Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 months agoDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square429fedilinkarrow-up1718
arrow-up1718imageDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneUriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square429fedilink
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·2 months agoIf you’re a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.
minus-squareRamenJunkie@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·2 months agoYes, OP’s point is also that generally speaking Republicans are less likely to abstain.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 months agoNot in the same way that the inverse is true, no
minus-squareFishFace@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·2 months agoMathematically it’s the exact same situation but flipped.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 months 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-up2·2 months 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