well as a detailed book explaining every issue & candidate on the ballot with sample arguments for & against. You can then either mail the ballot or drop it off in very convenient drop boxes that are usually less than 10 min from your place. In some ways it's difficult to not have at least some idea of the political landscape for most voters.

it really says all it needs to that dems are trying to get MORE people to vote, and GOP are trying to PREVENT as many people as possible from voting

I never knew Hillary won the popular vote by so much. Remind me, why the fuck does the electoral college exist???

Leaving the office empty for a term is the only democratic outcome.

Australia has mandatory voting. Why not the US?

Ideally an electoral system should have the "none of the above" option. If it gets the majority the elections are repeated with new candidates, and previous ones are disqualified for a number of years.

What if "didn't vote" counted as "voted against both options, please try again with less shitty candidates."?

I think we'd have a better world

I'd love to see something like ballot included in tax returns (for folks who don't otherwise request a ballot). Near-mandatory voting, with abstaining being allowed.

I'm not an American so I'm not sure I understand. Wikipedia says voter turnout in 2016 was 59.2% of the voting-eligible population. Even if we count is a percentage of the voting-age population (i.e. including people with felonies or without citizenship or barred from voting for other reasons) it's still 54.8% voter turnout.

But that bar at the top of the graph makes it look like only around 15% voted.

Can someone explain?

We should count non-voting eligible voters like this, and if not voting wins in your state you don't get any delegates for the electoral college.

Then just scrap the "first past the post" system and whoever gets the most delegates wins. In 2016 it would be Clinton with 51 vs. Trump's 16.

An interesting idea, unless the majority of people in your state voted you get no electors to send. Force states to drive participation

I live in deep red Utah. A lot of people I know do not vote because they do not see the point. These people, who stem from all political spectrums, believe “republicans will always have control over state and local political offices.”

Clearly the office of President should be left vacant.

Wow this diddnot voté guy seems wildly popular 🫨

None of my coworkers that want Trump to win are registered to vote. I don't know if that means anything.

No one for president.

This is why voting needs to be really easy. If a phone app/website is good enough for banking, it is good enough for voting.

Are the states that have a majority swing states, so have more advertising and campaigning, or are they just more politically active?

Which is why we need to spend our energy this election on motivating voters who are already on side but think voting is pointless, rather than bothering to convince fence sitters who aren't already convinced by a Trump's behavior.

Get your friends in swing states to vote! Get them to get their friends to vote! Harris has this, especially if we can motivate even like 5-10% of non-voters!

If it didn't help other global powers, i.e. Russia, I'd say this is a reason to have New England be it's own country.

Good ol’ Iowa, one of the few shamelessly voting Trump. 😓

Let’s not forget the third party and Harambe stuff. Some of that flipped swing states Red.

Maybe they _should_ be.

… at least we voted! (Wisconsin)

Should be illegal or some other incentive to vote.

so theres lots of room for the libertarian party

we really do need a default option for "fuck off im not voting"

This will likely be the first year I won't be voting. I moved to a state with no early voting, and it's all in person. Additionally, I'm in a blue city with a red state government, so voting locations are minimal, and my job only allows 2 hours to vote. I don't really see it happening.

And this proves that a popular 3rd party candidate can win. Too many people, rightfully so, refuse to vote for the Democrats and Republicans.

This is the epitome of lying with statistics.