• Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        A plurality did not.

        ~77 milion out of 265 million - Trump

        ~75 million out of 265 million - Harris

        ~113 million out of 265 million - Nether

        Getting a plurality of votes cast =/= a plurality of voters

        It’s how fascism has risen in the past as well. Chasing a minority of voters because they can win an election should be an alarm bell.

        Every democratic system should engage a high turnout and require a majority, not just a plurality.

        80% turnout should be a norm.

        Personally I am in favour of mandatory voting, with the caveat that the bottom of the ballot should have a “none of the above” option. Australia gets a ~90% turnout.

        Single Transferable Vote is the best election method as it avoids wasted votes in multi party democracies.

        • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          You’re correct, a majority of people who voted voted for him, not a plurality. Way too many people, in any event!

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Personally I am in favour of mandatory voting, with the caveat that the bottom of the ballot should have a “none of the above” option.

          If the difference was only 20% and the result of an election wasn’t determined by a metaphorical a coin flip, I would agree.

          With the way it is right now, doubling the voting pool using uneducated or apathetic voters turns the entire thing into a game of exploiting psychological biases into creating uninformed votes. That also happens to already be the GOP’s specialty.

          It’s bad now, but that could make it even worse.