| ▲ | rchaud 8 months ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | Perenti 8 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | rchaud 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | tmtvl 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | drowsspa 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nntwozz 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. The general election in 2022 had 84,2% of eligible voters in Sweden. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pesus 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference. |
| |
| ▲ | rafram 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | khazhoux 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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.” |
|
|
| ▲ | mpesce 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes. |
| |
| ▲ | chaboud 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s almost like elections are held on Saturdays and participation is compulsory. Almost… | |
| ▲ | Perenti 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And those that don't vote have to show a very good reason, or pay a fine, or face gaol. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | CalRobert 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Must be the sausages |
|
|
| ▲ | mulmen 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | << 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. | | |
| ▲ | mulmen 8 months ago | parent [-] | | Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc. | | |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | fugalfervor 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | whatthesmack 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | fugalfervor 8 months ago | parent [-] | | > 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 |
| |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | << 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? | | |
| ▲ | fugalfervor 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | fugalfervor 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fugalfervor 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 8 months ago | parent [-] | | >> 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? | | |
| |
| ▲ | 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | mulmen 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, recognizing the full consequences requires second order thinking which by definition is a challenge for the simple minded. | |
| ▲ | thunderfork 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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... | | |
| ▲ | mulmen 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | This is very interesting but how would turnout and choice change if historically disenfranchised and suppressed communities had equal access to the polls? | | | |
| ▲ | selfselfgo 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | sgc 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jzb 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | "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. | | |
| ▲ | sgc 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | jzb 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | cyberax 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | sgc 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | cyberax 8 months ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ellen364 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | sgc 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ellen364 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | sgc 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mulmen 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | CalRobert 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Under fifty percent for what it’s worth. And there was a lot of disenfranchisement |
|
| ▲ | bagels 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not majority, under 50% |
|
| ▲ | 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Narkov 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Australia has entered the chat. |
| |
| ▲ | crabmusket 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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... | |
| ▲ | extra88 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't bring them up without including that voting is compulsory there. | | |
| ▲ | crabmusket 8 months ago | parent [-] | | See my sibling comment. Getting your name checked off is compulsory but nothing stops you from handing in a blank ballot. | | |
| ▲ | extra88 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | swat535 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you hand blank ballot at. That point? You might as well vote. | | |
| ▲ | aloha2436 8 months ago | parent [-] | | "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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rayiner 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Someone 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
|
| ▲ | akio 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
