You assert that if the missing 100 million showed up it would make no difference in the outcome, so they were not showing tacit support? I remain unconvinced.
No. I’m saying that many not all were effectively disenfranchised by a system that would effectively give their votes to the opposing side no matter how they voted. For example blue voters in Texas.
You asserted that American’s were collectively complicit because 2/3 voted for him. This isn’t true. 48% voted for him. Voter turnout was furthermore suppressed by a system in which blue voters in red districts/states have no hope of representation. The actual support for Trump is actually only 39% of Americans.
No, I know you are trying to argue in good faith, but I asserted that 2/3 supported, which includes not voting, regardless of defeatism. If the vast majority voted in opposition but still failed, there would be much more impetus for electoral reform, for example.
Failure to actively oppose at the polls is tacit support, even if it’s negligent. Disenfranchised votes are worth struggle.
Failure to actively oppose at the polls is tacit support,
25% of the population were under 18 during the election they cannot be said to tacitly support trump.
22% of people voted directly for Harris they directly opposed trump.
This alone is 47% of the population! This alone disproves your 2/3 narrative!
30% of the pop by not voting did not cast a tacit vote for Trump. Few countries have 100% voter turnout in any free country. A sane mathematical treatment of the situation is to assume that a sufficiently large sample is representative OR to ask people.
If 48% of voters voted for Trump we assume 48% of those who were adults in 2024 are responsible or 36% or we can ask people if they support Trump and we get 39%.
I’m one of the ones who did vote against him but I live in Los Angeles. In LA County, 2.4 million voted for Harris, 1.2 million voted for Trump, and 1.9 million didn’t vote. (45 thousand voted for RFK, Stein or other fringe candidates.)
A million of those non-voters could have all voted one way, EITHER way, without changing the results. So what “tacit support” are you talking about?
The entirety of California’e electoral votes went to Harris. But the electoral college is unbalanced,
so our candidate got 9 fewer electoral votes than she would have if it were fair. And even if all 1.9 million Los Angeles non-voters had voted for her it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Should they have voted anyway? Yes, if only because of the local elections and propositions they could have had a voice in.
And California is one of the easiest, most vote-supportive states, which mails a vote-by-mail ballot and supplemental information packets to every registered voter.
But if someone didn’t, I’m not going to ascribe some kind of blame or “tacit support” label to them instead of hearing their individual situation.
You assert that if the missing 100 million showed up it would make no difference in the outcome, so they were not showing tacit support? I remain unconvinced.
No. I’m saying that many not all were effectively disenfranchised by a system that would effectively give their votes to the opposing side no matter how they voted. For example blue voters in Texas.
You asserted that American’s were collectively complicit because 2/3 voted for him. This isn’t true. 48% voted for him. Voter turnout was furthermore suppressed by a system in which blue voters in red districts/states have no hope of representation. The actual support for Trump is actually only 39% of Americans.
61% of us are along the ride.
No, I know you are trying to argue in good faith, but I asserted that 2/3 supported, which includes not voting, regardless of defeatism. If the vast majority voted in opposition but still failed, there would be much more impetus for electoral reform, for example.
Failure to actively oppose at the polls is tacit support, even if it’s negligent. Disenfranchised votes are worth struggle.
25% of the population were under 18 during the election they cannot be said to tacitly support trump.
22% of people voted directly for Harris they directly opposed trump.
This alone is 47% of the population! This alone disproves your 2/3 narrative!
30% of the pop by not voting did not cast a tacit vote for Trump. Few countries have 100% voter turnout in any free country. A sane mathematical treatment of the situation is to assume that a sufficiently large sample is representative OR to ask people.
If 48% of voters voted for Trump we assume 48% of those who were adults in 2024 are responsible or 36% or we can ask people if they support Trump and we get 39%.
Most in the US aren’t for our modern day nazis
2024 was the second highest voter turn out in history. Second to 2020. Trump lost the polular vote. You just dont understand what youre talking about.
After all votes were counted he won the popular vote by a small margin but bear in mind 100M literally didn’t vote. Apathy is as big an issue as evil.
I’m one of the ones who did vote against him but I live in Los Angeles. In LA County, 2.4 million voted for Harris, 1.2 million voted for Trump, and 1.9 million didn’t vote. (45 thousand voted for RFK, Stein or other fringe candidates.)
A million of those non-voters could have all voted one way, EITHER way, without changing the results. So what “tacit support” are you talking about?
The entirety of California’e electoral votes went to Harris. But the electoral college is unbalanced,
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/
so our candidate got 9 fewer electoral votes than she would have if it were fair. And even if all 1.9 million Los Angeles non-voters had voted for her it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Should they have voted anyway? Yes, if only because of the local elections and propositions they could have had a voice in.
And California is one of the easiest, most vote-supportive states, which mails a vote-by-mail ballot and supplemental information packets to every registered voter.
But if someone didn’t, I’m not going to ascribe some kind of blame or “tacit support” label to them instead of hearing their individual situation.