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