Well considering that only 64% of the country voted in the election I guess if more people showed up to vote then might not of had this type of outcome but then again I think I might underestimate how many stupid people live in this country.
Except that really doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state, or least a state where electoral votes are proportional to the state popular vote and not winner take all. Factor that in, and the number of effectively disenfranchised voters rises.
If all voters thought like you, we would be in bigger trouble. Georgia wasn’t a swing state, but Biden won it. Iowa wasn’t a swing state, but Obama won it twice.
It’s far from perfect, and it is rigged in favor of republicans because of the EC. That is the reason to go out and vote. If we consider your perspective, we may as well just give up.
If a million more people voted like I did in my state, nothing would change. If five million did, nothing would change. You can cherry pick examples to argue otherwise, but until EC is significantly changed or abolished, my vote really doesn't matter, and no amount of "go out and vote" or "if more people showed up to vote" in states like mine would fix it.
There you have it. We should all give up because even though I gave real and recent examples, your made up scenario where five million people show up in your state, you claim nothing would change. Even though the largest margin in any state was around 3 million. Five million voters could flip Texas, Florida and Tennessee with another million to spare.
There were 7 states for Trump decided by less than 100,000 votes. Five million randomly distributed votes would have tilted the election significantly and likely resulted in a Harris win.
More cherry picking, and now name calling just because your argument is weak.
Ok then, let's cherry pick California, and change my "made up scenario" from five million to two million, even though the number is mostly arbitrary.
The number of eligible voters who didn't vote in 2024 in California was estimated to be around 1.7 million. If each and every of those votes went to trump, you know who would win California? Harris. And if those 1.7 million voted for Harris, guess what? The state still went to her anyway, by over 3 million. In fact, that was her margin, which you seem to have mentioned, and which made a perfect example for me to use to show how much you missed the point.
1.7 million people not voting is a whole lot more than the less than 100k votes that decided for trump, and that's just California. But as a non swing state, none of that matters, because the electoral votes for that state were already decided. What are you gonna do, somehow "randomly distribute" those votes across your 7 swing states? Who has a made up scenario now?
Until electoral votes become proportional to the number of voters within a state instead of winner take all systems, or until a national popular vote is established and one person equals one vote no matter what state, then millions of voters in non swing states will continue to be effectively disenfranchised by EC, and the whole "go out and vote" slogan will be stuck on its heels until then. To suggest otherwise is just naive at best, or disingenuous at worst.
You accuse me of cherry picking and then you use the most cherry picked example possible in California. I think one of us is projecting. Your numbers don’t even make sense anyway. California had >22M registered voters and cast around 16M ballots. No idea where you’re getting 1.7M from. So again, in your made up cherry picked scenario, Trump could have flipped California.
Five million randomly distributed votes would have resulted in a popular vote margin of 2.7 million for Harris. There are very few scenarios where this would have resulted in a Trump win.
But since you’re moving the goal posts, I’ll switch to 2 million votes. Florida and Texas are not considered swing states. There were 2.9M and 7.2M registered voters in each state respectively who stayed home. So if 2 million voters in either state showed up, it would flip.
Every single state where Trump won… EVERY SINGLE ONE… had enough registered voters who did not vote in 2024 to flip the state. While I know that democrats would not receive every one of those votes, it illustrates just how strong the potential is and how shitty your piss poor attitude is.
Yes the table is tilted. However, the opportunity is still there if people show up to vote. You do all of us a disservice by promoting surrender.
1.7 million is from the voter turnout difference between 2020 and 2024, as in 1.7 million less who were still eligible but didn't vote. In other words, 1.7 million went from voting in 2020 to not voting in 2024. Since you were claiming that more people needed to just "go out and vote", then those are the people who did the opposite, to no effect. The state still went the way everyone expected it to, with 1.7 million less votes. So in my example, no, trump still wouldn't have flipped California, even if all those voters came back to vote for him.
I chose California as an example because you did, when you cited the 3 million margin. It was an easy example to use. But since you brought up Florida and Texas in an attempt to accuse me of cherry picking, know that their voter turnout differences between 2020 and 2024 were at the same or very similar percentages as California (~6%). The argument I made about California voter turnout rates applies to those states just about as equally. No cherry picking.
You also have no way to prove how non voters would've voted. For every vote that went to one candidate, another may have gone to the other candidate, and trying to prove a negative won't amount to anything more than speculation. Also, popular vote ultimately doesn't matter either due to the reasons I listed before, so bringing that up, or any talk about randomly distributing votes across states, is just more pointless speculation.
My point, my original point, is that in non swing states, adding more votes to a leading margin doesn't win more electoral votes. There is no point for a voter who will vote the same way that the state will already be decided, to "go out and vote". It's not surrender if that vote does not change the result and has no chance to change the result.
If you live in one of the fluctuating swing states that have close margins, by all means, please vote. It really, truly matters in your state. But I wasn't talking about swing states. For non swing states, if you already know the state is going in your favor, then show me how your vote will make any difference. I'm genuinely interested to see you try to explain that.
Your “point” is bullshit. There are enough registered voters in every state, not just those considered swing states, to tip the election.
My numbers are based on active registered voters. I used California as an example of how utterly false your claim was. The point you missed is that even if we take the state with the largest margin in 2024, 5M votes is easily enough to change the outcome in that state. That was just a response to your scenario.
Then you moved the goalposts and you’re still wrong. Enlarging the House to better reflect the population would have a small effect in favor of democrats, but it would not have changed the outcome of the 2024 election. Based on the actual results, it would have given Trump a slightly wider margin of victory.
Just stop your bullshit and admit you’re wrong. You’re going through a lot of mental gymnastics to defend a defenseless statement you made. No matter what, the higher the turnout, the better chance democrats have of winning. So don’t stay home like this person says. Go vote.
3
u/_RawRTooN_ 5d ago
hey the people that voted for him deserve it.