"We did vote". Except that an extraordinary number of people that could vote, didn't. So when somebody says "vote, people", they're obviously talking to those people that chose not to vote.
I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast. If there is no clear winner the seat is vacant, but a new election is scheduled for two weeks later. Districts and states that don’t care to vote simply don’t get a say.
> I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast.
This would think out the representation significantly, and applied to presidential voting would be rather dificult. The highest share of eligible voters in US history to support a US President is 42.6% for Ulysees S. Grant (Harrison and McKinley both close behind with +40%). Not one President has ever broken the 50% of eligble voters mark, and even those presidents that won in relative landslides in the EC (Washington, Monroe, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon) all had shares of the eligible votes that were in the 30%’s.
Yes and the idea would be to change both politician and voter behavior. To me these arguments are like saying that because we have always put water into round glasses it would never fit in a square one.
Scored approval voting takes care of ten candidates. And sure let’s say after 3 elections with no winner fines could be imposed too, Australia style. But I would hope that having no representation while having the opportunity to have representation would be motivation enough.
It was more like Obama was so cool and had so much panache he won despite having an extremely incompetent team...and then both he and his team believed he won because of them and proceeded to self-sabotage the DNC from within.
To be clear, I'm not excusing him. I think he was very cool indeed but ultimately a weak president that lacked in leadership before and after his term
Unless 100% of people vote it doesnt count as voting?
People who don't vote don't oppose the winner.
No?
"We did vote". Except that an extraordinary number of people that could vote, didn't. So when somebody says "vote, people", they're obviously talking to those people that chose not to vote.
Any idea is worth entertaining, to avoid the realization the purity spiraling ideology is just as reviled by 90 % of the people as is racism.
I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast. If there is no clear winner the seat is vacant, but a new election is scheduled for two weeks later. Districts and states that don’t care to vote simply don’t get a say.
> I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast.
This would think out the representation significantly, and applied to presidential voting would be rather dificult. The highest share of eligible voters in US history to support a US President is 42.6% for Ulysees S. Grant (Harrison and McKinley both close behind with +40%). Not one President has ever broken the 50% of eligble voters mark, and even those presidents that won in relative landslides in the EC (Washington, Monroe, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon) all had shares of the eligible votes that were in the 30%’s.
Yes and the idea would be to change both politician and voter behavior. To me these arguments are like saying that because we have always put water into round glasses it would never fit in a square one.
1 reply →
What if people keep not voting? Surely you'd also have to compel voting to make this work.
And what if there are, say, ten candidates?
Scored approval voting takes care of ten candidates. And sure let’s say after 3 elections with no winner fines could be imposed too, Australia style. But I would hope that having no representation while having the opportunity to have representation would be motivation enough.
1 reply →
Because people in safe demographics (non minority, no care about reproductive rights) love to broadcast 'both sides are the same'.
[flagged]
It was more like Obama was so cool and had so much panache he won despite having an extremely incompetent team...and then both he and his team believed he won because of them and proceeded to self-sabotage the DNC from within.
To be clear, I'm not excusing him. I think he was very cool indeed but ultimately a weak president that lacked in leadership before and after his term
>NoidFonsense.
This is a dogwhistling incel username.
What do you think makes a person left-wing or left-leaning?
1 reply →
oh yeah? which attitudes do you take issue with?
6 replies →
The New England Patriots lost the 2026 Superbowl, and that list of losers includes all the second and third stringers who didn't play.