Please stop using that logic. The people that voted is a representative sample of the population, done. Is you’d forced every one of voting she to vote then it probably would have been similar result. Because people that didn’t want to go both will have their vote split randomly to candidates.
Honestly given these two choices, not voting means you’re ok with either.
It ignores it because that’s a different point that’s being made a.k.a moving the goal post. The people saying “oNlY 20ish % of thE poPuLaTiOn” would still claim this shit even if there were no gerrymandering at all.
Not that I’m not denying the publicly admitted election fraud, but in most western democracies AFAIK non voters are the majority. That doesn’t mean none of them have legitimate leaders
There’s no moved goalpost here, my comment directly addresses the parent.
Claim: the voting populace is a direct representation of the total populace.
Rebuttal: the outcome of voting is manipulated by policy, such as jerrymandering and vote manipulation. Both of these manipulate the outcome of a vote by means outside of simple talleys. Therefore, one can not assume that any outcome is representative of popularity.
Sure, but even accounting for all that, what do you think would be the votes? 55% and 45% instead of 49 & 51?
Even if it was 60/40, the fact that 40% of people are actively supporting all this means it’s too much.
Yes those problems are real, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the big big problem of a significant part of population that wanted/wants this even now.
the fact that 40% of people are actively supporting all this means it’s too much.
Yet they would have most crawled back into their caves if Trump lost. It is too much they only get empowered by “their guy” in office, and not by what he does.
Please stop using that logic. The people that voted is a representative sample of the population, done. Is you’d forced every one of voting she to vote then it probably would have been similar result. Because people that didn’t want to go both will have their vote split randomly to candidates.
Honestly given these two choices, not voting means you’re ok with either.
This completely ignores both jerrymandering and voter suppression, both things real and impactful in US voting outcomes.
It ignores it because that’s a different point that’s being made a.k.a moving the goal post. The people saying “oNlY 20ish % of thE poPuLaTiOn” would still claim this shit even if there were no gerrymandering at all.
Not that I’m not denying the publicly admitted election fraud, but in most western democracies AFAIK non voters are the majority. That doesn’t mean none of them have legitimate leaders
There’s no moved goalpost here, my comment directly addresses the parent.
Claim: the voting populace is a direct representation of the total populace.
Rebuttal: the outcome of voting is manipulated by policy, such as jerrymandering and vote manipulation. Both of these manipulate the outcome of a vote by means outside of simple talleys. Therefore, one can not assume that any outcome is representative of popularity.
Sure, but even accounting for all that, what do you think would be the votes? 55% and 45% instead of 49 & 51?
Even if it was 60/40, the fact that 40% of people are actively supporting all this means it’s too much.
Yes those problems are real, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the big big problem of a significant part of population that wanted/wants this even now.
Americans mad at your comment, lol
Yet they would have most crawled back into their caves if Trump lost. It is too much they only get empowered by “their guy” in office, and not by what he does.