The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.

Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference.

I was going to say that it was a majority this time, but it seems like the results shifted as more votes were counted after election night, and he ended up with 49.8%. Still, unbelievably, pretty close to a majority.

I don’t think it’s important in the slightest. Fact is that they were exactly two competitive candidates, and of all the people that cared to vote, more voted for one than the other. It may not be technical majority, but this is the common understanding in this country of “majority rule.”

> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.

The general election in 2022 had 84,2% of eligible voters in Sweden.

Italy had 64% for the parliamentary elections in 2022, which is the lowest ever but it's pretty far from 30%.

just to note that if “30% voted for this” participation was roughly 60%

63.9% per https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers Which apparently was quite high. Only 3 presidential elections in the past 100 years exceeded 63%: 1960, 2020, and 2024.

Not majority, under 50%

There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.

What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.

It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

In fact there was an extensive analysis of the election by Democrat pollster David Shor, who found that 100% turnout would have resulted in an even larger Trump win, by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...

This has been the pattern for awhile now. The pool of politically unengaged people are especially Trumpy compared to regular voters: https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump/story?id=10909062...

This is very interesting but how would turnout and choice change if historically disenfranchised and suppressed communities had equal access to the polls?

Such as?

I’m sorry I don’t understand the question.

That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.

I don't think it is was that hard to vote. That is a straw man to avoid facing the hard truth of American apathy. Now next election, perhaps we can have a conversation on that point. Things a trending rather poorly right now.

The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.

There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression.

It shouldn't be that hard for you to show some evidence things would be different then. There is nothing indicating a stronger preference to vote has anything at all to do with which direction you lean. More and less does not equal right and left, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it is relevant. Yet polling indicates things would have gone pretty much just as they went.

I don't know if voters and non-voters have the same political leanings. It isn't something I've ever looked into. My observation was merely that measures of statical confidence assume random samples. Extrapolating from a non-random sample can give odd results. But this isn't a research paper, so it doesn't much matter.

You are reading too much into it. If I study runners, I should presume the study will apply to those who don't run should they become runners, unless I have evidence otherwise. All the more since many runners were once non-runners. It's not obviously a confounding factor, that would need to be demonstrated. And as I and others have already said, the actual studies indicate the results would have been the same in this election.

"I don't think it is that hard to vote"

Says a person commenting on HN that almost certainly isn't in a demographic that it has been made intentionally difficult to register, stay registered, and get time off an hourly job to stand in line for hours to vote.

I did not say 'is', I said 'was'. I have not seen studies or even many anecdotal stories indicating people think it was too hard for they themselves to vote. I have seen a lot of people saying that about other people, but as of 2024, attempts to disenfranchise voters had not been very well done. I also don't think having ID is a high bar, which is what a large amount of the noise has been about. Many, many democratic countries have this requirement [1]. Coupled with other things it can become a problem, but when anybody says voter id itself is a problem, I can't take them very seriously.

I however repeat, that was last year. Things could very well take a dramatic turn for the worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws

The problem is that all the additional requirements _always_ result in targeting Democratic voters. Always.

For example, voting by mail is bad. Unless you are a senior (and thus more likely to vote Republican).

And it doesn't take much to change the outcome of many elections. Just a 0.1% shift is often enough to flip the result.

So the fight needs to be to make things universal and fair, not to do away with everything. I agree there are many attempts to throw elections in the US, but I also think unreasonable resistance to measures that make a lot of sense on many levels would have far better results if it was spent making sure things were implemented correctly.

I think a lot of people see all-out resistance as extremist and somewhat irrational, and so you are losing people's good will. I do see it that way, I am sympathetic as to what leads to it and don't let it count against those pushing for 'no new rules' even if I find it immature / poorly thought out - but at the same time I don't think most people think it through and are as understanding as I try to be.

> So the fight needs to be to make things universal and fair, not to do away with everything.

Like, automatic voter registration on license renewal? Nope. Denied if you're in a Republican state.

> I think a lot of people see all-out resistance as extremist and somewhat irrational

That's more restrictions _will_ be used to entrench Republicans even more. That's the simple reason for resistance.

And yes, the media does a poor job explaining this.

Having an ID is a high bar when it can take a day or more at the DMV to get one. Right now in NC you either have to book an appointment - none are available for months - or show up like you’re queuing for concert tickets in the 80s at 6am before the office opens, get a number, come back at one, and hope they get to your number. (Source: daughter just did this procedure last week for a learner’s permit.)

The GOP has also closed polling places in predominantly D areas, fought drop off boxes, etc. It is intentionally hard to vote for minorities and people in D areas.

Yes, it’s going to get worse. But it isn’t good now.

<< It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.

Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc.

I willing to give you moving polling locations, but with that minor concession.

Can you explain to me like I am 5 why those are bad things? For a simple person like myself, one would think, data accuracy, voting system integrity, and verifiability would be of use and value to everyone.

Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population, one that reliably skews in one direction on the political spectrum.

However, there is no evidence that voter ID laws reduce fraud, nor is there evidence that the absence of such laws introduces fraud.

Something like 90% of voter fraud is people making mistakes on their ballot, or not realizing they were not allowed to vote. Also, voter fraud is rare and elections are already very secure.

Introducing laws that don't affect the (already low) level of fraud, while making it harder for one party's voter base to vote, is not of use and value to everyone -- it is of use and value to the side that benefits from a reduction in the other side's votes.

> Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population

Can you prove that? I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote. People need their photo IDs for pretty much everything these days. That's why voter ID is a requirement in most countries. Because it's reasonable, it makes sense, and it benefits society more than any theoretical, unproven harm.

> I've never read about a single case of somebody being unable to obtain a government photo ID who was legitimately eligible to vote

That doesn't mean your opinion is true. I don't know how much or how widely you read, nor do I know how varied your sources are. That you have never read an anecdote describing my assertion does not mean my assertion is false.

You can read more about the effects of voter ID laws (according to research) here:

https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-identification

<< not realizing they were not allowed to vote << Introducing laws that don't affect the (already low) level of fraud << voter fraud is rare

Hmm. Just the perception of fraud among the population is enough to undermine the system. We can argue whether Republicans in this case are simply playing to their base by drumming up doubt in the voting system or rigging the system for their benefit or both, but if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work, you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin'.

<< Voter ID laws disproportionately affect a very specific subset of the population,

Why is that important to you?

> Why is that important to you?

I am telling you that people are being prevented from voting. Why is that _not_ important to you?

It is important to me because it is not fair.

I am going to go out on a limb here and I assume you are, in fact, human ( this is a rhetorical device and not accusation of poster being llm ). As such, you likely should know that life in general is inherently not fair. And if you are going to be bold and trot out society during this argument, we are going to have a lot of fun.

I suggest trying to make life more fair for the citizens of a democracy and you make fun of me. Please proceed with your intimations that I am, what? Gullible? Naiive?

You haven't presented a supported argument.

> if you are going to admit that a) people who are not supposed to vote do vote

They do. And the system already functions: their votes are caught and discarded.

> b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work

I didn't argue that. I argued against voter ID laws, which are not "laws that penalize such voters". Those laws already exist, catch fraud, and penalize those who commit fraud intentionally. Those who do so accidentally have their votes discarded. There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. The available evidence shows that incidences of voter fraud are rare in the USA.

> you sound about as partisan as they do ( and merely arguing for 'your' side ). Just sayin

What? I haven't argued for a side. I have spoken what I understand based on the research I have done. I have cited sources in other posts. I don't like being accused of being partisan when I'm basically just repeating the conclusions of those who have studied this. Knowledge isn't partisan.

>> There's no evidence the existing laws are insufficient. << b) argue that laws to penalize such votes don't work >> I didn't argue that.

Ok, maybe it is just too early. What did you argue?

If you read my argument, you will find out what I argued.

Yes, recognizing the full consequences requires second order thinking which by definition is a challenge for the simple minded.

The majority did not vote for Trump, and I question how many of the minority that did vote for him voted for this, specifically. Almost certainly not all of them, given his approval rating is now well below his popular vote share.

> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.

Australia has entered the chat.

For reference, informal votes were around 5% in our last federal election:

https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/website/HouseInformalByStat...

This article contains a fun breakdown of the types of informal votes including a category for "the usual anatomical drawings" (0.7% of informal votes):

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/04/22/2025-federal-election-p...

You can't bring them up without including that voting is compulsory there.

See my sibling comment. Getting your name checked off is compulsory but nothing stops you from handing in a blank ballot.

Why would you hand blank ballot at. That point? You might as well vote.

"I don't like any of the rat-bastards." "I don't care." "I think it's funnier to draw a dick. (And I don't care.)" "I trust other people to make the right choice." "I refuse to participate in this bourgeois sham election." ...are all reasons I've heard, even if I don't actually understand any of them.

For the purposes of this comparison, those "informal" votes still count in the typically used participation statistics. Voters intentionally case "wasted" ballots in other countries too.

Arguments based on voter participation overlook that voting is a statistical sample of the population. The people who don’t vote broadly break down roughly the same way as the people who do vote. And even to the extent they don’t, it’s risky to make assumptions about how they would have voted.

If you can generalize about non-voters, it’s that they’re broadly more anti-institution than voters—which is what causes them to put less stock in the institutional practice of voting. In the U.S. in the Trump era, that has meant that non-voters or infrequent voters support Trump somewhat more strongly than regular voters.

We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes.

It’s almost like elections are held on Saturdays and participation is compulsory.

Almost…

And those that don't vote have to show a very good reason, or pay a fine, or face gaol.

Correction: those that don't enter a polling station. What you do in there is up to you. You can cast a vote, spoil the ballot, cast a "donkey vote" (numbering the options in the order printed), leave the ballot empty, as long as it goes in the box.

Must be the sausages

Everybody votes in Australia (not sure how rich, but in top 20 for sure). If you don't you have to show cause or pay a AUD$50 fine. I know some think this is anti-freedom, but it does prevent farces like the current USA. Historically there have been problems in the past (30 years ago) but these days the Australian Electoral Commission (Independent from government) revise electoral boundaries to ensure no more gerrymanders.

In Belgium attendance is mandatory as well. I think it's a positive as it means complacency ("my side has already won, no reason to go out and vote") is never a factor in the outcome.

In Brazil as well. I think a good side effect, or perhaps the main intended one, is that governments aren't allowed to supress voters and have to make sure everyone has easy access to the voting booths. Every election there are mandatory pieces on TV about how people are voting even in the most remote of places.

Farces occur in the US because it has a 2-party system where the winner takes all, and there is no limit to political funding. In parliamentary systems common in the rest of the West, there is at least a pretence of inter-party cooperations, e.g. forming coalitions to contain the power of the party with the plurality (but not majority) of votes.

Under fifty percent for what it’s worth. And there was a lot of disenfranchisement

> The majority that did vote, voted for this

Nitpick: Trump got less than 50% of the votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...)

More importantly, I think quite a few who voted for Trump didn’t vote for this extreme version of Trump.

And those that stayed at home deserve what they got.

David Schor’s analysis found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...

What presidential elections are you comparing it to?

"American democracy"

And a minority of those who did vote voted for this.

100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting.

Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected.

This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.

If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. There is no incentive when there are known costs...at least since the wild inflation of the 80s when it got prohibitive to lose a shift and the slow dissolution of union jobs. This is the result of the tyranny of indifference. Those that benefit continue to promote and benefit, those that do not, are disenfranchised. It's a common theme in history.

>If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it.

I agree but it doesn't actually matter. 97% can vote by mail, early, or another method besides election day according to this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/map-early-voting-mail-ballot-st...

>There is no incentive when there are known costs... is the result of the tyranny of indifference.

What is the cause of the Indifference in your opinion ?

Who said people are indifferent?

They can still actively engage in civil life with a variety of actions that look more relevant and meaningful to them.

If people are not given opportunity to actively engage in meaningful way like contributing to the creation of the laws they will have to follow, then sure they sooner than later they won't bother signing the blank check of void promises.

>Who said people are indifferent?

The person I replied to

stop. Voting is incredibly easy. Voting by mail is incredibly easy. Theres no reason you cant vote by mail. The reason people arent voting is because they dont want to/cant be assed

> stop

No.

> Voting by mail is incredibly easy.

This missed the point entirely.

This is about changing behavior and making it "easier" isn't the blocker. People often do not behave the way you expect them to due to simple socialization. Regardless of the specifics, making it more of a celebration (because that's how the vast majority of PTO is perceived) will make it seem like it's more important beyond the lipservice that, frankly, has been ineffective.

>making it more of a celebration

Then wouldn't people not want to spend hours waiting to vote if they could party?

Voting for the sake of voting is a horrible idea. Voting as a celebration seems bad too. Voting is a privilege that has a lot of responsibility entwined and it is ok to bow out if you arent sure. Politics these days is fully maximizing for psychological tricks so I dont think theres any shame in feeling overwhelmed.

The issue with complaining about non existent problems is that it leads to everyone ignoring you. My issue with that is that when you hijack my political movement with this non issue now my movement is being ignored because of your dumb non issue. So basically Im ok with you feeling this way but dont hijack the democratic platform

>Regardless of the specifics, making it more of a celebration (because that's how the vast majority of PTO is perceived) will make it seem like it's more important beyond the lipservice that, frankly, has been ineffective.

Why? Political ads are everywhere in election season and the news constantly talks about elections. If this isn't sufficient to make people think it's important why would making it a celebration?

I'm trying to understand why this would work.

Voters who do not vote say "I'm fine with all winners", like "What pizza do you want?" - "I'm fine with every pizza".

According to this non-official but prestigious NPO source [0]

Trump got 49.8% of votes for president, Harris got 48.3%. Vote total ~156.3 million. A rather slim 'mandate' methinks.

[0] https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers (Council on Foreign Relations)

> "Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this"

I'll point out again an article about a post-election analysis by David Shor posted on HN a few weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43400172): "The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points]. So, I think that a 'we need to turn up the temperature and mobilize everyone' strategy would’ve made things worse."

Even as late as April 9, disapproval of the Democratic Party is higher than for the Republican Party according to Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/04/23/views-of-con...

There isn't a hidden wellspring of pro-Democratic voters to tap. The Dems are going to have to go out and fight to win people over.