Hacker News Reader

Comment by irishcoffee | Hacker News Reader

If you go look at the data and consider that ~34% of people didn’t vote, somewhere around ~35% of people voted for trump, and a little less than that voted for harris.

This whole notion where “half the country voted for this guy!” Is a tired and inaccurate trope.

View on HN

The idea that the people who don't go to the polls and cast ballots don't vote is not true. They have chosed to have what the others choose. That is a choice and they made it, just like those that cast a preference via ballot.

Put another way, half the country decided that they would be better off being governed by a dimwit who could be outwitted by a dog, whether they voted for him or not.

that's much worse. Let's go back to the "tired and inaccurate" trope.

> Put another way, half the country decided that they would be better off being governed by a dimwit who could be outwitted by a dog, whether they voted for him or not.

Exactly which president in the past 100 years are you referring to? I can come up a list if you’re not sure who was elected before Clinton.

If you don't vote, you forfeit your vote. So yes, over half of the country voted for him, only those who are active enough citizens to get off of the couch count. 34% Trump, 35% FORFEIT, 31% Harris, we don't care about the forfeits. Democracy is about the active citizens.

> Democracy is about the active citizens.

You really believe that? If you don’t vote you’re not an active citizen?

I have no words.

Yes. The active passive citizen distinction is an important aspect of representative democracy. This was foundational per the federalist papers and the enlightenment at large. Kant enunerates the active vs passive distinction in “Doctrine of Right” and “Theory and Practice”. The US has many issues largely stemming from moving away from active citizen distinctions. If I were to have it my way we would raise the requirement and burden of both voting and office to eliminate the passive citizens from having as much say, and the leaches in office.

A citizen that don't vote for the most important election is clearly not very active.

My cousin was in a coma for 3 months over the election. They didn’t vote. Should we just deport them now?

Was a stupid fucking take.

Is there a particular meaning to 'active/inactive' that I don't know that justifies your out-of-proportion outrage? What is the problem with observing that 35% of Americans just don't care enough about this subject to go vote ?

Math.

“Half the country voted for X” isn’t accurate math. People just excuse away hard, hard logical facts and it makes me pretty fucking mad.

What a stupid fucking strawman. Was ~35% of the US population in a coma when the elections happened?

We are talking here about people who chose not to vote.

Strictly, yes your cousin is a passive citizen. But no sane human will call them out on that because obviously they had bo other choice.

I consider it not forfeiture of your vote but delegation of your vote to the voting electorate, and implicit endorsement of their choice.

Which makes it a lot more than half the country.

Have you voted in every primary and general election since you were eligible?

I have, for example, and I'm old. I don't judge people for not following my lead. I suppose you do.

Voting is compulsory in my country, so yes I have.

I only judge abstainers inasmuch as I judge anyone who directly votes for an outcome I don’t like. No more, no less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com