Re:Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
by dragonwriter on Monday August 01, 2016 @11:47AM
(#12203320)
> Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no confidence".
No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful thing.
And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is exactly what political campaigns try to get you to do.)
> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?
It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.
> I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in 2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those elections and 15-17%?
No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful thing.
And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is exactly what political campaigns try to get you to do.)
> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?
It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.
> I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.
Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in 2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those elections and 15-17%?