Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 6 days agoDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square430fedilinkarrow-up1716
arrow-up1716imageDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneUriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 6 days agomessage-square430fedilink
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·6 days agoIf you’re a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.
minus-squareRamenJunkie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·5 days agoYes, OP’s point is also that generally speaking Republicans are less likely to abstain.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·5 days agoNot in the same way that the inverse is true, no
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·5 days agoMathematically it’s the exact same situation but flipped.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·5 days agoThis isn’t pure math, it’s electoral politics. Because the third parties in question this time (and most times) were spoiler candidates for the Democrats, a Republican abstaining does not necessarily mean +1 for Dems
minus-squarerothaine@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 days agoIt’s not though. The fewer people vote, the more likely it is for Republicans to win
If you’re a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.
Yes, OP’s point is also that generally speaking Republicans are less likely to abstain.
Not in the same way that the inverse is true, no
Mathematically it’s the exact same situation but flipped.
This isn’t pure math, it’s electoral politics.
Because the third parties in question this time (and most times) were spoiler candidates for the Democrats, a Republican abstaining does not necessarily mean +1 for Dems
It’s not though. The fewer people vote, the more likely it is for Republicans to win