• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    that’s only true if all eligible voters voted. not voting is voting. so the actual percentage of voters who were against it is likely lower.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      17 hours ago

      not voting is voting

      I like to be more nuanced with ideas like this, because I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.

      If a person could have voted and didn’t, then I agree; they made an active choice and that counts.

      If a person is eligible to vote but can’t–maybe their voter registration was wrongfully purged, or they genuinely can’t afford to take time off work, or something else valid I dunno–then that’s not an active choice to not vote and I don’t think “not voting is voting” can be applied.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I agree and obviously exclude disenfranchised voters. still 86 million eligible voters didn’t in the election. while I’m sure there’s a significant slice of the population that’s disenfranchised, there’s no way it’s remotely close to 86 million. The unfortunate truth is that people who sat out won the election. It was that bad.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.

        Careful. That’s the kind of thing that’ll get you downvoted to oblivion around here.

        You generally don’t deviate from the party line of “Biden and Harris did nothing wrong and would have won if not for the people they actively chose to ignore not falling in line” in @politics without some serious blowback…